|
(adds "not allowed to actually roleplay" to the long list of reasons to avoid PFS like the plague)
Role play is very much possible in many of the scenarios. I say this from personal experience. Groups I have been a part of have roleplayed our way to peacefully resolve encounters that were originally aimed to be rollplay encounters. I suppose it comes down to the GM's willingness and comfort in regards to the necessary improvisation that results from such creative alternative solutions.
(adds "not allowed to actually roleplay" to the long list of reasons to avoid PFS like the plague)
Depends on your game; Some have a lot, Some almost have none! Some that do have some can be downplayed pretty heavily too, while those that have none can have it injected by a group or DM.
PFS is something like PUGing in an MMO if your familiar with that. Never know who your going to be with or what's going to happen and your going to hope for the best. The story and game will never be tailored to you though, so don't expect to run into your twin brother you swore to defeat in battle for stealing the throne or anything, but do expect that party of five unoptimized skillmonkey rogues/bards you just met to do nothing when you stare down a colossal demon and hope that the dice gods really love you that night.
PFS is a weird and different environment sometimes.
(adds "not allowed to actually roleplay" to the long list of reasons to avoid PFS like the plague)Role play is very much possible in many of the scenarios. I say this from personal experience. Groups I have been a part of have roleplayed our way to peacefully resolve encounters that were originally aimed to be rollplay encounters. I suppose it comes down to the GM's willingness and comfort in regards to the necessary improvisation that results from such creative alternative solutions.
Possible?
Possible?
Role play is possible in many of these scenarios?
I . . . I just don't know how to respond to this post. I'm speechless.
|
I would not let my players take anything that required a lot of contested rolls as a profession. Assassin is a profession but there is stealth and attack rolls involved.
Fishmonger would work. I would say no to spy or diplomat as well.
If you are proforming i would not let you use it as a profesion. So singer is out.
I would also not let you take carpenter as that is a craft.
I would not let my players take anything that required a lot of contested rolls as a profession. Assassin is a profession but there is stealth and attack rolls involved.
Fishmonger would work. I would say no to spy or diplomat as well.
If you are proforming i would not let you use it as a profesion. So singer is out.
I would also not let you take carpenter as that is a craft.
most of the fantasy oriented professions could be re-described to be related to a craft or performance
there are relatively few that aren't.
(adds "not allowed to actually roleplay" to the long list of reasons to avoid PFS like the plague)"I'm just playing my character" is one of the first defenses of disruptive gamers.
Is "Don't be a jerk to the real people sitting at the table next to you", really such a hard rule to deal with?
Is there no roleplaying you can do that doesn't involve, to stick with the current discussion, language that would get you fired in a heartbeat?
"Playing a character with a character flaw" is not "being a jerk to the real people sitting at the table next to you". I've already made this crystal clear if you actually read my post.
If a character is bigoted (a very common character flaw in many environments, and one that comes up in Paizo adventures quite frequently), the character should be roleplayed as such. Otherwise, you aren't really roleplaying. And yes, a decent subset of bigots would use epithets when they feel it appropriate. If a player can't separate in-character from out-of-character, that player has no business being at an RPG table and would be better off playing a wargame.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a player can't separate in-character from out-of-character, that player has no business being at an RPG table and would be better off playing a wargame.
The problem with using real-world bigotry or slurs is that they're real. Other people at the table could have the experience of being on the receiving end of that bigotry. If your character calls a PC or NPC a c--t, to you it's just roleplaying, but to others it's a reminder of when they've been called c--ts. The same is true for real-world bigotry obfuscated by applying it to fantasy groups instead of real-world groups. If your racist stereotypes and slurs for dwarves are direct copies of real world stereotypes and slurs against Latina/o people, it's going to sound like real-world racism.
It's completely reasonable to not want to deal with that during what is supposed to be a leisure activity. Since a lot of people are going to want to not put up with it, the only right decision to for a quasi-public activity like PFS is to disallow roleplaying bigotry. If you allow it, then the space will become less welcoming to marginalized groups. Your misogynist character could be the reason a woman decides not to come back to the next event. If you're in a private game, where you know everyone involved and you know how they will react to things, then you can roleplay your misogynist character. In PFS, where you don't know who you will be playing with, roleplay something else.
tl;dr: your privilege. You need to check it.
|
I really just cannot see a reason to put any effort to fight for, or against, this Profession.
Being offended by allowing, or disallowing, seems equally silly.
I highly suspect that some here are being offended, for the sake of being offended.
Just step back, and take a break.
Imagine two people, "you got chocolate on my peanut butter!", "you got peanut butter on my chocolate!".
Suddenly, the two begin to fist fight.
That is exactly how silly this argument is.
|
|
(adds "not allowed to actually roleplay" to the long list of reasons to avoid PFS like the plague)Role play is very much possible in many of the scenarios. I say this from personal experience. Groups I have been a part of have roleplayed our way to peacefully resolve encounters that were originally aimed to be rollplay encounters. I suppose it comes down to the GM's willingness and comfort in regards to the necessary improvisation that results from such creative alternative solutions.Possible?
Possible?
Role play is possible in many of these scenarios?
I . . . I just don't know how to respond to this post. I'm speechless.
I'm inept at perceiving social cues normally, even more so without any to try to read. Forgive me for not understanding your speechlessness.
I had meant to type "allowed" instead of "possible", I suspect the error occurred due to my father watching Mission Impossible across the hall. My 'many' is excluding things like thornkeep and bonekeep.
I've had a very good experience with a lot of fun role play opportunities with the GMs and players that I do PFS with, in-person and online. Role play experience in PFS is highly dependent on you GM.
I really just cannot see a reason to put any effort to fight for, or against, this Profession.
Being offended by allowing, or disallowing, seems equally silly.
I highly suspect that some here are being offended, for the sake of being offended.
Just step back, and take a break.
Imagine two people, "you got chocolate on my peanut butter!", "you got peanut butter on my chocolate!".
Suddenly, the two begin to fist fight.
That is exactly how silly this argument is.
That was exactly my point.
If you are offended some people give you control. SO it is behooves people to make up being offended.
This also ties in with while in MY fantasy I want this. I want you to play MY fantasy. So if your fantasy has things I do nto want I can be offended by them and force you to play how I want you to.
I really just cannot see a reason to put any effort to fight for, or against, this Profession.
Being offended by allowing, or disallowing, seems equally silly.
I highly suspect that some here are being offended, for the sake of being offended.
Just step back, and take a break.
Imagine two people, "you got chocolate on my peanut butter!", "you got peanut butter on my chocolate!".
Suddenly, the two begin to fist fight.
That is exactly how silly this argument is.
That was exactly my point.
If you are offended some people give you control. SO it is behooves people to make up being offended.
This also ties in with while in MY fantasy I want this. I want you to play MY fantasy. So if your fantasy has things I do nto want I can be offended by them and force you to play how I want you to.
Of course, sometimes things are actually are offensive. Sometimes people are actually bothered and hurt by words, even if you don't find them a problem. Maybe they have a different context and a different history than you do. It's not all people making up being offended to gain control.
Personally, I don't find someone calling his own character a "murderhobo" offensive. I find it stupid. It's a kind of metahumor I'm not really interested in. I do find it kind of offensive when he calls my character a murderhobo when that isn't a gamestyle I'm at all interested in. Which is why it annoys me when people use it as a synonym for adventurer. Mind you, that's "annoys", not "enrages".
Sometimes you have to realize being offended is your problem and not everyone elses at the table.
My brother died from drinking, my parents had serious problems with it. Yet I do not go into games saying alocohol and all of it's related uses offend me.
No someone callign themselves a murderhobo is a whole lot different then them calling your character one. The fact is some players play their characters to murder everything they come across. Making fun of that hapenstance should not be offensive. The same can be said with lawful stupid.
If a player can't separate in-character from out-of-character, that player has no business being at an RPG table and would be better off playing a wargame.The problem with using real-world bigotry or slurs is that they're real. Other people at the table could have the experience of being on the receiving end of that bigotry. If your character calls a PC or NPC a c--t, to you it's just roleplaying, but to others it's a reminder of when they've been called c--ts. The same is true for real-world bigotry obfuscated by applying it to fantasy groups instead of real-world groups. If your racist stereotypes and slurs for dwarves are direct copies of real world stereotypes and slurs against Latina/o people, it's going to sound like real-world racism.
It's completely reasonable to not want to deal with that during what is supposed to be a leisure activity. Since a lot of people are going to want to not put up with it, the only right decision to for a quasi-public activity like PFS is to disallow roleplaying bigotry. If you allow it, then the space will become less welcoming to marginalized groups. Your misogynist character could be the reason a woman decides not to come back to the next event. If you're in a private game, where you know everyone involved and you know how they will react to things, then you can roleplay your misogynist character. In PFS, where you don't know who you will be playing with, roleplay something else.
tl;dr: your privilege. You need to check it.
Published Paizo modules have bigoted NPCs--and not just bad guys the characters are likely to murderhobo. Heck, racism against halflings is an integral part of Golarion lore. The average adventurer raised in Cheliax would likely take a long time to overcome such prejudices--if at all. But it'd be worth the experience.
Considering this, your perspective on what should and shouldn't be allowed at the table does not seem to match the general expectations of those that made the game. What it does match is the general expectations of PFS. Which means that PFS is essentially where people go for a watered down or nonexistent roleplaying experience. Based on your response and the existing PFS list of house rules, the PFS solution to the "Chelaxian adventurer" problem would likely be "PFS has decided to ban Chelaxian PCs because someone might be offended by character development".
No thanks. I prefer roleplaying, and good roleplaying (beyond something silly-fun like We Be Goblins!) generally requires characters to have depth.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't something I would allow. I'm just going to ignore the silliness of it and give you my ideas about it from a gameplay point-of-view.
Being an adventurer, it takes more than just putting a skill point in. Adventuring is more than a profession, it is a lifestyle and all Pathfinder characters are automatically adventurers. Your profession is just a part of the overall make up of your character. The sum of your character is an adventurer. It doesn't make sense to have it as a profession. That would be a recursive paradox, like having a machine with a component that is an exact copy of the machine.
We are already roleplaying you being an adventurer. A profession represents prior experience in a vocation before becoming an adventurer or something you do on the side to support your adventuring.
(adds "not allowed to actually roleplay" to the long list of reasons to avoid PFS like the plague)"I'm just playing my character" is one of the first defenses of disruptive gamers.
Is "Don't be a jerk to the real people sitting at the table next to you", really such a hard rule to deal with?
Is there no roleplaying you can do that doesn't involve, to stick with the current discussion, language that would get you fired in a heartbeat?
"Playing a character with a character flaw" is not "being a jerk to the real people sitting at the table next to you". I've already made this crystal clear if you actually read my post.
If a character is bigoted (a very common character flaw in many environments, and one that comes up in Paizo adventures quite frequently), the character should be roleplayed as such. Otherwise, you aren't really roleplaying. And yes, a decent subset of bigots would use epithets when they feel it appropriate. If a player can't separate in-character from out-of-character, that player has no business being at an RPG table and would be better off playing a wargame.
And if you're not capable of respecting the feelings of the other real people sitting at the table next to you, you'd be better off somewhere else. I don't really care what kind of roleplaying you're doing, if you're ruining the game for your fellow players you're doing it wrong.
No matter how much you justify it as "It's just what my character would do."
Again, different in a home game, if you know the people you're playing with well enough to know they're okay with it, but at an open game with strangers you've got to accommodate them.
Pretty much. And given the way this thread has gone, I think that there would likely be a number of problems that would crop up long before we got to the Day Jobs roll. I'm unclear if the positions and attitudes shown are the usual internet exaggeration or actual ways people behave at the games -- either way, I'd be hard-pressed to believe that things wouldn't break down fairly early on.
It isn't something I would allow. I'm just going to ignore the silliness of it and give you my ideas about it from a gameplay point-of-view.
Being an adventurer, it takes more than just putting a skill point in. Adventuring is more than a profession, it is a lifestyle and all Pathfinder characters are automatically adventurers. Your profession is just a part of the overall make up of your character. The sum of your character is an adventurer. It doesn't make sense to have it as a profession. That would be a recursive paradox, like having a machine with a component that is an exact copy of the machine.
We are already roleplaying you being an adventurer. A profession represents prior experience in a vocation before becoming an adventurer or something you do on the side to support your adventuring.
Thank you! I was searching for something to say on that and your post reminded me. It's double dipping.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I said, I don't find most uses of "murderhobo" offensive. I find it stupid and immersion breaking, but that's a different thing. Much like building other pop culture references into characters.
this
While truly offensive behavior is universally recognized as being unwelcome in a group, it is also generally understood by most people that constant annoyance, while not equally outrageous, is still enough to ruin people's fun.
"Hey, that sort of bugs me."
"Well, that's not enough of a reason for me to stop it."
OK, sure. That's a great way to win friends and influence people.
As I said, I don't find most uses of "murderhobo" offensive. I find it stupid and immersion breaking, but that's a different thing. Much like building other pop culture references into characters.this
While truly offensive behavior is universally recognized as being unwelcome in a group, it is also generally understood by most people that constant annoyance, while not equally outrageous, is still enough to ruin people's fun.
"Hey, that sort of bugs me."
"Well, that's not enough of a reason for me to stop it."OK, sure. That's a great way to win friends and influence people.
Sadly, the reason people may attempt to do it is because they figure it's a one off game, they may not play in the same group twice so who cares who is offended as long as they and a few others giggle over the cleverness. Which is why I vastly prefer long-running games where people are cognizant of the others in the group and try to keep from driving each other crazy.
In any case, we're way out of the Rules Questions part of the thread and headlong into General Discussionland.
(adds "not allowed to actually roleplay" to the long list of reasons to avoid PFS like the plague)"I'm just playing my character" is one of the first defenses of disruptive gamers.
Is "Don't be a jerk to the real people sitting at the table next to you", really such a hard rule to deal with?
Is there no roleplaying you can do that doesn't involve, to stick with the current discussion, language that would get you fired in a heartbeat?
"Playing a character with a character flaw" is not "being a jerk to the real people sitting at the table next to you". I've already made this crystal clear if you actually read my post.
If a character is bigoted (a very common character flaw in many environments, and one that comes up in Paizo adventures quite frequently), the character should be roleplayed as such. Otherwise, you aren't really roleplaying. And yes, a decent subset of bigots would use epithets when they feel it appropriate. If a player can't separate in-character from out-of-character, that player has no business being at an RPG table and would be better off playing a wargame.
And if you're not capable of respecting the feelings of the other real people sitting at the table next to you, you'd be better off somewhere else. I don't really care what kind of roleplaying you're doing, if you're ruining the game for your fellow players you're doing it wrong.
No matter how much you justify it as "It's just what my character would do."
Again, different in a home game, if you know the people you're playing with well enough to know they're okay with it, but at an open game with strangers you've got to accommodate them.
Or you recognize that it isn't the level of role-playing that you are actually seeking, and you just don't go.
Something good actually came out of this thread: I have no desire to join PFS if it's intended that you keep to a 'family-friendly' rating. I don't strive for an R (or beyond) rating when I role-play, but I also won't shy away from mature content if I feel it's appropriate for the character. I understand the idea of opening up the game to teens and kids, and I think that's great; I also think that like many other hobbies, they might benefit from having age categories, because for many of us, the enjoyment of role-playing comes from exploring concepts that are not PG13.
I was DMing quest for perfection 3. I had one PC act extremely rude and offensive towards the NPCs in this eastern area.
So the NPCS started calling him a gaijin and were rude back. Someone asked what gaijin meant. So someone said it is a derogatory term japanese people use.
That person that did not know suddenly said they were offended I used that word and that I should apologize to them for using in a game with them.
I stopped the game had them look up the word and suddenly they said no apology was needed and to continue the game.
Some people look for reasons to be offended. I asked the people afterwards if they felt that use of gaijin was incorrect and the rest of table though it was great roleplaying throwing that. The offended person said I should let people know what words I use before I use them to prevent people from being offended, but that using the word was fun for the game. I decided not to entertain that idea further from them.
Now these are the people I am used to that use the word offended. My perception is the same exact for the people offended by murderhobo.
Now if you are annoyed by someone's fantasy in a open public game about fantasy's well that is also your problem. You are in an open public game. You saying their fantasy is annoying for them and they should stop will wreck their fun too. So they should sacrifice for themselves something you find annoying? Well realize you are living in a glass house and are throwing stones.
Something good actually came out of this thread: I have no desire to join PFS if it's intended that you keep to a 'family-friendly' rating. I don't strive for an R (or beyond) rating when I role-play, but I also won't shy away from mature content if I feel it's appropriate for the character.
That's actually another one of those awkward things about PFS. Pathfinders are not good guys, and you do some really awful things with them. There's are assassinations, extortions, theft, and lots of other not so nice things that can happen. Cortesan is of course, a legal profession, and some missions are much more mature than others(one you can go to a brothel and contract an STD for instance), and of course you will fight bad guys and soul eating monsters and meet all kinds of gross and people can and probably will have their characters die gruesomely. It also bans things that might be conceived as evil, such as vivisectionist or undead lord, and all things related to cannibalism including Blood Transcription! Its safe to say there is a lot of criticism, even in its own forum.
Finlanderboy,
Your argument is going right back to the other thread about individual fun vs responsibility to the group.
Sure, you can absolutely do things that annoy other people and then inform them that you should be able to keep doing what is annoying them without regard to their being annoyed.
I love the argument that if you are doing something that annoys people, it should be allowed on the basis that if those annoyed people ask you to stop, that annoys you and therefore they shouldn't do it.
That's just awesome man. I can think of so many ways to apply that logic in daily life.
Published Paizo modules have bigoted NPCs--and not just bad guys the characters are likely to murderhobo. Heck, racism against halflings is an integral part of Golarion lore.
I'm not defending Paizo. I do think that some Paizo-published material on Golarion falls into the traps I mentioned. However, those problems don't mean that there shouldn't be restrictions on roleplaying in PFS.
Based on your response and the existing PFS list of house rules, the PFS solution to the "Chelaxian adventurer" problem would likely be "PFS has decided to ban Chelaxian PCs because someone might be offended by character development".
No thanks. I prefer roleplaying, and good roleplaying (beyond something silly-fun like We Be Goblins!) generally requires characters to have depth.
PFS might not be the right venue for you. That's okay! I know it isn't something I'm personally interested in. But no restrictions on roleplaying would be a poor choice to make for quasi-public gaming like PFS. Also, it's possible for a character to have depth that doesn't stem from being a bigot. These restrictions don't prohibit roleplaying, just certain kinds of roleplaying.
Finlanderboy,
Your argument is going right back to the other thread about individual fun vs responsibility to the group.
Sure, you can absolutely do things that annoy other people and then inform them that you should be able to what is annoying them without regard to their being annoyed.
I love the argument that if you are doing something that annoys people, it should be allowed on the basis that if those annoyed people ask you to stop, that annoys you and therefore they shouldn't do it.
That's just awesome man. I can think of so many ways to apply that logic in daily life.
Ok, so whoever complains first wins?
So if someone uses a gunslinger and i say that wrecks my game they should pull out another charatcer? Becuase I have seen this. I stepped in and told the person to play his gunsligner because he should not be punished someone else does not like the class. The guy threatened him and I pulled him aside saying he would not be welcome at my table if continued that attitude.
Now if someone's legal character bothers you, that is YOUR problem. YOU should find another table. Telling them they can not have fun at the table becuase you are uptight is highly offensive and a bully.
So yes controlling other people is offensive. Espcially when it is trvial like a day job.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Finlanderboy,
So now your argument is that people shouldn't do what you don't like because if they do, then they are controlling you.
Love that. That's just as good as the first one.
The reality is that the solution to this is that people should apply simple common sense and decency.
If someone playing a gunslinger bothers you, but gunslingers are allowed by the rules and are approved by the GM, then yeah, you should probably find another table because it would be a tremendous imposition on the player in question, the GM and the rest of the table to remove the gunslinger and create another character from scratch.
If someone objects to using the world "murderhobo" on a character sheet, all it takes is an eraser and a new word to resolve the situation amicably.
It's a cost/benefit ratio thing. The cost is low, the benefit is high, and the group overall benefits.
Again, sure, you don't have to do it. You can be the guy the rest of the table looks at and says "Seriously? That's his line in the sand? The right to use 'murderhobo' at the table? Okey-dokey..."
So they should sacrifice for themselves something you find annoying? Well realize you are living in a glass house and are throwing stones.
With common courtesy there is going to be give and take on both sides. In a public game with strangers and the possibility of playing with minors, I think some form of social contract that hinges on erring on the side of caution is a reasonable expectation for all parties.
Obviously the reality is that reading social cues and knowing your regular players allows for a lot more flexibility than playing with strangers.
