|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have been running a lot of games over the last year and I have seen a trend with the PC's that came to a head:
I was running Scion of the Sky Key. As I was reading the boxed text and it looked like none of the PC's were paying attention, so I read the boxed text a second time.
At the part where the PC's are supposed to ask the NPC questions, I saw five blank faces. I stared at them, they stared at me, nothing. I then tell them if they want to but any equipment they have the option to do so.. they all look at each other. One PC buys a wand of endure elements then returns to staring at the me... I give a rough overview of the trip to Ft Bandu.. more disinterest.
First encounter with the Aspis Agent. Things really go sour. The PC doing all of the talking is terrible at diplo. As soon as I said make a roll, there were four shouts of "I assist" from PC's who had not said anything. None of the PC's had knowledge nature and proceed to blow all of the diplo rolls.
The Aspis agent at this point is mocking the the Pathfinders and is convincing the Praetor to have the PC's leave Ft Bandu. One of the PC's gets mad, then gets another PC mad, saying this is all BS.
Long story short: the five PC's say they don't want to do any role playing and that they just want to roll dice. A four hour scenario was done in 45 minutes.
What was supposed to be fun turned into: shut up and put the monsters on the map, so we can kill them, and give us our chronicle sheet.
This just me or is this more common than I think?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have not really run into this.
I suspect that at some of the tables I've been at there have been some individual players who might have had that approach. But I've never had a full table of that. Some tables are better than others. (Heck, some games go better with the same group of players than others. Always hard to predict.) But in my experience, a substantial fraction of the PFS players really are interested in their characters and in roleplaying, and there's enough of them that you always get at least a couple (and sometimes a whole table's worth) at a table, and the game is fun.
Maybe I've just been lucky.
|
Wolf, most people I know completly seperate rp and combat. Even those all into roleplaying tend to switch over to a more "gamey" stance once the dice a rolling.
That said: In my group there are certainly some people more into the combat than into the roleplaying aspect of the game. But they try. Hell, one of our most "combat over roleplay"-players chose a hawk as an animal companion because it fit his concept of the wandering druid better.
Needless to say that the hawk has been the butt-monkey of jokes ever since. Because it's useless.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Oh, also, every time I've been at a table where I got blank stares after "Any questions?" it's been because things were pretty straightforward with no obvious clarifications needed. This has happened so much, in fact, that (when I'm a player) I've started reciting the main points back to the GM/table and adding "...right?" at the end, just so the GM will know that the lack of questions is because we're good to go rather than because of disinterest. So I'd be careful about what you read into those blank looks.
|
|
Long story short: the five PC's say they don't want to do any role playing and that they just want to roll dice.Wait... they actually said that?
I sat down at a table a few years back at one of the local stores with a bit of a reputation for roll-play and the GM announced that this was a heavily investigative scenario (Cultist's Kiss). One of the players at the table groaned and asked if we could just skip that and head straight to the first combat, and most of the rest of the table chimed in to agree.
That sentiment definitely, vocally exists. It's definitely not my preferred play style.
|
I sat down at a table a few years back at one of the local stores with a bit of a reputation for roll-play and the GM announced that this was a heavily investigative scenario (Cultist's Kiss). One of the players at the table groaned and asked if we could just skip that and head straight to the first combat, and most of the rest of the table chimed in to agree.
That sentiment definitely, vocally exists. It's definitely not my preferred play style.
What? H-how can you skip the roleplay of Cultists Kiss? That scenario is great fun when you get to the [REDACTED], and talk to [REDACTED]. He's crazy!
|
|
What? H-how can you skip the roleplay of Cultists Kiss? That scenario is great fun when you get to the [REDACTED], and talk to [REDACTED]. He's crazy!I sat down at a table a few years back at one of the local stores with a bit of a reputation for roll-play and the GM announced that this was a heavily investigative scenario (Cultist's Kiss). One of the players at the table groaned and asked if we could just skip that and head straight to the first combat, and most of the rest of the table chimed in to agree.
That sentiment definitely, vocally exists. It's definitely not my preferred play style.
I know he's great!
I've been able to enjoy running it a couple times so far, at least.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Shut up and put the monsters on the table" does unfortunately happen. I have had a few of these players from time to time. I usually introduce them to the local organizers for d&d encounters or 40k. They seem happier over there and I am definitely happier they aren't screwing up my groups.
Players that disinterested in plot are never going to be happy with PFS, and can only damage your group, especially if you have whole tables full of them. Remember, you are not just running for the players, you are running to have a good time yourself. Wringing just the combat out of a scenario "just to roll dice" robs you of your one opportunity to play/run it as it was written and intended, and violates the "don't be a jerk" rule.
If they just want to roll dice, you will save a lot on gas and printing by just buying them a copy of zombie dice.
I am not saying those players are having badwrongfun, but that style of play is inappropriate for a PFS setting, especially at a public venue.
|
I'm definitely aware of some players who are of the "just put down the monsters" persuasion, and ones that probably are but don't go as far as to actually verbalize the request but tap their foot while they wait for combat to start.
Some of it's a product of building characters that only function in combat, so they're just doing the very human thing and waiting for the time when their character gets to be all it can. A lot of folks who are new to tabletop RPG coming from computer/video games trend this way.
I do think part of the burden is on the GM to tailor the table to the players, so if you have a lot of players who fit this bill, you should just go "just enough" roleplay for them to tolerate, even if it's at the expense of cutting the scenario length in half.
To be fair, some of the players who I know who do like to roleplay have commented on the wide variation of scenario enablement of their roleplay.
A good recent example is Wounded Wisp. It drops the PCs in the bar area very early in the scenario to while away an hour or so and presents 4 NPCs for interaction. These NPCs serve practically no story or plot purpose for furthuring the scenario. This is marketedly different than being at the inn in Glass River Rescue and the roleplay with the NPCs there where you have stronger context for why you're there and what you're looking to do. I can see how a certain style of GMs (the ones that aren't interesting roleplayers) can make taking 20-30 mins of table time to interact with the Wounded Wisp patrons an onerous undertaking that doesn't feel connected or meaningful. For these GMs, if there tables are mostly "let's kill some stuff" gamers, it'd almost make sense to simply describe that there are an ecltic sort gathered, who look like they could help provide general knowledge if needed, and move on to the next scene.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
If the players at my table said that, as a GM, I'd be very tempted to just pack up and walk away.
Maybe better would be to say "Well, I don't want to play this scenario that way. Part of it's charm is in the roleplay and plot. I don't want to waste it on trying to just play it like it's only about the combat. But since you don't want that, here's what we can do. I can reach into my GM folder for a pure combat scenario, or we can grab a board game. That way we can all have fun."
|
|
What was supposed to be fun turned into: shut up and put the monsters on the map, so we can kill them, and give us our chronicle sheet.I'd be tempted to just pull out the chronicles and give them to them, since that is all they are there for.
No.
A Chronicle sheet is not all they are there for.
Some players are not really interested in the role-playing. (I know because I'm married to one of them.) They still want to play the game.
|
|
They still want to play the game.I'll find them another GM. Because if I do it, they won't have fun with it.
That's fine. My point was simply that there is a vast difference between wanting to play PFS just to roll some dice while pretending to fight monsters and wanting to play PFS just to get a piece of paper.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From my perspective as a player, it can be hard to engage in the roleplay if your character isn't so great at talking. Just the other day I was playing my Wis-based sorcerer when we came upon an NPC that didn't attack us. As you said, silence from the players. I like to get involved regardless, so I walked up and started talking to the guy. In the middle of our conversation (which was great and in character for both of us) the GM asked me to roll Diplomacy. Now of course my dumb minmaxing ass has a 7 in Cha, so I'm making my roll at -2. As with your experience, everyone else (who had been standing back by the door not speaking) started rolling aid checks. I passed the check thanks to the aid, but barely. It's hard to feel upset for being penalized for roleplaying when I've intentionally dumped a stat that encompasses my interactions with others, but what it does mean is that next time I'll be more likely to push the diplomancer forward to go talk to the guy rather than roleplaying my interactions with that character. Even if I did invest ranks to mitigate my lousy diplomacy, there's usually that one character that has it maxed out and does all the talking anyway. For characters that deliver in combat and can't contribute to roleplay without risking failing an important roll for the party, the obvious choice is to stay back, stay quiet, and then do your thing in combat. When you've got a group of these together, it becomes the status quo for the table. It definitely depends on the player's attitude of course, as there are certainly combat-optimised characters with players who care for the roleplay, but that's just the trend and my ballpark reasoning for it.
Also I can certainly agree that often the introductions are thorough enough to get the game rolling without much questioning. I usually just confirm what was said, maybe ask what kind of dangers to expect, then get on our way.
|
|
For that reason, I rarely dump Cha. (My Alchemist has 9 Cha, really wants to be friendly, but tends to rub people the wrong way all the time. Fortunately, most of the time he plays nowadays, he's in a group with a bunch of roleplayer types. He still manages to get us in trouble by saying the wrong thing at the wrong time, but that's him in character, not him trying to be the legitimate party "Face".) I like the idea of characters able to interact with NPCs reasonably well, and I like to play that role. So, I try to design characters that will at least not suck at it, even though only a few are really focused on it.
To me, for many characters, Cha is the second most important stat. (Int may actually be it because of skills, but, whatever.) Yeah, I usually make sure Con is 12 unless it's a martial focused character (in which case Con is higher), but Cha is the one I'm most likely to want to push up even though the character class doesn't "need" it.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I enjoy an adventure with challenging encounters in it as much as the next guy. Maybe even more than some others. And I'm totally fine with some adventures being little more than being a slaughterfest, like Thornkeep II. That one has cool enemies, nice set pieces, and relatively tough opposition. I enjoyed it a lot.
So if I have a group of people who just want to fight, I'd be fine running something like that for them. I'll enjoy myself.
But I also like think/talk adventures, like Library of the Lion. If I play it I'm there for the puzzling challenge, and when I GMed it I was looking forward to both hamming it up with the key NPC and seeing the players work on the puzzles.
I don't want to waste that on people who don't appreciate it.
|
|
"Shut up and put the monsters on the table" does unfortunately happen. I have had a few of these players from time to time. I usually introduce them to the local organizers for d&d encounters or 40k. They seem happier over there and I am definitely happier they aren't screwing up my groups.
Players that disinterested in plot are never going to be happy with PFS, and can only damage your group, especially if you have whole tables full of them. Remember, you are not just running for the players, you are running to have a good time yourself. Wringing just the combat out of a scenario "just to roll dice" robs you of your one opportunity to play/run it as it was written and intended, and violates the "don't be a jerk" rule.
If they just want to roll dice, you will save a lot on gas and printing by just buying them a copy of zombie dice.
I am not saying those players are having badwrongfun, but that style of play is inappropriate for a PFS setting, especially at a public venue.
I'll take it that step further. I WILL say the kind of play described in the OP is badwrong, at least in the context of playing Pathfinder.
Pathfinder (PFS or otherwise) is not a tactical simulation game; it's a roleplaying game. It's far less work (and more fun) to play games already designed for that kind of fun. I play a few of them myself. But if what you're looking for is Warhammer or Panzer General, then it's better to play Warhammer or Panzer General than to try to bend Pathfinder into some sort of approximation.
|
|
Well, I actually am the oppisite way, my mental math is horrible. I can barely multiply, so combat for me is less fun than roleplaying, however, Im a socially awkward nerd, so I end up being there just staring at the sheet until spoken to.
Really no offense meant - but I'm confused. If you don't like the combat portion, and you don't like the roleplay portion - those two things are what Pathfinder is - what do you play it for?
|
|
In todays world RPG, does not mean roleplaying like acting, video games have made it role playing. Do your role for the party. I hate reading forums like this where volunteer gm wants to walk cause his table is full of roll players though many could be role players that don't want to roleplay. So its a game everyone wants to have fun. Do your best to adjust and point out after the session, if you diplo'd here this could have happened... ect. Sorry, I just think gm should insure the tables fun.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have't run into a situation like this just jet, but it seems like that particular group would have been better suited for a meat grinder like bonekeep.
However, most scenarios tend to go for a combination of combat and non-combat challenges (and break up those, so buffs tend to run out), it might be a learning issue.
Of course, some scenarios might not be so forgiving, of course when players are unwilling to engage in RP/invest into it... they get beaten into submission by huge elven curve blades...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really? What if they're having fun (and also have a GM that's having fun)?I'll take it that step further. I WILL say the kind of play described in the OP is badwrong, at least in the context of playing Pathfinder.
Pathfinder (PFS or otherwise) is not a tactical simulation game; it's a roleplaying game. It's far less work (and more fun) to play games already designed for that kind of fun. I play a few of them myself. But if what you're looking for is Warhammer or Panzer General, then it's better to play Warhammer or Panzer General than to try to bend Pathfinder into some sort of approximation.
It should be obvious that's not the scenario in the OP.
If everyone is having fun, who cares what rules or conventions are being followed and which are broken, ineed. I'd agree with MAD MAD World. The GM should strive to tailor the game to meet the preferences of the players.
I'm adding the thought that it goes both ways; it's a two way compromise not a one way accomodation.