|
Role Playing is where you make it... make time for it. It doesn't have to be hours of talking in funny voices... though they often help distinguish OOC from IC statements. It fits easily into the little spaces between game mechanics - if you try.
For example, during introductions at the start of a game, I will, in a faux French accent, ask each other PC (often starting with any young ladies at the table) "Are you currently involved in a long term relationship?" I normally get stammers and blushes. In my PC voice I go on to say "I am a Matchmaker by profession you see, it is my 'day job' (finger quotes) - so if you might be interested in such a relationship, perhaps we might discuss some of my other clients? My card - " and I hand out a business card. At this point I switch to my OOC voice and say ... "Role Play often suffers due to time constraints, and we only have a limited time for this tonight so..." Glance back at the judge who is about ready to start at this point and back in character voice "Sigh... It appears that we have got to save the world again now, perhaps after that we'll find your one true love, yes?"
|
|
Just out of curiosity,what are you running?
Like a lot of people are saying, it depends on a number of variables.
Namely;
Players/GM
Scenario/Module
Venue
TimeTime seems to be the biggest influence. The greater the issue with time, the more the game becomes about the dice.
I would add 'what your baseline expectation of 'sufficient' roleplay is'. I have played at least one PFS scenario which was run like Space Hulk (here is the map, here are your minis, there are the monster minis), and others where we were drinking tea in-character. I can see the refs of both being on the same table and describing it differently.
|
|
Hello,
I recently played my first game of PFS, and I have a question/concern about the game style. I like to have a character with personality, and to RP with the NPC's and my fellow characters. Is PFS the right place for this?
The game I played in, the first 15 minutes was everyone trying to complete their faction side quests, and it consisted of:
GM: Where do you have to go?
PC: XXXXX location
GM: OK, you get there, and ask for your contact, roll a Blah Blah check.
PC: *rolls* and tells GM
GM: Advise on pass/fail of check and results.No chatting up the NPC, no discussion of options, no RP to try and find alternate solutions.
The rest of the game was a dungeon crawl, with no conversations IC and just the DM explaining that in room A3 you find 3 goblins, roll init... Very little fluff, no real mood, and 3/4 of the time, the goblins just did random silliness and ignored the PC's while we killed them. I understand there is only so many ways you can flavor up a great axe one shotting a gobbo, but it was just hit/miss, X damage, live/dead. The game ended after the final fight with a: "You get the treasure, return to base, give your reports, and head to bed. Game over"
Over-all, a fairly unsatisfying game. Is PFS usually like this?
Now, if my GM and/or other players read this; this is not a knock on you or your play style. I had fun shooting the breeze and chatting with you out of character, and it could have just been the scenario, hence my question.
Having run PFS games myself, it is very, very difficult to include in-depth roleplay in a PFS session due to the time restraints; of the 3-4 hours alotted, I've had to finish modules in 2.5 due to late arrivals, chatter, and other delays.
That said, I think PFS is an excellent organization that provides a lot of opportunities for local gamers to meet each other, learn one another's play styles, and test out new character concepts/builds.
|
|
When I DM games. I want at the minimum a synopsis of what the characters are trying to do.
I do not accept "I use diplomacy" as an answer. If you say I want to speak nice to him and compliment his bar. That I accept. Same with "I assist", how do you assist? I stand behind him and nod, fine.
If players do a good job roleplaying or it fits I gave a bonus. Sometimes a penalty if you mention the wrong thing too, but these are much more rare.
Everyone enjoys different parts from the game, and I cheat players that enjoy that part if I skip it. Also some players may not know that part of the game is an option. I try to roleplay everything including the BBEG. I will taunt players, fake curses, and whatever to get them involved. Some bad guys I want the PCs to hate on personal level so victory is that much sweeter.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do not accept "I use diplomacy" as an answer.
This point comes up often, and I used to believe in it to, but I've changed my stance over the years.
Would you accept "I use climb" as an answer when determining whether the PC scales the side of a cliff? Or would you want them to describe where they place their hands and feet, and what sorts of knots they used?
Some players do not have the social graces of their characters. And some players do not know the canon well enough to respond appropriately regarding particular situations. Some players are terrible at lying (myself included). Some players just can't make a threat seem serious.
Realizing that, I stopped disallowing or penalizing poor roleplay when it came to Diplomacy (and Bluff and the others), and now simply reward good roleplay instead. I still ask players what they want their characters to say, including when they assist, but I recognize that not everybody has that ability IRL, and if their only response is "I use diplomacy", I let them.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do not accept "I use diplomacy" as an answer....
Would you accept "I use climb" as an answer when determining whether the PC scales the side of a cliff? Or would you want them to describe where they place their hands and feet, and what sorts of knots they used?
...
I stopped disallowing or penalizing poor roleplay when it came to Diplomacy (and Bluff and the others), and now simply reward good roleplay instead...
May I ask for a bonus to my Climb checks if I do describe where my character places her hands and feet and what knots she is using. ;)
|
|
I do not accept "I use diplomacy" as an answer.This point comes up often, and I used to believe in it to, but I've changed my stance over the years.
Would you accept "I use climb" as an answer when determining whether the PC scales the side of a cliff? Or would you want them to describe where they place their hands and feet, and what sorts of knots they used?
Some players do not have the social graces of their characters. And some players do not know the canon well enough to respond appropriately regarding particular situations. Some players are terrible at lying (myself included). Some players just can't make a threat seem serious.
Realizing that, I stopped disallowing or penalizing poor roleplay when it came to Diplomacy (and Bluff and the others), and now simply reward good roleplay instead. I still ask players what they want their characters to say, including when they assist, but I recognize that not everybody has that ability IRL, and if their only response is "I use diplomacy", I let them.
Someone coming up to an obstacle and saying I use climb does not satisfy me either. Do they plan on using a climbing kit? Do you want o fast climb? Do you plan on bracing or using a corner? So yes, I want more.
I do not penalize for failure to roleplay. Considering there are these options for diplomacy, and I have to figure out what they are asking.
Request Diplomacy DC Modifier
Give simple advice or directions –5
Give detailed advice +0
Give simple aid +0
Reveal an unimportant secret +5
Give lengthy or complicated aid +5
Give dangerous aid +10
Reveal an important secret +10 or more
Give aid that could result in punishment +15 or more
Additional requests +5 per request
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, this is going to be a bit crude - maybe a borderline rant...feel free to skip it
I can't think of any scenarios that include bonuses for bringing baked goods, or demonstrating martial prowess, but I can think of quite a few that instruct to do so for good roleplay.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, this is going to be a bit crude - maybe a borderline rant...feel free to skip it
So, it appears we are back to giving rewards (and punishment) for players to play the way we want (or don't want) them to.
** spoiler omitted **...
Ok, half of your rant in "a shy diplomat" is mostly in your head, not anything the DM is doing. Trying to get people to ROLE PLAY in a ROLE PLAYING GAME is part of the DM's job. I'm sorry the guy taking the time to buy, read, prep, and give up their chance to play to run a game for everyone else didn't also stop by the community college for 16 credits of social work while they were at it, but you are expecting WAY too much from some random guy trying to play a game.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I reckon those charisma challenged players might try shying away from charisma based classes. If your character is a dilpomancer but the player is a shrinking violet then maybe I can interest you in playing a barbarian.
Nonsense!
Play the character you want to play.
|
are we really advising players to avoid characters that aren't like their real life selves?
Thats a false analogy, the game does a great job simulating combat through game mechanics so those not trained in combat can act combative. However this is a game that involves Role Playing, simulating a character, and while the game mechanics can minimize human interaction to a role of the dice, it can't simulate that. So yeah, please don't play the party face if you can't do the minimum amount of verbalization to make role play encounter viable. There have been far too many times where I have had a juicy scene deflated by a player who simply rolls their d20+max'd out bonuses to reduce that scene to a second grade math problem.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thats a false analogy, the game does a great job simulating combat through game mechanics so those not trained in combat can act combative. However this is a game that involves Role Playing, simulating a character, and while the game mechanics can minimize human interaction to a role of the dice, it can't simulate that. So yeah, please don't play the party face if you can't do the minimum amount of verbalization to make role play encounter viable. There have been far too many times where I have had a juicy scene deflated by a player who simply rolls their d20+max'd out bonuses to reduce that scene to a second grade math problem.are we really advising players to avoid characters that aren't like their real life selves?
That's the nature of the beast when it comes to Org. Play, sometimes you will have that sort of player at your table, you still have to do your best to give them a good time. If you can't do that, then maybe a home game might be more your speed.
To reiterate what The Fox said, people should play the character they want to play. They also shouldn't be made to feel bad for it. Don't like it? That's fine, you don't have to like every PC that shows up at your table. But as a GM you still have to suck it up and try to show them a good time for that scenario.
|
|
tl;dr
On the flip side, nosig, you have to recognize that just as some players are better/more comfortable with one style of play over another so are some judges. And when it comes to skipping combats I never skip non-optional encounters (I say encounters instead of combats) unless there is a very good reason (time issues, etc.).
At my tables, I want some idea of what the PC's are trying to achieve ("I use X" is usually not enough, but "I use X to do Y" is fine). If the PC's want to RP it out that's fine, if not, that's fine too.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's no reason the role playing has to stop when the minimat comes out. If the thugs are beneath you, disarm them, spend rounds spanking them , bulrush them into a barrel of kippers, taunt them, spend 3 rounds on full defense giving him tips on his footwork, offer him a membership card, hand him a bag of gold and tell them to go home to their wife...
(most of these have happened in games i've been at...)
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, this is going to be a bit crude - maybe a borderline rant...feel free to skip it
So, it appears we are back to giving rewards (and punishment) for players to play the way we want (or don't want) them to.
** spoiler omitted **...
Ok, half of your rant in "a shy diplomat" is mostly in your head, not anything the DM is doing. Trying to get people to ROLE PLAY in a ROLE PLAYING GAME is part of the DM's job. I'm sorry the guy taking the time to buy, read, prep, and give up their chance to play to run a game for everyone else didn't also stop by the community college for 16 credits of social work while they were at it, but you are expecting WAY too much from some random guy trying to play a game.
I'd like to address a very important point I think both sides to this argument are missing.
Some encounters require certain things be brought up, discussed, questioned, or mentioned to trigger certain responces. Some are good, some are bad, some grant a bonus or penalty, some grant boons and some might work towards the second prestige. We can't just assume the shy person will bring these points up, just because they are shy.
Important note: not everyone is or can be a masterclass actor, professional level improvisor, or extremely lugubrious. So as a GM it is important to read your players and create an exchange method they feel comfortable with.
There are ways to elicit the info the scenario is looking for, without expecting professional actor level dialogue. If the person freezes or is obviously uncomfortable, you can ask leading questions.
GM: What would you like to say?
Player: Um (looking uncomfortable)
GM: That's ok, just let me know what you are trying to convince them to do, or are you just trying to be chummy?
Player: The second one.
GM: Great, is there any specific thing you want to ask or bring up in your conversation?
Player: I'll mention the captain of the guards name.
GM: Perfect, go ahead and roll.
The exchange can just be a question and answer period where the player explains thier goal and if the bring up anything specific. Or it can be completely in character. Either is fine and will help players who can do or prefer one but hate the other to enjoy the exchange more than if you force them to do something they can't or are uncomfortable with.
However, "I roll diplomacy!" Without any context is not appropriate. You are putting all the onus on the GM to make decisions for your character: motive, goal, process. And if he gets it wrong, then the game halts when you either retcon or figure out what really happened.
While I completely agree that any player should be allowed to play any character they wish, a player who is completely unwilling, for whatever reason, to have a conversation with the GM about motive, goal and process probably should pick a different role.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
tl;drOn the flip side, nosig, you have to recognize that just as some players are better/more comfortable with one style of play over another so are some judges. And when it comes to skipping combats I never skip non-optional encounters (I say encounters instead of combats) unless there is a very good reason (time issues, etc.).
At my tables, I want some idea of what the PC's are trying to achieve ("I use X" is usually not enough, but "I use X to do Y" is fine). If the PC's want to RP it out that's fine, if not, that's fine too.
I am sorry, I think I gave the wrong impression in my "old guy" story above. The encounters were not skipped - they were just converted from dice rolling combats to talking descriptive combats. The players RPed the encounters (almost all of them) without actually rolling dice. The Ranger would state that he "was a blur of motion, rapidly firing arrows into the creature, many of which shattered upon impact - but those few that found weak points crippled the creature, allowing the Fighter to step inside it's guard and strike the killing blow! (mark off 9 more arrows)".
The game just became a collective story session, rather than a combat simulation decided by random dice rolls.
In other words, a Role Playing game more than a Roll Playing game.
:)
I'm not at all sure that turning PFS combats into a shared narrative is appropriate.
|
I resent that! I could have hung out in another room and sent wave after wave of rubbish earth elementals at you through the walls. Of course I would have had to shift back to my normal shape because level 13 druids don't need natural spell apparently...
And then you'd have been subject to my Boneshatter, of which I certainly had plenty left to use. :)
|
|
I'd say we were lucky he didn't come back to bother us, but he was such a poorly built NPC that it wouldn't have made a difference.I resent that! I could have hung out in another room and sent wave after wave of rubbish earth elementals at you through the walls. Of course I would have had to shift back to my normal shape because level 13 druids don't need natural spell apparently...
They didn't give him wildspell but remembered to give him terran as a langauage?
|
|
so, can I have a bonus on my:
- "To Hit" and "Damage" rolls if I actually do demonstrate a fencing routine?
- day job rolls as a Cook, if I bring cookies to the game (something I have done for my character with profession cook)
- Disable Device roll for actually having lock picks, and demonstrating how they work?
- Knowledge rolls for being able to quote from the Bestiary entry about the monster we encountered?
as long as I do the above "In Character" - with a "Character Voice"?
I am looking to give players modifiers to their roles. If I have a vain PC and the players says I want to use diplomacy and stroke that guys ego to get info from him. I will give them a modifier. I do not require them to role play to get the bonus.
Just like in combat when you move your character into a flank position to attack I want your strategy in the conversation. I am not the pressing DM making you role play and say word for word what your character says. If they have trouble I will quickly help them as well suggesting things. Conversations are just as complex as combat, and I want to represent that.
I have seen internet build characters that have great combat potential played absolutely foolishly in combat and make little impact because of it. So having a character with strong stats does not mean auto success. The same should go something I rule just as complex.
|
|
tl;drOn the flip side, nosig, you have to recognize that just as some players are better/more comfortable with one style of play over another so are some judges. And when it comes to skipping combats I never skip non-optional encounters (I say encounters instead of combats) unless there is a very good reason (time issues, etc.).
At my tables, I want some idea of what the PC's are trying to achieve ("I use X" is usually not enough, but "I use X to do Y" is fine). If the PC's want to RP it out that's fine, if not, that's fine too.
I am sorry, I think I gave the wrong impression in my "old guy" story above. The encounters were not skipped - they were just converted from dice rolling combats to talking descriptive combats. The players RPed the encounters (almost all of them) without actually rolling dice. The Ranger would state that he "was a blur of motion, rapidly firing arrows into the creature, many of which shattered upon impact - but those few that found weak points crippled the creature, allowing the Fighter to step inside it's guard and strike the killing blow! (mark off 9 more arrows)".
The game just became a collective story session, rather than a combat simulation decided by random dice rolls.
In other words, a Role Playing game more than a Roll Playing game.
:)
Unfortunately i have to deal with such ideas of roleplaying combined with utter dislike for rules quite often. I can assure you, this is actually not Pathfinder and especially not Pathfinder Society.
I would not call that roleplaying either. It´s often used to anticipate any rules and a total entitlement to troll GMs and empower players to influence the story however they want it. There are several other games which do that, but i hav never seen such a game played to its actual rules nor succeed on a longer campaign. Most somehow just stopped to go on after some meetings for pretty similar reasons.
Andrew has it right when he calls it a shared narrative, i would call it a storytelling focus game though, what follows a completely different logic than a roleplaying game.
One of the main differences is that players get often to make up part of the world, instead of "only" interacting with the world, and if there are rules at all, they are very dictated by whatever is seen as "awesome" or heavily bent.
While i like telling a good story as a GM and letting players participate in different ways, i really don´t enjoy that way of gaming. Most plots never work out at all and any prep is in vain. It has also a lot more to do with pleasing the whims of players and playing impro theatre than anything else. So either you get into conflicts and discussions because people don´t like what the GM just decided and told, not letting their wild imaginations work out, or it´s mutual shoulder rubbing all evening long.
That´s actually the point why there are rules and dice, to decide such things and give a bit of chance and fairness. Unfortunately often mistaken as another possibility to get into conflicts and discussions by rules lawyering.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are scenarios that specifically call out +s and -s for what your player/character says to the character.
How else do you think my 5 Charisma Dwarf Barbarian has succeeded TWICE in DC 20+ Diplomacy checks?
Bonus for being a dwarf. Check
Bonus for speaking in Dwarven. Check
Bonus for saying we are here to help. Check
Bonus for trying (just trying, mind you, not necessarily succeeding) to explain what was going on. Check.
|
|
Ok, half of your rant in "a shy diplomat" is mostly in your head, not anything the DM is doing. Trying to get people to ROLE PLAY in a ROLE PLAYING GAME is part of the DM's job. I'm sorry the guy taking the time to buy, read, prep, and give up their chance to play to run a game for everyone else didn't also stop by the community college for 16 credits of social work while they were at it, but you are expecting WAY too much from some random guy trying to play a game.Ok, this is going to be a bit crude - maybe a borderline rant...feel free to skip it
So, it appears we are back to giving rewards (and punishment) for players to play the way we want (or don't want) them to.
** spoiler omitted **...
Excuse me, but it is NOT the GM's responsibility to make people role-play. It is up to the person themselves whether they can or will role-play or not.
I spent 10 years with a group that constantly irritated me by trying to make me role-play to their standards. If not for the era (1980s, no online stuff) and the dearth of other local RPG opportunities, I would have left them.
Nowadays, I am a PFS GM. I am NOT, absolutely NOT, a heavy duty RP type GM. I don't use much in the way of funny voices. I avoid, when I can, the weird "Let's have our characters have a romance" stuff, especially if the player is also male. Makes me, at best, uncomfortable.
I do NOT, absolutely do NOT, force anyone to play out what their character does, whether in-combat or out-of-combat, before letting them roll the dice. You want to try and schmooze the guard? Roll your Diplomacy, if telling the truth. Bluff, if lying. Intimidate, if trying to bully them. Same goes for Aid Another attempts, whether it is to Diplomacy, AC, or to hit. "I am trying to help John deal with Kevin."
In the game I am running online today, I will probably have to sob, verbally cringe, and whine at some point in the game, as there is an NPC whose interactions run that way. Then again, the players might miss out on finding him. Doesn't hurt my feelings either way.
If Da'Tunga lives long enough to have a turn, I will probably RP his vocals. That can be fun. Not a big deal if he dies quick, like he does all too often.
But, seriously, if someone just is there to roll the dice, you have no right to penalize him because he has fun a different way than you do. Nor do you have the right or responsibility to say, "You shouldn't be playing a Bard/Cleric/Paladin." Or whatever class the player wants to play.
I have run for someone running a Barbarian who never Raged. Never. Is that wrong?
IMO, BadWrongFun is forcing someone to try and have YOUR fun, not theirs. Let them play the game the way they want, as long as they abide by the real rules.
|
|
But, seriously, if someone just is there to roll the dice, you have no right to penalize him because he has fun a different way than you do. Nor do you have the right or responsibility to say, "You shouldn't be playing a Bard/Cleric/Paladin." Or whatever class the player wants to play.
This is a good point. However, keep in mind, if the encounter calls for a social encounter, and either certain things needed to be mentioned (a name, a race, speak in a particular language, a specific questions, reveal specific knowledge, etc.) or done, then the player needs to at the very least give a mechanical description of what they want to talk about, what they are mentioning, and what they are doing.
"I will talk to the guard and mention that I'm a pathfinder and ask him about the weird gold piece I found."
Is completely acceptable in lieu of having a big huge role-played discussion. But as a GM you can't assume they are saying certain things, or you are either penalizing or giving a reward when the player isn't doing something the scenario specifically calls out.
Fine, don't speak in character with a different voice and have an actual realistic dialogue with the NPC. That's perfectly ok if you aren't comfortable with that. But you gotta tell me what you are doing, how you are doing it, and what you hope to accomplish.
Would you agree?
|
|
But, seriously, if someone just is there to roll the dice, you have no right to penalize him because he has fun a different way than you do. Nor do you have the right or responsibility to say, "You shouldn't be playing a Bard/Cleric/Paladin." Or whatever class the player wants to play.
This is a good point. However, keep in mind, if the encounter calls for a social encounter, and either certain things needed to be mentioned (a name, a race, speak in a particular language, a specific questions, reveal specific knowledge, etc.) or done, then the player needs to at the very least give a mechanical description of what they want to talk about, what they are mentioning, and what they are doing.
"I will talk to the guard and mention that I'm a pathfinder and ask him about the weird gold piece I found."
Is completely acceptable in lieu of having a big huge role-played discussion. But as a GM you can't assume they are saying certain things, or you are either penalizing or giving a reward when the player isn't doing something the scenario specifically calls out.
Fine, don't speak in character with a different voice and have an actual realistic dialogue with the NPC. That's perfectly ok if you aren't comfortable with that. But you gotta tell me what you are doing, how you are doing it, and what you hope to accomplish.
Would you agree?
Not fully.
If the player says, "My PC is trying to schmooze the guard." that is what happens. If he mentions, or someone else in the party mentions, showing X, doing Y, speaking in tongues, what-have-you, any appropriate modifiers will apply.
But I won't penalize someone for something if it is not mentioned as causing a penalty in the scenario.
If the VC says, "Don't mention you are Pathfinders." and they do, there may be a penalty, but it is something they were warned about, and is mentioned as a point in the scenario, not a sneak penalty applied by GM fiat.
If the player says his PC does something of benefit, then a circumstance bonus may be applied. Which is usually what those items you mentioned, like speaking an appropriate language, usually say they are.
If you try ot open a dialogue to someone who only speaks X, you aren't gonna get far if you don't speak X, as well. Dwarven, Aquan, Terran, and other languages have come into play. Various ancient languages are useful, in other circumstances, where knowing them gives a bonus to deciphering something.
But I don't require you to actually speak Elven or Dwarvish in real life.
|
|
But, seriously, if someone just is there to roll the dice, you have no right to penalize him because he has fun a different way than you do. Nor do you have the right or responsibility to say, "You shouldn't be playing a Bard/Cleric/Paladin." Or whatever class the player wants to play.
This is a good point. However, keep in mind, if the encounter calls for a social encounter, and either certain things needed to be mentioned (a name, a race, speak in a particular language, a specific questions, reveal specific knowledge, etc.) or done, then the player needs to at the very least give a mechanical description of what they want to talk about, what they are mentioning, and what they are doing.
"I will talk to the guard and mention that I'm a pathfinder and ask him about the weird gold piece I found."
Is completely acceptable in lieu of having a big huge role-played discussion. But as a GM you can't assume they are saying certain things, or you are either penalizing or giving a reward when the player isn't doing something the scenario specifically calls out.
Fine, don't speak in character with a different voice and have an actual realistic dialogue with the NPC. That's perfectly ok if you aren't comfortable with that. But you gotta tell me what you are doing, how you are doing it, and what you hope to accomplish.
Would you agree?
Not fully.
If the player says, "My PC is trying to schmooze the guard." that is what happens. If he mentions, or someone else in the party mentions, showing X, doing Y, speaking in tongues, what-have-you, any appropriate modifiers will apply.
But I won't penalize someone for something if it is not mentioned as causing a penalty in the scenario.
If the VC says, "Don't mention you are Pathfinders." and they do, there may be a penalty, but it is something they were warned about, and is mentioned as a point in the scenario, not a sneak penalty applied by GM fiat.
If the player says his PC does something...
I am unclear how anything you just said disagrees with anything I said.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Version 2 is my preference and my expectation that players would be learning and moving towards doing more of.
No. Its a PREFERENCE. Something that can greatly vary regionally, by location, or even by individual. When you say you should be learning to do it one way, you're saying that that way is the right way and its NOT. Its a preference. You can't expect someone to do it that way no matter how long they've been playing.
|
|
Playing in third person is completely fine. Always.
A well told and thought out third person perspective is a lot better than a cheap and quick first person perspective that sticks to clichees, etc.
I also strongly disagree that everyone should be free to play everything, but for different reasons.
It´s not cool to play the clown and take lots of game time, nor is it cool to play a wordless one man army and run the scenario alone.
It´s 100% in the right and responsibility of the game master to reign people in there.
For me Pathfinder is half half.
50% roll play, 50% role play, and it´s best when those parts support each other.
How that exactly is done is up to personal preferences though and those can´t be jugded.
|
|
Appropriate ways to roleplay "Bob the Barbarian" in this situation include:
1) mumbling in pidgin
2) speaking eloquently
3) pantomime (Bob's a mute)
4) chalkboard (Bob's a mute)
5) not using words with more than 4 letters
6) always lying
7) sometimes lying
8) always telling the truth
9) pointing to the party face
10) grunting at the party face
11) being the party face
12) in a high squeaking voice
13) in a deep throaty voice
14) ventriloquist dummy
15) attack the guard
16) pretend to be mentally insane
17) actually be mentally insane
18) nothing but ribbits and croaks
19) awkwardly petting the guard's head
20) with a stutter
21) schizophrenic
22) bribery
23) blackmail
24) admit to committing a crime
25) rob the guard
26) pretend you're fleeing robbers
27) tell a joke
28) ask the guard to tell you a joke
29) dress up as another guard
30) just roll a dice
31) however the player of "Bob" wants to roleplay
|
|
Appropriate ways to roleplay "Bob the Barbarian" in this situation include:
1) mumbling in pidgin
2) speaking eloquently
3) pantomime (Bob's a mute)
4) chalkboard (Bob's a mute)
5) not using words with more than 4 letters
6) always lying
7) sometimes lying
8) always telling the truth
9) pointing to the party face
10) grunting at the party face
11) being the party face
12) in a high squeaking voice
13) in a deep throaty voice
14) ventriloquist dummy
15) attack the guard
16) pretend to be mentally insane
17) actually be mentally insane
18) nothing but ribbits and croaks
19) awkwardly petting the guard's head
20) with a stutter
21) schizophrenic
22) bribery
23) blackmail
24) admit to committing a crime
25) rob the guard
26) pretend you're fleeing robbers
27) tell a joke
28) ask the guard to tell you a joke
29) dress up as another guard
30) just roll a dice
31) however the player of "Bob" wants to roleplay
If you'd capped it at 20 you would have had a table for roll players to use...Now they have to use hero labs (or equivalent) to roll a d31