|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trying to diplomacy our way out of fighting some troglodytes when the fighter realizes he speaks draconic as well, he proceeds to tell them f*** you and your boss in draconic. Combat starts. Thank you for wasting that investment of skill points I my character has. I was displeased to say the least.
Did you also invest in bluff?
"He's offering his "services" "
Didn't get the chance, DM just said whelp roll for initiative. Was also caught off guard by the stupidity as well as being a bit miffed to think of that too.
Trying to diplomacy our way out of fighting some troglodytes when the fighter realizes he speaks draconic as well, he proceeds to tell them f*** you and your boss in draconic. Combat starts. Thank you for wasting that investment of skill points my character has. I was displeased to say the least.
Stepping outside of PFS for a moment, I think using the Diplomacy skill to avoid encounters will always be unpopular with players who are more combat focused. I may be wrong, but the group doesn't get xp or loot if an encounter is avoided rather than overcome right? That desire to use Diplomacy to avoid fights will run into problems anytime you have xp and loot-hungry players or bloodthirsty martials in the group. Also, unlike combat where everyone gets to contribute, Diplomacy is just one player doing everything. I don't agree with another player screwing up your diplomacy check, just explaining why it sometimes happens.
Far less controversial uses of Diplomacy would be getting information from people or convincing people to help you.
|
And groups I play in regularly use Assist rolls to make Diplomacy more of a "Team" activity.
So... picture this.
Player 1: "I step forward as the 'face' of the party, and offer the services of the party to defend the village... take 10 for a 27"
Player 2 - barbarian rolling D20: "I strike a pose and show off my martial abilities! roll of 14 - 2 CHA gets a 12 so I assist!"
Player 3 - cleric: "I'll point out that I've got Abadar on our side... auto assist with my +9 Diplomacy nets us a +31 I think...
Player 4 - Rogue rolling several dice: "I shot the village headman - hitting AC18 for 34 HP counting my sneak attack dice." Looks around, "What? It's what my PC would do - I hate all this chit-chat stuff, I'm a man of action."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trying to diplomacy our way out of fighting some troglodytes when the fighter realizes he speaks draconic as well, he proceeds to tell them f*** you and your boss in draconic. Combat starts. Thank you for wasting that investment of skill points my character has. I was displeased to say the least.I may be wrong, but the group doesn't get xp or loot if an encounter is avoided rather than overcome right?
This is exactly WHY pfs has the creative solutions clause, so that the party doesn't HAVE to murderhobo the dungeon to afford the house.
If, for example, your
players manage to roleplay their way through a combat and
successfully accomplish the goal of that encounter without
killing the antagonist, give the PCs the same reward they
would have gained had they defeated their opponent in
combat
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I may be wrong, but the group doesn't get xp or loot if an encounter is avoided rather than overcome right?You would be wrong. Using diplomacy to bypass encounters generally should not cost you either loot or xp in PFS play. In home games it is up to the GM whether or not it counts as you having "overcome" the encounter.
Level 4 has a particular difficulty in that the chronicle is awfully written so that to get full xp/prestige you pretty much have to slaughter the troglodytes.
oh level 4, level 4... We ran two tables of level 4 at the same time, one group went with the more conventional murder hobo approach. The other group went a different route. They joined the troglodyte cult, and lived with them for weeks, building friendships, and peace, convincing them of the rightness of doing the thing that causes all hell to break loose. So instead of a series of small encounters the party got the whole tribe together for a grand celebration and ritual. That culminated in the trog's freaking out and going berserk. That day shall live in infamy as the Velocirapture...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"thats what my character would do" has led to a lot of really amazing role playing, or just stories. It is when "what my character would do" griefs the other players that you can have issues. I know I was enthralled over the necro/pharasma thread, because it cut to the heart of volition and player choice.
I don't want a cut and dry answer, but I do want all players to come to my table ready to work together to support the fun of the whole table, even if the characters have a little more wiggle room, its the players who I want in the right mind set.
And if your cleric had decided on a whole lot of create water?Then you are actively not cooperative which is against the pathfinder tenetsThis is insane. Refusing to co-operate with some lunatic plan, indeed actively working against it, is not against the societies tenets simply because the rest of the group think it is a good idea.
Co-operate is an ideal, it is not a straight jacket to force people to follow the loudest/most popular idea regardless of how idiotic it might be.
If the plan was objectively horrid or insane working actively against it may not be uncooperative but if the party wants to do something and you actively make it more challenging to accomplish you are in the wrong.
If we are fighting the bbeg and i decide instead of combating her to make sure her hired thugs get out safe and alive im not overstepping my bounds as a player and going against the tennents. If I were to go up to the BBEG and begin healing and casting buffs without some type of charm or compulsion because "i dont think the party should kill her" most people would say that does go against the tennents.
Not going along with the party and finding alternative means isn't being uncooperative but actively undoing what the party does because you feel you should is. At the very least in regards to a single scenario. Campaign mode has different rules.
Well the example being discussed above was burning down a tavern so create a distraction to steal something. Which I think would fall under the horrid/insane qualifier.
|
|
Has anyone experienced this?
A player does something, um, asinine or otherwise troublesome, looks at you, and says "Sorry, it's what my character would do."
If so, what did you do, as a player?
What did you do, as a DM?
Funnily, i experienced that more often as a player than as a GM.
As GM, i´ll give the rest a chance to react and hold the player back if it´s some nonsense and would screw over other players.As a player, i left some games cuz the entitlement is just unbearable sometimes.
And it´s mostly about Paladins somehow, and/or other members of a party deciding to play good and try to PvP or suppress anything that works a bit different.
Best example, outside of PFS, is a paladin threatening to kill an arcanist if summoning or creating undead (his class features).
Yes, the codes and religion say something on that.
But at the same time that´s really screwing another player over and more or less taking freedom of decision from that player, only because someone wants to play a paladin.
I think that´s being a jerk.
Forcing a playstyle on others is not cool and there should always be room for different playstyles in the game.
As a GM i make that clear to players. You can always comment and roleplay how you disapprove of others ways and still work together.
Anyone remember Raistlin from Dragonlance? Best example.
Nor would a paladin fall for doing something like that, or then proably the GM is a jerk.
PFS is a bit different there because of obvious reasons.
There should still be more room to cooperate, else those lawful good characters would not have a reason to join the society.
The society is not a lawful nor good organisation. Deals and business are made with questionable parties.
Talking with the ghoul at the end actually brings valuable information and parts of the story the players/PC´s could not really know else.
Stepping outside of PFS for a moment, I think using the Diplomacy skill to avoid encounters will always be unpopular with players who are more combat focused. I may be wrong, but the group doesn't get xp or loot if an encounter is avoided rather than overcome right? That desire to use Diplomacy to avoid fights will run into problems anytime you have xp and loot-hungry players or bloodthirsty martials in the group. Also, unlike combat where everyone gets to contribute, Diplomacy is just one player doing everything. I don't agree with another player screwing up your diplomacy check, just explaining why it sometimes happens.
Far less controversial uses of Diplomacy would be getting information from people or convincing people to help you.
My LG monk vastly prefers diplomacy over combat (he doesn't do the diplomacy himself, though; he knows he's terrible at it). He is also a very melee-based martial character that often functions as a primary or secondary tank.
It's sad to think that there are those who prefer to always engage in combat when there may be less violent (and safer) options.
|
I think it really is a hard question to answer when you don't have specific scenarios.
PFS just makes it harder. So, to use the example from the other thread of the Necromancer vs. the Inquisitor of Pharasma...
I see three options.
1. The necromancer player accepts his character will not work with the party, and plays another character. If it's a pregenerated character he can still get PFS credit added to his necromancer.
2. The inquisitor player accepts his character will not work with the party, and plays another character. If it's a pregenerated character he can still get PFS credit added to his inquisitor.
3. If both of the above scenarios failed, then... if I were the inquisitor player I would have stabilized him, but NOT healed him. Which would have been after I had killed the zombie (and honestly, if the 'no pvp' rule came up, I don't know at that point I'd be asking the GM outright how do I as an inquisitor that should be killing this zombie and severely chastising if not killing the necromancer handle this?)
What it boils down to then IMO for that scenario is that the GM is the one at fault, because he let these two characters in the same scenario. Maybe that's a reason I shouldn't be a Pathfinder GM, or maybe it's a reason I should. I am pretty new to organized play so I don't know what a GM's power is in this situation.
|
|
Flying photon: He deprived you of what sounded like a good chance to get a PENALTY on your diplomacy checks. Probably for the best and hardly jerk material.
Other side of the token, rather than just 'sitting out' the barbarian could underscore (and help the Diplomacy checks by extension, even) by roleplaying that 'sitting out'.
ie "Throg think you too pretty. Throg try not talk to you anymore. It no good for either of us." This would also give the rest of the party to point out that even the least social of the Society can understand basic guidelines and 'when to shut the .... up.'
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So between this and the threads on slavery, how does one even play anything other than a true neutral fighter with no ties. I seriously want to know. I see threads where even the thought of raising the dead should have you kicked out of the game. But having strong religious beliefs could also be being a jerk. Owning slaves is being a jerk and needs to be abolished, but if you press your anti-slavery Andoran feelings to hard its also a problem. Is this more of a board thing or is playing anything with a belief system possibly asking for trouble.
The problem comes when others (as we are currently seeing in the slavery thread) have a refusal on the basis of a character that I'm not pushing. I have seen people blanket refuse to work with a slave owner, or a necromancer, hell even a gunslinger. At what point is the issue no longer with the character I built and with the other person?
The problem comes when others (as we are currently seeing in the slavery thread) have a refusal on the basis of a character that I'm not pushing. I have seen people blanket refuse to work with a slave owner, or a necromancer, hell even a gunslinger. At what point is the issue no longer with the character I built and with the other person?I have actually played for a judge that had a problem with players playing PCs that were of a different gender then the player. In other words, he had an issue with me (a male player) playing a female PC. So for that one game, my female PC became male.
Then to ask whats the point? If I've chosen an option, especially gender/race, that's legal and I'm not pushing it why am I the one to have to suck it up. If it had been your race or class he was adamantly against would you have then picked up a pregen/other legal character?
So my choice is in validated by his choice? Understand if there is a real issue then that's fine but if he just doesn't like necromancers and its that or play a pregen who can't give my Necro credit. (note I'm not in PFS yet its not really availble in the Seark region But I want to be able to play not just DM and it seems like a good way to enjoy that side of the table.) If there is an in character reason or out of character reason we can talk, but if its like the hate we sometimes see for any number of other things then why am I the jerk if I don't change.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you're not a jerk for not changing.
But if something bothers one of the other players enough for them to bring it up (and the judge is another player at the table too), then if we can "play nice" by changing something simple... why not change it? If we can? Kind of like when I sit down to lunch with a bunch of gamers. I check to see if the person on my right is left handed - and if they are I offer to switch seats. No need to bump elbows if it can be avoided.
Anyone here got a problem with my PC? If so, is it going to impact their ability to have a good time? Is it going to impact MY ability to have a good time? 'cause if the people at my table are NOT having a good time, it will impact my "good time", and I will want to fix that.
I have a couple of characters of ambiguous gender. For the most part, it's a nearly invisible rp-hook for folks that want to interact with said characters can use.
Aside from a brief comment or two at the start of a given scenario for them, I don't push on it too hard, because it does unnerve some people. If people do want to ask about it, the character handles it either via notes or during breaks or whatnot, to not disrupt the flow of play at the table.
See also the discussion about IC slavery in another thread. When it crosses the line and the other players at the table are eyeing the exits more than playing the game, odds are likely that you've hit that 'uncomfortable "being a jerk" stage'.
It can be very hard to pick up on these cues. I've missed some of them in the past, and it took a third party pointing them out to me (for which I am appreciative and grateful)
Sitting at a table is a covenant between the player, the other players, and the GM. For the duration of the scenario at the very least, the game-play should be the primary focus.
Conversely, if as a player or GM something is making you uncomfortable, please don't stew on it until it explodes two-thirds of the way into the module. Everyone else at the table will feel that stress on a subconscious level and it will impact their play. We're not mind-readers (that I'm aware of) but some people are really good at reading body language. Air concerns in a neutral moment in a respectful fashion, and then move forward.
|
|
ie "Throg think you too pretty. Throg try not talk to you anymore. It no good for either of us." This would also give the rest of the party to point out that even the least social of the Society can understand basic guidelines and 'when to shut the .... up.'
Ok, but if you have a table of seven and the diplomancer is crackling their acting knuckles and getting his sparkly diplodice out, 3 people shouting about how they assist and 2 people trying to talk to someone.. are you really going to interject how you're not talking adds to the conversation?
|
|
Ok, but if you have a table of seven and the diplomancer is crackling their acting knuckles and getting his sparkly diplodice out, 3 people shouting about how they assist and 2 people trying to talk to someone.. are you really going to interject how you're not talking adds to the conversation?
Not shout it out, but make it clear I'm still involved in the process? The method I'm describing keeps one active and involved and playing. The other way is rather anti-social and can disrupt a table through omission.
It's kind of fun to see JUST HOW HIGH one can drive the Diplomancy. I think the table best I've seen from player rolls and someone with a higher skill rank was in the mid-40s in the 1-5 range before situational modifiers.
EDIT: The converse is also true. It's the train wreck you can't pull away from when your barbarian at CHA 6 has the best Diplomacy roll at the table at a '12'.
|
There are scenarios where the higher the diplomacy roll the more successful it is (any of the social scenarios that use the influence mechanic). You can succeed with a low DC, but the higher it is, the more successful it is. In those situations, I would definitely want to know what the Barbarian is doing to help.
|
|
Not shout it out, but make it clear I'm still involved in the process? The method I'm describing keeps one active and involved and playing. The other way is rather anti-social and can disrupt a table through omission.
Bull.
That's how you'd do it. That doesn't make someone elses decision to do it a different way anti social , jerk behavior, or some really random tea leaf reading baloney like "disrupting the table through omission"
People have different ways of doing things and GASP your way of doing things is not always going to be so good that it works best for everyone. And that's a lot of the problem with this thread: it assumes that any deviation from me is jerk behavior without acknowledging that changing definitions of me result in different if not contradictory answers.
|
|
There are scenarios where the higher the diplomacy roll the more successful it is (any of the social scenarios that use the influence mechanic). You can succeed with a low DC, but the higher it is, the more successful it is. In those situations, I would definitely want to know what the Barbarian is doing to help.
Not talk.
Some DMs are quick to impose a penalty if you role play your charisma.
If you fail a diplomacy check by 5 or more you drop them a catagory, the DC to assist is 10. So by the odds grock and his -2 diplomacy has...
35% Chance to impose what is effectively a -5 on the check by dropping their attitude one step
a 40% chance to roll a 12 or higher and add a +2.
Thats IF the dm is letting that many people assist (how many people can assist a diplomacy and whether you need to be talking is a matter of table variation)
|
|
There are scenarios where the higher the diplomacy roll the more successful it is (any of the social scenarios that use the influence mechanic). You can succeed with a low DC, but the higher it is, the more successful it is. In those situations, I would definitely want to know what the Barbarian is doing to help.Not talk.
Some DMs are quick to impose a penalty if you role play your charisma.
If you fail a diplomacy check by 5 or more you drop them a catagory, the DC to assist is 10. So by the odds grock and his -2 diplomacy has...
35% Chance to impose what is effectively a -5 on the check by dropping their attitude one step
a 40% chance to roll a 12 or higher and add a +2.
Thats IF the dm is letting that many people assist (how many people can assist a diplomacy and whether you need to be talking is a matter of table variation)
That penalty is on the overall diplomacy roll. I don't think there's anything in the rules that says failing to aid another results in a penalty. You are simply making a roll to aid another. If you fail, no matter by how much, you only fail to add +2 to the roll. If a GM is ruling otherwise, then sure, you may want to stay silent. But I believe that GM would be in error. I could be wrong about that, but I have never seen a GM impose a penalty due to an aid another roll. By that logic, anyone with less than a +4 has a chance of hurting the situation and should stay quiet. And even if that's true, then at a -2 you're still helping more than you're hurting the situation. (12 or better to aid or helping 45% of the time. 7 or worse to fail by 5, or hurting 35% of the time)
EDIT: If you're talking about a circumstance bonus or penalty based on the Barbarian's role play, that bonus or penalty should be applied to the Barbarian's roll to aid another, not to the overall roll that another player is making.
|
|
Much more often I have seen the unfortunate situation where the Barbarian/Sorcerer/other intimidate as a class skill class doesn't assist in the diplomacy, and then when the diplomacy doesn't result in an immediate success, they jump in with, "I intimidate them!" I had that happen to a group I was in, and it cost us a prestige point in a season 5 scenario. In that situation, I'd have preferred if the character kept quiet.
|
|
That penalty is on the overall diplomacy roll. I don't think there's anything in the rules that says failing to aid another results in a penalty.
There isn't anything to say that it isn't either.
In a shared play environment telling why a person is (or in this case, isn't) doing something is doubly hard because you don't know exactly what rules preconceptions they're operating under. That goes for mechanics (like what happens if i epic fail aid another on a diplomacy check) table etiquite (roll all dice at once on pounce kitty? Roll all attacks individually?) and the very specific way that different groups/dms do things from 'you need to role play talking for a while before you break out the diplomacy' whether the player needs to say "I am attempting a diplomacy check" at some point or whether the DM is going to ask for it.
(12 or better to aid or helping 45% of the time. 7 or worse to fail by 5, or hurting 35% of the time)
35% * -5= -1.75
45% * +2= 0.9
EDIT: If you're talking about a circumstance bonus or penalty based on the Barbarian's role play, that bonus or penalty should be applied to the Barbarian's roll to aid another, not to the overall roll that another player is making.
And if the player has seen it done the other way?
|
|
I'm not saying that a player shouldn't get clarification from a GM about how the GM runs their game. But you seem to be saying that they should stay quiet no matter what. Again, what you're using as the rules for aiding another seems unnecessarily punitive and a very liberally interpreted version of the rules. The only result that gets compared to the DC of the target is the final total. That is where the rules on raising or lowering to target's attitude are.
The weighted chances do make a difference, and you have a point there. Again I would mention that anyone with less than a +4 bonus would be in a similar situation, though to a lesser degree. That means there would be a valid argument for a 16 CHA Sorcerer with no ranks in Diplomacy to keep their mouth shut, too.
I'll offer these other situation and see what you think:
Failing to disable a trap by 5 or more sets it off. Would someone aiding another on disabling a trap set it off if their total result was a 5 or less?
Failing a Climb check by 5 or more means you fall. Would someone Aiding Another on a Climb check (say, grabbing hold of one of the climber's arms to help them up) fall if their result is a 5 or less?
Failing a Swim check by 5 or more (usually) results in you being pulled underwater or carried away by the current.
You see where I'm going with this. There are many situations where failure carries a potential penalty. If Aid Another can result in that penalty by itself for the person performing the aid another action, it creates all kinds of strange situations, and it makes things much, much more difficult for low level characters, where it's possible no one in the group has a +4 to any particular skill, let alone multiple people.
|
|
I guess what I'm trying to say is, a GM who is interpreting the rules as you have put forth is making a choice to penalize a player for participating in the scenario. Given that the rules can easily (and I would argue more correctly) be interpreted so as not to impose such a penalty, it seems to me a very poor way to encourage players to have a good time at the table.
|
|
I'm not saying that a player shouldn't get clarification from a GM about how the GM runs their game.
Even in PFS where there are no official house rules there are too many subtle nuances in how each individual dm runs things to ask about them all. People also tend to internalize rules and just take how they usually play and their own culture of gaming as a given.
But you seem to be saying that they should stay quiet no matter what.
I am not only not saying that, i am not saying anything that could reasonably be taken to say that.
What I'm saying is that a player may have very good reasons for staying quiet that do not involve being a jerk or disrupting the table through omission: they may be trying to HELP their party. Or they may figure they get enough spotlight time while bathing int he blood of decapitated orcs they don't need the spotlight now. There are a range of factors including good, positive gaming philosophies that could be what lead to someone clamming up during the role play.
By extension, I'm pointing out a very worrying trend in this thread where people are incredibly quick to label anything different from their own behavior as jerkish.
Again, what you're using as the rules for aiding another seems unnecessarily punitive and a very liberally interpreted version of the rules.
Its not what I use but its something that I've seen used.
I usually use the most permissive "I will take the highest roll and then have all others aiding them"
The weighted chances do make a difference, and you have a point there. Again I would mention that anyone with less than a +4 bonus would be in a similar situation, though to a lesser degree. That means there would be a valid argument for a 16 CHA Sorcerer with no ranks in Diplomacy to keep their mouth shut, too.
Diplomacy as a class skill is only a trait away for a charisma based skill...
|
|
Bull.
That's how you'd do it. That doesn't make someone elses decision to do it a different way anti social , jerk behavior, or some really random tea leaf reading baloney like "disrupting the table through omission"
People have different ways of doing things and GASP your way of doing things is not always going to be so good that it works best for everyone. And that's a lot of the problem with this thread: it assumes that any deviation from me is jerk behavior without acknowledging that changing definitions of me result in different if not contradictory answers.
I've *sat* at tables where half the party was exp-grubbing lumps, not saying anything, not doing anything except wait for the next combat to erupt, and then have them say afterwards "Felt like I couldn't do anything, so I kept quiet."
It's true, I like having inclusive tables that encourage everyone to contribute. If someone sat down at my table and gave death glares because they brought a barbarian to a wedding, I'd want to see them interact. Social modifiers are a thing, true, but *PLAYING* and trying to *Explore, Report, Cooperate* requires effort, not a lack of effort.
Or, if you're not willing to invest some effort in an event you're already spending time (and possibly money, depending on convention) sitting at, why are you there?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While you are enjoying the game, be considerate of the others at the table and don’t let your actions keep them from having a good time too. In short, don’t be a jerk.-Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide, emphasis mine
There is literally no excuse for making a character that would break this guideline.
It's kinda cool that I can say "don't be a jerk is RAW"
now we need a FAQ about what jerk means
|
|
Diplomacy as a class skill is only a trait away for a charisma based skill...
During a running of a given scenario, I was pretty confident my bard could skate through L1 without having to put points into Diplomacy because of his 18 Charisma, both because of character background and skill-point deficit.
Well, let's just say that was quite the eye-opener. See my comment above about the barbarian with 6 CHA having the highest roll at the table.
It wasn't pretty, but thankfully we didn't death-vagrant.
|
|
I'm not saying that a player shouldn't get clarification from a GM about how the GM runs their game.Even in PFS where there are no official house rules there are too many subtle nuances in how each individual dm runs things to ask about them all. People also tend to internalize rules and just take how they usually play and their own culture of gaming as a given.
But you seem to be saying that they should stay quiet no matter what.I am not only not saying that, i am not saying anything that could reasonably be taken to say that.
What I'm saying is that a player may have very good reasons for staying quiet that do not involve being a jerk or disrupting the table through omission: they may be trying to HELP their party. Or they may figure they get enough spotlight time while bathing int he blood of decapitated orcs they don't need the spotlight now. There are a range of factors including good, positive gaming philosophies that could be what lead to someone clamming up during the role play.
By extension, I'm pointing out a very worrying trend in this thread where people are incredibly quick to label anything different from their own behavior as jerkish.
That's fair enough. I suppose I just don't see the issue with, the first time the situation comes up in the scenario, saying something like, "I would like to try to aid another, but not if there's a chance I could actually hurt the situation." And if necessary, adding, "Will a low roll to aid result in a negative impact?" to be clear it's an out of character question about the rules. The GM will either say, "Yes, you could hurt things," or "No, you can't hurt things, how would you like to aid?" Or some variation or combination of the two.
Diplomacy as a class skill is only a trait away for a charisma based skill...
Sorcerers get 2+Int skill points and Int is not a necessary stat for them for anything else. It's entirely reasonable to think that they may just rely on their natural Charsima for something like Diplomacy and instead put their skill points elsewhere, especially at 1st level. Someone who takes a trait to get Diplomacy as a class skill is making a character focused on Diplomacy. We're talking about whether or not characters who aren't focused on Diplomacy should participate in those situations. I'm just pointing out that when ruled that way, even a charismatic character has a chance to hurt the situation, therefore there would be times when that character would want to keep silent as well.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've *sat* at tables where half the party was exp-grubbing lumps, not saying anything, not doing anything except wait for the next combat to erupt, and then have them say afterwards "Felt like I couldn't do anything, so I kept quiet."
Wow, that's not the least bit judgmental. It's a good thing for the rest of us that you've sussed out the one true way to play and to participate in PFS scenarios. I've sat at tables with shy people (hell, I've been the shy person before) that want to be around other people and be social, but are too shy to roleplay. Given time, some of those "exp-grubbing lumps" might decide to make a social character, might try to participate more in the non-combat aspects of the game. But not if you are judging them and acting like a snob.
There are many different ways to play the game, just because their way is different doesn't make it wrong.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've *sat* at tables where half the party was exp-grubbing lumps, not saying anything, not doing anything except wait for the next combat to erupt, and then have them say afterwards "Felt like I couldn't do anything, so I kept quiet."
So what do you want them to do? They, by whatever means, get the impression that the antics they would get their character into at a wedding...."GROCK NO CUT CAKE ! Adamantine sword no match for staleness of bakers failures!" would be a detriment to other peoples experience by making them lose out on prestige points, miss faction missions, take the spot light off of their taldan fop schmoozing, or change the tone of the game from drama to comedy.
And if they DON"T do clam up, then they're a jerk for NOT reading that someone really wanted to play a drama/really needed the two prestige points/ had a character that meshed perfectly well with the chronicle boon.
And if they bring in a socialite character with a higher diplomacy mod than anyone else they're a jerk for doing something better than the other guy.
I mean seriously, look at this thread. There is NO possible way to sit at the same table and play a game with all of these people without someone considering you a jerk for SOMETHING.
Or, if you're not willing to invest some effort in an event you're already spending time (and possibly money, depending on convention) sitting at, why are you there?
Didn't read the scenario blurb
Only have 1 characterOnly have 1 character in tier
Only game they haven't played in the slot
Only one game tonight
Phrenology
Needed to get character up a level to make tier on the next slot
my friend really really wants to play this one and I'm humoring them
Getting out of the level 6 dolrum
Started role playing my character and got death glares from the
Has played the scenario before, knows there are things you can say/not say for bonuses/penalties and is trying to avoid steering the party. (I made a fox form fighter that doesn't talk just for this sort of thing)
socialites so I dialed it back a bit...