Well it is his cousin, i assume he/she likes him/her. Bias can slip in in the retelling as well as the telling ;)It could as easily be poster bias.Technically, the OP seems to be recounting a story he heard from someone else. So it's not his bias, if bias is present.It is pretty difficult to relate an experience without any bias. So I'm sure it is present. But I do make an effort to keep it minimal. =)
This recent event was my cousin's experience last weekend. But I'm pretty sure from the description and location that I had tried that group a few years ago when I still lived in the same town. We complained about them and their derogatory attitude for a while on the phone. That got me thinking about it enough that I felt like posting about it here.
I guess I should say in all honesty, that my cousin does tend to exaggerate a bit. So the intro may have been closer to 45 minutes, the smuggler conversation may have only been 2.5 hours, and they may have rolled the dice a few times.
But he was honestly amazed at how long they were able to drag out everything. The level of piciune (sp?) detail they went into. And the way they had to make sure every real or imagined person had to know all about them completely.
Thats cool. I wasn't trying to call your integrity into question or anything.
Like I said befor, I wasn't their, but I can think of ways to make an interesting 2.5 hour scene, in which the primary plot point is a meeting with a smuggler.
Of course to do that you need a lot of other stuff to deal with in the scene. From brewing domestic violence, to love interests, to old friends to bump into, all of which adds a feel of a living world to the scene.
It doesn't sound like the scene was like that though, and I agree that if it is as it sounds, it was badly done. But in principle it could be done.
Combat. Combat should be part of the story, not a pause or break in the story. It should be intimately woven into it.This is why I don't like random encounters to be truly random. Every encounter should support the story, even if it just builds on the atmosphere of the locale.
You shouldn't have a T-Rex just suddenly appear after a screen dissolve and battle fanfare. It should be an 'oh crap, THAT is what ruined those velociraptors we found a mile back!' moment.
One good one I read was a party exploring a dungeon, and noticing that the bodies of their foes were disappearing when they retraced their steps. Then the gelatinous cube found them and the 'aha' moment strengthened their understanding of the place.
That said, if a session is getting boring, or the party is taking waaaaay too long debating their options, I will have ninjas appear from no where and attack them.
Zombie: I agree, I even play some games that don't have a combat system. Fighting isn't necessary to the story, but I think the concept of combat or dice automatically detracting from a story is a false concept. Bad habits that GMs have in regards to combat are what makes them detract from the story.
Kind of that, guns don't kill people...
Combat doesn't ruin a story, bad GMing does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yar.
I see that, but that still doesn't negate the validity of IronTruths point, nor does it lessen the strength of the words you chose to use an both sides of the word "can".
"entirely believe"
"stay the hell out of the way"
... are both very powerful statements. Leaving the statement at just that without expanding upon the "can" portion will lead many people to similar conclusions about your meaning.
I still maintain my point: that IronTruths clarification does not negate his point of "rules, dice and action shouldn't take away from the story/plot/fun of the game". I also maintain my point that your previous statement "can stay the hell out of the way" - and I am taking into account the use of the word "can" - is a much more stern and one sided statement than, and seemingly at odds with, your second one of "They can be useful storytelling tools, but they can also get in the way when the story doesn't need them".
Regardless, my apologies for nit-picking. I shall drop this and move on.
~P
|
Another Terry Pratchett fan, methinks ...You missed the flaming wheel rolling off into the distance. There are rules on this sort of thing you know :)
Venting aside, it is only a matter of time until the wheels come off on this topic. Then it slides over a cliff in a shower of sparks. Then it explodes. Then it explodes again. Then it hits the bottom.
Guilty as charged. I met him once, nice guy. Likes Jelly Babies.
We once had a non-D&D game where I really got into character (Vast Death Master with his sword Drizzlesummoner). It was a game where I never got into a character again. The game described in the OP sounds a lot like a LARP, a version of gaming I really don't like. I know a few players who try to get into character and others who have backstories and plot hooks.
I have played all kinds of games from the 80's onwards, but I have never run across extreme gamers. In all those games, people have had different ways of playing their characters, just not OVER playing them.
I feel sorry for someone who gets kicked out of a game because they gamed like they were in a video game. To be honest, it was probably not the best group in the first place if they had low expectations of the player.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every time I come across one of these threads I'm reminded I'm a power gamer not a roleplayer. All the responses on here just make me think, "If roleplayers had written the avengers there never would have been a hulk scene, any combat, and they would have used diplomacy to talk Loki down."
And then I think, dear god those are the best parts of the movie.
Don't you just love a false dichotomy!
You could equally say that if power-gamers had written LotR nobody would have cared when Boromir died.
And if would be an equally fatuouos statement.
Haven't you even read the thread? Loads of people have drawn the distinction between am-dram enthusiasts and more typical roleplaying.
Most people like to strike a happy balance between violence and other sorts of gameplay.
Oh, and finally, film analogies don't usually make much sense, moving from a passive audio-visual medium to an involved, imaginative medium.
However, if you are going to invoke a film, why invoke a really average one?
While I haven't had a case like the one OP had in any of my games, I did have some frustrating moments in my first run of Kingmaker. The group wasn't taking the plot very seriously, got bored with kingdom building and then just said they're going to build Sauron's tower. It was my first time as a DM, so I didn't know how to get them to drop the silly stuff without being a killjoy. In the end, the campaign ended due to a lack of the other AP books and a loss of interest from both me and the players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, if you are going to invoke a film, why invoke a really average one?
*Twitch*
You put me in the position of having to favorite your post (because I agree with it) despite my loving The Avengers.
So just for the record, if it had just been the line I quoted, I would have Flagged you into oblivion.
Then I would've sheepishly marked, "Just wanted to try out the Flagging system." Since you didn't actually break any rules.
>_>
<_<
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with Kobold. Awesome post and..then you ruined it. From a technical weiw point, i really loved the camera work and the chemistry between the actors.
The other part is, I like comics. >.>
|
|
C'mon cats, I watched Raging Bull again this week: that is a good film!
I left Avengers and realised I couldn't remember any of the superheroes' real names, and if any of them had died, I wouldn't have cared.
I also like comics, that's why I've got all of The Invisibles and am re-reading Asterios Polyp.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Avengers was a good film, Raging Bull is a classic.
I've never read the comics, I can still remember all their names.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Way too pay attention then :/ Seeing how Iron man is usally called by his name and Cap gets referred as Rogers a lot. Thor is his name, and i don't think they ever call Banner the Hulk.
But hey, i get that not everyone will like the same movies as me. Thinking something is good is subjective, just try to be mindful that many people seem to think it's a very good movie.
|
|
So it sounds like they aren't playing Pathfinder so much as "pretend". Which is a great game, but can be false advertising for someone familiar with Pathfinder.
In my games we role-play heavily but the rules matter. I insist players roll before role playing using their result as a gauge on how the interaction plays out. My NPCs usually take 10 on Sense Motive or opposed checks (keeping the spotlight firmly on the PC).
Example:
Player 1: "I want to talk the guard into letting me inside."
GM: "Bluff or Diplomacy, make a roll."
Player 1: *Roll* "I'm the plumber, I'm here to clean the latrines." - "I got 22 all up."
GM: Okay that's a good roll. (GM notes success) "Yeesh, okay just don't touch anything on your way out."
Weren't we supposed to talk about people who don't RP too well?
I'm with Kobold. Awesome post and..then you ruined it.
This. The post would have been awesome and great without the snarky snipe.
I just can’t quite understand people like that. How is it role playing to behave in a completely ridiculous manner?
Have you met very many gamers that are like this or is it just a statistical blip that I seem to have found a bunch of them?
Their game sounds really boring to me, but to each their own. I guess this is the other extreme compared to pure war gamers (who don't talk at all).
I like games where there's talking only and there are no dice... but things still get done, and events happen. Having only 1 non-event happen in 3 hours isn't fun to me. But again, they're having fun so that's the only thing that matters.
No, I have never met a group like this. This group doesn't really even need a game system and should probably use a rules light game system like "The Window".
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Their game sounds really boring to me, but to each their own. I guess this is the other extreme compared to pure war gamers (who don't talk at all).
I'm imagining brooding men rolling dice and moving pieces in silence, with rules arguments carried out in pantomime.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Their game sounds really boring to me, but to each their own. I guess this is the other extreme compared to pure war gamers (who don't talk at all).I'm imagining brooding men rolling dice and moving pieces in silence, with rules arguments carried out in pantomime.
Naw, they don't argue over the rules, they just stare at each other icily until somebody backs down :p
Naw, they don't argue over the rules, they just stare at each other icily until somebody backs down :pTheir game sounds really boring to me, but to each their own. I guess this is the other extreme compared to pure war gamers (who don't talk at all).I'm imagining brooding men rolling dice and moving pieces in silence, with rules arguments carried out in pantomime.
Where do I sign up?
... In my games we role-play heavily but the rules matter. I insist players roll before role playing using their result as a gauge on how the interaction plays out ...
I usually want them to do the role playing first. If they role play it well, logically, interestingly, humorously, or cleverly I will mentally knock 1-4 off the DC of the check.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... In my games we role-play heavily but the rules matter. I insist players roll before role playing using their result as a gauge on how the interaction plays out ...I usually want them to do the role playing first. If they role play it well, logically, interestingly, humorously, or cleverly I will mentally knock 1-4 off the DC of the check.
That's a valid way of doing things, and I'm not disparaging anyone who does things that way (it's how I did things for years).
Then I started to introduce people to the game who were more shy, more reserved or just not super quick on their feet. By doing roll first method those players had pressure taken off them to perform for mechanical benefit. It loosened up those players considerably.
Occasionally players might be right on the nose just below the DC, so I tell them if they're convincing I can give them a bonus (see guidelines under bluff skill). They can ask fellow players for advice if their characters are Int 11+ (one player for each point of Int over 10).
To me it's important the stats matter. They should inform the roleplay.
There's plenty of GREAT rules-lite RPGs out there (Go Go Fiasco). But Pathfinder has you build an avatar from the ground up, just like a 90 pound weakling should not be penalised for playing a muscle ripped barbarian, a shy player should be able to play a quick witted bard.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would not require them to play out the interaction. A good description of what the character will do and what his arguments are would influence the DC of the check just as well a great speech in character. This gives shy players a reason to get into character and spend some thought on what their characters do beyond rolling the dice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would not require them to play out the interaction. A good description of what the character will do and what his arguments are would influence the DC of the check just as well a great speech in character. This gives shy players a reason to get into character and spend some thought on what their characters do beyond rolling the dice.
If I act big and strong and punch the DM, do I get a bonus to my attack roll?
If you punch the DM, you're going to need that attack roll bonus.
Given a little time to reflect, I've decided decided you should only get the bonus if you punch the DM before making your roll. Punching him after a miss would be sour grapes, not role-playing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I act big and strong and punch the DM, do I get a bonus to my attack roll?
You get a bonus for good tactics, flanking, searching higher ground etc. Sometimes minis are used, sometimes descriptions.
You get a bonus to bluff if your bluff is a good one, finding the right 'trigger' for an NPCs emotional reaction, coming up with a believable lie etc. Sometimes it is played out, sometimes it is described.
See the pattern?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I act big and strong and punch the DM, do I get a bonus to my attack roll?You get a bonus for good tactics, flanking, searching higher ground etc. Sometimes minis are used, sometimes descriptions.
You get a bonus to bluff if your bluff is a good one, finding the right 'trigger' for an NPCs emotional reaction, coming up with a believable lie etc. Sometimes it is played out, sometimes it is described.
See the pattern?
I know that in some ways it would be limiting, but a table for those types of modifiers would be neat.
C'mon cats, I watched Raging Bull again this week: that is a good film!
I left Avengers and realised I couldn't remember any of the superheroes' real names, and if any of them had died, I wouldn't have cared.
I also like comics, that's why I've got all of The Invisibles and am re-reading Asterios Polyp.
Did you f~@# my wife?
I know that in some ways it would be limiting, but a table for those types of modifiers would be neat.
I would love to see a book (or a chapter in a book) focussing on 'social' encounters, including advice and rules such as a table like this.
Skills are the red-headed stepchild of the d20/PF rules. I think it's because they aren't easily extensible into nice modular character options, so they don't make especially great rulebooks from a commercial standpoint.
I would love to see a Pathfinder rulebook release that was just a treatment of skills. Maybe a new skill or two, but mainly expanded rules and discussion of the existing skills, including optional modifiers (like you mentioned for social skills) and expanded rules frameworks (like "Combat" but for other dramatic situations).
I think the BW/Mouse Guard approach to conflicts with various skills is laudable. I'd like to see the Pathfinder approach to the same concept, but done in a Pathfinder way.
Debatable Actions by Louis Porter Jr. Design is worth checking out for an in-depth social interaction system. There was also an article in Dragon 294 that is very easily adapted to PF.
I would not require them to play out the interaction. A good description of what the character will do and what his arguments are would influence the DC of the check just as well a great speech in character. This gives shy players a reason to get into character and spend some thought on what their characters do beyond rolling the dice.If I act big and strong and punch the DM, do I get a bonus to my attack roll?
Someone published this game, it's called "Hit a Dude". The rules were printed on a business card.
1. Hit a dude
2. Play passes to the left.
I guess I should say in all honesty, that my cousin does tend to exaggerate a bit. So the intro may have been closer to 45 minutes, the smuggler conversation may have only been 2.5 hours, and they may have rolled the dice a few times.
But he was honestly amazed at how long they were able to drag out everything. The level of piciune (sp?) detail they went into. And the way they had to make sure every real or imagined person had to know all about them completely.
I once played in a group that spent two entire game sessions role playing our way through the village fair. It was great and almost no dice were needed. That said... going into TOO much detail is not really good role playing. I can understand if you were playing a raging ego maniac that you would go on and on about your background to everyone you meet (there are people like that in real life). But most people only drop a detail or two when it becomes relevant in a conversation. I once got into a huge argument with an online GM when he wanted me to go into elaborate detail in the game and tell my whole back story to the group leader. This group leader was someone my character had only known since noon yesterday... and he belonged to a race that was known for persecuting mine. Sure he seemed like a nice guy but no way would I go into such detail with someone she only just met yesterday. On top of that secretive was one of her personality traits... Telling background details of her life was a big thing for her. This GM just didn't get it though so I left.
See, Hawkeye was referred to by his superhero name about twice in the movie. It took me multiple watches to be sure. I just knew him as 'Barton'. XD
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
See, Hawkeye was referred to by his superhero name about twice in the movie. It took me multiple watches to be sure. I just knew him as 'Barton'. XD
Yeah, Hawkeye, Black Widow, and Hulk barely got their "hero names" mentioned. If he wasn't one of the more (in)famous character, you might have come out of the movie thinking Banner's alter ego was officially named "The Other Guy".
Yeah, I don't think Stark was actually referred to as Iron Man in the whole movie, was he? Everyone other than Pepper just calls him Stark.
Did they do anything to get the kid involved?
Did they do anything to get the kid involved?
Not sure I understand the question.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did they do anything to get the kid involved?Not sure I understand the question.
I think he means whether the group actively tried to get your Cousin involved in the RP'ing, dragging him into the game and making sure he's active rather than just running their own thing and sort of ignoring his presence?
... I think he means whether the group actively tried to get your Cousin involved in the RP'ing, dragging him into the game and making sure he's active rather than just running their own thing and sort of ignoring his presence?
Ok. Yes, from his description, I would say they attempted to get him involved. No, they were not ignoring him. He did try to significantly expand his introduction. But then during the conversation neither playing in character nor playing intelligently did it make sense to tell the smuggler the history of free peoples, or any of the other stuff they went into.
He says he just kinda sat their stunned, ammazed, and disgusted while they rambled for hours.
We recently discovered in one of our campaigns that the GM hates diplomacy checks. We learned it the hard way of course when one of the players needed to make one... His chances of rolling well were good and so he thought he'd be successful.
He rolled a die and the GM says yeah. I dont care what you rolled. Convince me.
The rollplay made the player the enemy of an entire section of town who promptly decided to lynch the character, decree a public hanging on the spot and in the end we had to pay nearly 3000 credits to buy him freedom, after they cut off his ear....
You might have rolled a 15, but your mouth just rolled a 1.
Please tell me you are not that DM.
You might have rolled a 15, but your mouth just rolled a 1.
That's hilarious! So when you guys make strength checks, does that player have to run outside and lift a car off the ground before he succeeds?
I had that problem when I made a Bluff check with one GM. As a player, I paused, but my PC (with high bluff) would have never paused. GM ruled it an auto failure (based on me pausing for 1 second as a player), which is total GM incompetence imo.