| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It could be said that there are two sometimes-complimentary drives at work with something like Pathfinder: there's a communal act of storytelling, and there's a goal-oriented win-or-lose game. A compelling story can have all kinds of different heroes and anti-heroes and not-quite-heroes, it can have wins and losses, it can have all kinds of protagonists. A game has players that want to win, want to contribute to the win, and often wish to be MVP. Leaving aside any kind of judgement about what's "right" - because that's just a question of what, on balance, brings the most entertainment or fun or power-trip-fantasy catharsis - it's worthwhile to consider where the balance lies between these two drives.Sure. Those aren't mutually contradictory, though. You don't even have a finite pool of points to distribute between them. Some people care little for either, and some people care a huge amount about both, and some care about one only because of the other.
I certainly wouldn't say that they're flat-out contradictory, and yet.... A major objective of good storytelling is to work with tension and loss and conflict, to use protagonists who are flawed or even fatally flawed, and to be sometimes ruthless in destroying things that the teller or listener is invested in; stories with systematically strong and competent protagonists who systematically overcome their opposition aren't typically all that interesting. On the other side of the coin, the most basic objective of a player in a game is to win as completely and expediently as possible.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
OTOH, making a tactically unsound decision in a life-or-death situation because it fits the character's personality, motivations and objectives is good roleplaying.
The "trying to clothesline the invisible guy" sounds like a bad decision both tactically and for character reasons - at least without more insight into the character's motivation for doing so than was given.
Still, tactically unsound decisions happen in the real world, despite people trying to stay alive. They happen in genre fiction all the time.
Even in dangerous situations, even with trained people, they can react differently, based on personality, not just on perfect tactics. The idea that good roleplay is also the same as good tactics because you're roleplaying trying to stay alive doesn't work for me.
If your game is heavily focused on the tactical challenge, then it's easy and probably best to keep the two close - play characters who are tactically skilled, paranoid and overprepared. That way the roleplay of those characters and the needed tactics match up.Personally, I like a game where the tactical challenge is dialed back enough that I can intentionally make mistakes that my characters would make: Maybe one is reckless and overconfident. Another has his culture's notions of honor that keep him from taking advantage of his opponent's errors. Maybe another is too cautious and a little cowardly. Flaws. The stuff characters are made of.
Sure... I'm not saying that "good tactics = good roleplaying", what I'm saying that making an stupid decision just because it's different isn't good roleplaying either. And if it puts your party's life at risk, it's selfish.
But if a character is consistently incompetent, then it'd be good roleplay from the party to kick him out. For the safety of both the party and the character.
|
I certainly wouldn't say that they're flat-out contradictory, and yet.... A major objective of good storytelling is to work with tension and loss and conflict, to use protagonists who are flawed or even fatally flawed, and to be sometimes ruthless in destroying things that the teller or listener is invested in; stories with systematically strong and competent protagonists who systematically overcome their opposition aren't typically all that interesting. On the other side of the coin, the most basic objective of a player in a game is to win as completely and expediently as possible.
You'e still thinking of it like a continuum between two points, though. My point is that that's not true, it's way more complicated than that.
One group of people (and I'd consider myself a member of this one a lot of the time) might get really into character, play smart characters, and try and optimize their chances of success in various endeavors purely because that's what their character would do and not mind at all OOC when other people behave differently, or when all their plans are for naught because of circumstances or smart enemies (both as added by the GM for drama). They might well even enjoy situations where their plans fall apart and they have to improvise. They might be very happy OOC with a story-oriented approach, their character is just aiming for being systematically strong and systematically overcoming opposition.
Another group might think that it's the responsibility of the GM to add story and danger, their responsibility is to make characters who are powerful enough to effect the story in question in a meaningful fashion. They think that the game should definitely be story-based, but that it's the GM's responsibility to make it so in response to their characters' stats, not that they need to do so themselves in any mechanical way.
A third might think that the 'systematically overcoming their opposition' bit should definitely be the default, while failure and destroying things they care about should be reserved for special occasions. There are quite a lot of very popular TV Shows that follow this format, actually, so I'd expect it to be a pretty common expectation. It works fine, too, with most of the spotlight time in most sessions being on the PCs succeeding and roleplaying with each other and various NPCs, and the contrast between that and when things get serious highlighting the drama.
None of these are exactly one or the other, or even midway between the two 'styles of play' you're talking about. Now, talking about what style of play you enjoy with your gaming group is a wonderful idea, but I think trying to simplify it into 'Which do you prefer, story or mechanical efficiency?' does way more harm than good.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something to consider is that the Pathfinder RPG does not have a mechanic that rewards sub-optimal play. If your backstory says you're scared of zombies, then the first encounter against zombies, you cower for a round as your action (by choice), there's nothing that rewards you for this, other than positive reinforcement from your GM or fellow players. The system itself though will punish you, by giving the zombies two turns. Instead, the system's reward would be for violating your backstory and just attacking the zombies.I would argue that if you're looking for a mechanical reward for all role-playing decisions that you make for your character, you're likely a roll-player.
If the negative stigma around the term roll-player can be reduced, then people who are roll-players won't feel the need to not claim the title.
Which will ultimately make it much easier to form cohesive groups and have successful campaigns.
You mistake what I'm going for. I don't look for mechanical reward as a player, I look for mechanical reward as a game designer. My post is about the theory behind why a game is the way it is. I couldn't care less about who you think is a roleplayer or a rollplayer or even want to define those terms. They're irrelevant to me.
What's relevant to me is how the game encourages or discourages certain kinds of behavior.
Can you give me a mechanical example of how the game system encourages players to make purposely bad decisions in the story?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I certainly wouldn't say that they're flat-out contradictory, and yet.... A major objective of good storytelling is to work with tension and loss and conflict, to use protagonists who are flawed or even fatally flawed, and to be sometimes ruthless in destroying things that the teller or listener is invested in; stories with systematically strong and competent protagonists who systematically overcome their opposition aren't typically all that interesting. On the other side of the coin, the most basic objective of a player in a game is to win as completely and expediently as possible.You'e still thinking of it like a continuum between two points, though. My point is that that's not true, it's way more complicated than that.
I'm not at all saying it's some simple one-or-the-other issue.
However everything else aside, it's a simple fact that if I was writing a collaborative story and was in charge of a character, I might well make all kinds of decisions about that character that I simply would not make if I was trying to use that character to accomplish objectives in a game. As a storyteller, I may have a brilliant plan for a character whose tragic flaw brings about his demise; try squaring that with success in game terms. So while game-playing and role-playing can be complementary, there is also, as I said before, potential tension. I think people are often so completely accustomed to hero-mode game-playing role-playing that the idea of doing anything else doesn't really even process - storytelling and role-playing is incidental to accomplishing objectives.
|
|
I'm not at all saying it's some simple one-or-the-other issue.
I'm glad that's not your intent, but your posts do come off that way a little at times.
However everything else aside, it's a simple fact that if I was writing a collaborative story and was in charge of a character, I might well make all kinds of decisions about that character that I simply would not make if I was trying to use that character to accomplish objectives in a game.
Right, but would they be the kind of choices you actually make as a player in an RPG, or would they be more things that are the GM's place there? Because a lot of the things you do to make a story interesting are the GMs job in a traditional RPG. The character making emotional or illogical decisions is about the only one that's really within your purview as a player in most games.
As a storyteller, I may have a brilliant plan for a character whose tragic flaw brings about his demise; try squaring that with success in game terms. So while game-playing and role-playing can be complementary, there is also, as I said before, potential tension.
Potentially? Sure, depending on the game anyway.
I think people are often so completely accustomed to hero-mode game-playing role-playing that the idea of doing anything else doesn't really even process - storytelling and role-playing is incidental to accomplishing objectives.
If you find this to be an issue, I highly recommend FATE or a few other games. FATE's a good example of what Irontruth is trying to get at where due to the way Fate Points work and how you get them (basically, by doing things that are bad ideas or having things happen to your character that are not good, but at the GM's urging and based on the personality and nature of the character in question), it's suddenly mechanically optimal to play things in a more story-driven way as opposed to trying to succeed per se. The whole game is based around doing so.
Adding something similar to Pathfinder is very possible, and a good way to get people thinking in that 'mode' if you want to try something different. Having mechanics that actually reward that sort of play style rather than punish it goes a long way to getting everyone into the right headspace.
This absolutely increases metagaming, of course (since the whole point is that you get mechanical rewards in a metagame currency for things that hurt your character), and drops immersion some as well (since you, the player, are now making decisions over things your character doesn't necessarily feel they have control over), but it makes for a much better 'collaborative storytelling' sorta thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something to consider is that the Pathfinder RPG does not have a mechanic that rewards sub-optimal play. If your backstory says you're scared of zombies, then the first encounter against zombies, you cower for a round as your action (by choice), there's nothing that rewards you for this, other than positive reinforcement from your GM or fellow players. The system itself though will punish you, by giving the zombies two turns. Instead, the system's reward would be for violating your backstory and just attacking the zombies.I would argue that if you're looking for a mechanical reward for all role-playing decisions that you make for your character, you're likely a roll-player.
If the negative stigma around the term roll-player can be reduced, then people who are roll-players won't feel the need to not claim the title.
Which will ultimately make it much easier to form cohesive groups and have successful campaigns.
I would argue that making bad decision in combat is actually poor roleplaying if you know better, and that is a hinderance to good gaming unless the GM is holding your hand.
I would also argue that my above statement does not promote good will between board members, but neither does calling someone a roll-player.
What's relevant to me is how the game encourages or discourages certain kinds of behavior.
I understand that - I'm saying that looking at the issue through the filter of "how am I rewarded for this" means you're already on one side of the issue.
I would furthermore state that a lot of people view role-playing in that manner. If you have a group full of people who all view the game in this way, you've already avoided one potential obstacle in trying to have a successful campaign.
That's where the labels help.
I would also argue that my above statement does not promote good will between board members, but neither does calling someone a roll-player.
Only if roll-player is a negative term. And why should it be? Everyone has their preference as to the type of game/group they want to be in.
What I am after is clarity. If I am looking for a campaign as a player, it helps to know if the GM would like the players to make characters with certain RP fears/goals/personality traits without expecting mechanical compensation for such.
On the flipside, it also helps to know if the GM doesn't expect players to have any of those things as there is no mechanical compensation for such.
This is why I was stating that it would be helpful to drop the negative associations with these words and actually use them to convey game style preferences.
|
|
But as I've said repeatedly, the lack of mechanical reinforcement doesn't mean you can't or even shouldn't do the same in Pathfinder. I don't like such narrative mechanics - because of the very metagame issues you point out, but I like flawed characters anyway.
No, but it inevitably means that many people won't. In real life, people have serious emotional stakes in play that cause them to act in various ways that don't make a lot of sense, but few games get people quite as involved as all that with their characters on a deep emotional level, or encourage particularly emotional characters.
This in no way means you can't do so, of course, but it means you'll be objectively less effective by doing so, and also means that there's no incentive to, for example, ever let yourself be persuaded of things by NPCs. Which is actually pretty unrealistic since there are very real emotional incentives for such things in real life.
To me, having the mechanics is like a crutch. It's a way to push people who don't like doing that kind of thing into doing it. Sure, it encourages the behavior, but once you're used to doing it you don't need the crutch.
That's far from the only thing having such mechanics does, though. It means means that people who do such things and make such choices will actually do better and be more effective in achieving their goals, which is much more true to the fiction, and (as noted above) actually tend to make the actual set of things that happen (particularly in the realm of social interaction) more realistic as well.
In short, it rewards such behavior. And any game system that doesn't reward the sort of thing you want to see people doing is probably doing something wrong.
All assuming your group is into it of course. There are lots of ways to play PF. If you're all focused on enjoying the tactical challenge, where one false move means death, don't do this.
I think that what game you're playing can and should impact that, though. If I want rules-lite story-focused play (even sans meta-mechanics) where the PCs let their particular flaws drive them, I'd never use Pathfinder. There are a lot of systems that are good at that, but Pathfinder really isn't one of them.
And a large part of that is the basic story dynamic of most Pathfinder games. Frankly, in most Pathfinder games, the PCs are what amounts to a mercenary company. Not in the sense of being driven by profit (though they sometimes are), but in the sense of being a self-selected band of people who go do dangerous things for money. And survive.
Doing a lot of emotional or stupid things in that environment when actively adventuring strikes me as the kind of thing that gets people dead or kicked out of the group really quickly, from a purely IC realism perspective. Now, what they do when they're back in town is another matter, but I just legitimately don't think a lot of illogical or overly emotional behavior while working is the kind of thing a group like that would have. While they weren't working? Sure. But I see that happen all the time, even among people who are pretty deeply invested in optimization and 'winning the game'.
A different milieu would be another matter, but generally, I'd advocate using a different system for a milieu that was that different.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I understand that - I'm saying that looking at the issue through the filter of "how am I rewarded for this" means you're already on one side of the issue.
No it doesn't. Wanting the game to reward people for playing your game in the intended manner is good game design, not a particular perspective on whether people should be focused on mechanics over story.
To put it another way: A good and experienced GM can run any game in any style and have a good game.
But a well designed game that focuses on a certain style of play? A mediocre (or completely inexperienced) GM can run that game in that style, and everyone who plays will still have a good experience, because the game itself reinforces the expectations the players have about that style of play.
If a GM has no idea what they're doing, they'll run Pathfinder and get a game where players kill monsters and get treasure. The story may or may not be good, but the basic game assumptions will be intact. Similarly, if a GM with no idea what they're doing runs FATE, the PCs will all have a pretty complete characterization (if not necessarily background), and will be strongly incentivized to do a variety of things in an in-character manner even when it is to their disadvantage. Because that's a basic game assumption of that system.
I would furthermore state that a lot of people view role-playing in that manner. If you have a group full of people who all view the game in this way, you've already avoided one potential obstacle in trying to have a successful campaign.
But that's the thing, no, it doesn't. The whole point of a mechanic like that is that it'll allow people who just want to play out their characters flaws and those who care about the mechanical advantage of doing so to play characters in the same general way and engage in the same game together without issue. It's to get everyone on the same page and in the same headspace despite divergent gaming styles. and, for the record, it works pretty well for that IME.
That's where the labels help.
Labels only help if they're remotely accurate. Roll-player is horribly misused most of the time and oversimplifies what it's trying to convey to boot. It is not a useful term.
Only if roll-player is a negative term. And why should it be? Everyone has their preference as to the type of game/group they want to be in.
It's a negative term, dude. Trust me. I have literally never seen it used (except possibly by you) in a way that was not extremely insulting to the people it was being used to refer to (occasionally including myself). I'm gonna go out on a limb based on your post history, and assume you do not self-identify as a roll-player. That being the case, and given its near-constant use a pejorative, you have absolutely no right to try and tell people they should stop being offended by it.
That's (on a way less than 1% as severe scale, mind you), like saying people who get racial slurs hurled at them should just 'reclaim the words' and use them themselves when you're a white guy (and using them yourself in such a way). You just don't get to say that unless you're a member of the group in question. It's not appropriate.
What I am after is clarity. If I am looking for a campaign as a player, it helps to know if the GM would like the players to make characters with certain RP fears/goals/personality traits without expecting mechanical compensation for such.
If you want clarity of any sort, you're gonna need way more than two labels. I love roleplaying (I was just talking with you in another thread about how I dropped a game since it was nothing but a dungeon crawl), and find long-term tactical wargaming inexpressibly dull, but I'm pretty sure the fact that I care about how the system I'm playing in actually works, and enjoy fiddling with said system, throws me onto the 'rollplayer' side in a lot of people's minds.
It's just not as simple as a binary choice, and trying to make it that way just encourages an 'us vs. them' mentality and divisiveness in the community.
On the flipside, it also helps to know if the GM doesn't expect players to have any of those things as there is no mechanical compensation for such.
It does, and this is why a 'Session 0' where game assumptions are discussed is super important for any game. But the discussion is way more complicated than a simple binary choice, and is not helped by trying to simplify everything in that fashion.
This is why I was stating that it would be helpful to drop the negative associations with these words and actually use them to convey game style preferences.
Again, I don't think you get to say this, for reasons noted above. Nor do I think it's useful.
|
|
I don't necessarily disagree with most of that, though as I said I really dislike the metagame aspect of a lot of games that are supposedly aimed at what I want.
That's fair. It can definitely be an issue with many of them.
Nor do I really think "rules-lite" is actually relevant to this.
Oh, I think it is. The more complicated the rules are, the more they tend to reward system mastery. And the more that's true, the more focus there inevitably is on rules. So, if aiming for a very non-rules focused game, well, I would use something a bit simpler.
That said, our experience of PF (going back into years of D&D as well) is very different. I've never played an actual mercenary company. Even "doing dangerous things for money" has been pretty rare. Tends to be more a "group of people thrown together by circumstance doing dangerous things because they need to be done". We get loot out of it, because that's part of the game and you need the gear to keep up, but it's rarely a character's actual motivation.
Makes firing one guy and looking for a new hire somewhat different.
I've dunno, most of the games I've played in, the PCs may start out like that, but rapidly develop a reputation as problem solvers and are then, well, asked to solve problems by people as the game progresses.
Not necessarily for money per se (I actually misspoke there a little), but definitely in a planned and ongoing fashion. A 'this is a mission and we do this as a regular thing' kind of attitude seems to develop pretty readily. You're right that it's not necessarily for money, but if it's not, it's usually about something more important (like saving the world) and in that case, the tendency to not want a screwup around is even greater, if anything.
Not quoting you DMW because I think your post has a chance of being moderated, but I did want to respond to a few points.
- I'm not trying to tell anyone to not be offended by being labeled in one way or another. My point is that different people like different styles of play. Rather than having to describe your game preferences in numerous paragraphs, having labels can be helpful.
- I don't see the divisions that occur from game style preferences as being an "us" versus "them" issue. Some people like to start their characters at level 3 or 5 or higher, I prefer level 1. Knowing this ahead of time is helpful.
- Session 0's typically occur after the player roster is already set. Finding you have vastly different game style preferences at this point can be very disruptive - much better to discover and eliminate concerns before session 0 IMO.
On the idea of not going with the most optimal strategy in combat:
I don't think it is "wrong" to go for the cinematic, but suboptimal tactic, nor is it wrong to go for what is a better tactical idea.
However when people are two far apart on how they want to play the game and/or to far apart on how lenient they expect the GM to be it can cause a problem.
If the GM is going to account for you doing flavorful things in combat, that are not tactically efficient then you can take some risk. However, if the monsters are being played as if they are real people who are trying to survive you might live, and still get someone else killed. It is very understandable for someone to not want their character to die when you could have prevented it.
Rather than get mad at the guy who goes for a trip vs trying to finish off the almost dead NPC who has been giving the party hell, the group may need to have an OoC chat about how things are going to be done.
At some point adjustments just have to be made.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not quoting you DMW because I think your post has a chance of being moderated, but I did want to respond to a few points.
I suppose we'll see. :)
I'm not trying to tell anyone to not be offended by being labeled in one way or another. My point is that different people like different styles of play. Rather than having to describe your game preferences in numerous paragraphs, having labels can be helpful.
And I don't disagree necessarily. I just think using what's generally considered a pejorative as one of them brings a lot of unnecessary baggage along, and that two terms are such an oversimplification they'll cause more harm than good.
The old 'narrativist', 'gamist', 'simulationist' distinction was better than that, and even then, probably way simpler than it should be to properly convey anything.
I don't see the divisions that occur from game style preferences as being an "us" versus "them" issue. Some people like to start their characters at level 3 or 5 or higher, I prefer level 1. Knowing this ahead of time is helpful.
I don't disagree, but the oversimplification of terms you're arguing for will do more harm than good. I didn't say you were advocating using it to create an 'us vs. them' dynamic, I said that's what they'd result in, given the general tone of every discussion I've ever seen regarding the distinction in question.
Session 0's typically occur after the player roster is already set. Finding you have vastly different game style preferences at this point can be very disruptive - much better to discover and eliminate concerns before session 0 IMO.
Advocate including game style in the pitch, then. That's certainly what I do. My issue isn't with labeling, it;s the particular labels you're using, both in terms of terminology and number. For them to actually be effective and informative, they need different terms, and you need more of them.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
I don't necessarily disagree with most of that, though as I said I really dislike the metagame aspect of a lot of games that are supposedly aimed at what I want. Nor do I really think "rules-lite" is actually relevant to this.That said, our experience of PF (going back into years of D&D as well) is very different. I've never played an actual mercenary company. Even "doing dangerous things for money" has been pretty rare. Tends to be more a "group of people thrown together by circumstance doing dangerous things because they need to be done". We get loot out of it, because that's part of the game and you need the gear to keep up, but it's rarely a character's actual motivation.
Makes firing one guy and looking for a new hire somewhat different.
Yeah, I wouldn't use the term "mercenary" either. There is a much better term.
Lets face it, your "typical" group of PCs are a small, tightly knit team of elite warriors, whose vast repertoire of skills and aptitude for unconventional combat allow them to hurt entities far more vast and powerful than themselves, inflicting damage disproportionate to the relatively limited resources at their disposal.
You know what that sounds an awful lot like? Do you know who are expected to be able to do that sort of thing in real life.
Special Forces.
Shockingly enough, if the PCs are the fantasy equivalent of a squad of SAS commandos, then they are going to tend to act like SAS commandos. It's likely that the theme of heroes defeating evil through their bravery and valor will take a back seat to the theme of professional killers delivering the precise application of overwhelming force against adversaries ill prepared to oppose a magical fantasy strike team. While on they are "on the job", the PCs will tend to stop being individuals who have their own personal quirks, and start being professionals who are ruthlessly goal orientated to the exclusion of all else. That's how most people who aren't completely unhinged are going to act if they are thrust into the sorts of situations most PCs are stuck in (if they manage to survive long enough to adjust, that is).
Let me repeat that. It's important.
If you are relatively sane, have a strong desire to not die* while doing incredibly dangerous things, and are the sort of person to work towards your desires, then you are probably going to start behaving like a special forces commando sooner or later if you go through what most PCs go through in a typical campaign.
Naturally, since real people would tend to behave a certain way, PCs are also going to tend to behave the same way. In this case, "a certain way" means being completely focused on succeeding even if it means disregarding all personal quirks, because living is far and away more important than characterization. Because of this, the majority of players will tend to show up with characters that are well adjusted to the life of an SAS commando (as reflected by their detached personality and their optimized stats). Often, the alternative is to roleplay a character being emotionally destroyed so they can survive or someone so mentally defective that they don't end up being an SAS commando. That isn't to say that there isn't any middle ground where you can be extremely capable and have an interesting personality which comes out often, but you have to seriously work at finding it. Most players don't bother (amazingly enough), and just roll up fantasy Delta Force operators to run through a campaign.
*not to mention having a desire to stop evil from doing horrible things to countless others. Not focusing on the task at hand tends to hurt your chances there, which is another reason to play "fantasy commando hour".
The old 'narrativist', 'gamist', 'simulationist' distinction was better than that, and even then, probably way simpler than it should be to properly convey anything.
No label is ever going to perfectly encapsulate a person's preferences, but they do help to set a range.
When I advertise for games, I usually include mention that I started gaming on Basic D&D and that my GM style is more informed by editions of D&D prior to 3.0 than those after. Some times I use the term "Old School Gamer."
Either way, everyone is going to draw conclusions based on those statements. Some conclusions will be spot-on and some will not. The perspective player that is concerned based on those statements will likely not sign up to play.
And that's okay.
Advocate including game style in the pitch, then. That's certainly what I do. My issue isn't with labeling, it;s the particular labels you're using, both in terms of terminology and number. For them to actually be effective and informative, they need different terms, and you need more of them.
Fair enough - you feel that certain labels are so connected with negative associations that they cannot be used in a neutral manner to depict general game style preference.
While we could create new terms, and try to popularize them, there will always be people that don't like the terms. I imagine that eventually negative associations with some of those words will become prevalent.
Then we'd be right back to where we started.
But to your point of including game style preference in the pitch, I definitely do that as well. I just feel that the labels help fill in the blanks regarding my general GM outlook.
On the idea of not going with the most optimal strategy in combat:
I don't think it is "wrong" to go for the cinematic, but suboptimal tactic, nor is it wrong to go for what is a better tactical idea.
However when people are two far apart on how they want to play the game and/or to far apart on how lenient they expect the GM to be it can cause a problem.
If the GM is going to account for you doing flavorful things in combat, that are not tactically efficient then you can take some risk. However, if the monsters are being played as if they are real people who are trying to survive you might live, and still get someone else killed. It is very understandable for someone to not want their character to die when you could have prevented it.
Rather than get mad at the guy who goes for a trip vs trying to finish off the almost dead NPC who has been giving the party hell, the group may need to have an OoC chat about how things are going to be done.
At some point adjustments just have to be made.
Absolutely.
Though I'll add that it might not need to be changing the "monsters are being played as if they are real people who are trying to survive", but just using slightly weaker opponents.
OTOH, just because the monsters are trying to survive doesn't make them unemotional tactical robot geniuses either. Much like PCs, NPCs can make mistakes and do non-optimal things based on their own personalities and assumptions.
True. As a GM I sometimes make stupid mistakes. I just let it stand. As an example I had a monster not flank because I forgot to do it. In game it can be looked at as a miscommunication which can happen in real life combat.
True. As a GM I sometimes make stupid mistakes. I just let it stand. As an example I had a monster not flank because I forgot to do it. In game it can be looked at as a miscommunication which can happen in real life combat.On the idea of not going with the most optimal strategy in combat:
I don't think it is "wrong" to go for the cinematic, but suboptimal tactic, nor is it wrong to go for what is a better tactical idea.
However when people are two far apart on how they want to play the game and/or to far apart on how lenient they expect the GM to be it can cause a problem.
If the GM is going to account for you doing flavorful things in combat, that are not tactically efficient then you can take some risk. However, if the monsters are being played as if they are real people who are trying to survive you might live, and still get someone else killed. It is very understandable for someone to not want their character to die when you could have prevented it.
Rather than get mad at the guy who goes for a trip vs trying to finish off the almost dead NPC who has been giving the party hell, the group may need to have an OoC chat about how things are going to be done.
At some point adjustments just have to be made.
Absolutely.
Though I'll add that it might not need to be changing the "monsters are being played as if they are real people who are trying to survive", but just using slightly weaker opponents.
OTOH, just because the monsters are trying to survive doesn't make them unemotional tactical robot geniuses either. Much like PCs, NPCs can make mistakes and do non-optimal things based on their own personalities and assumptions.I see a huge difference between the player (or GM) making mistakes and a character (PC or NPC) making mistakes. One is just an error, the other can be proper for the character.
To take the most blatant and obvious example: monsters with animal intelligence shouldn't be...
One thing I do try to do is play things at their int level.
Another thing is that people do have egos and can get cocky*, but most people don't do that when their lives are on the line.*I play that up depending on the villain, and have him start prolonging the inevitable win that he thinks he has in his pocket.
However if I am using trained soldiers or a race such as hobgoblins that are militaristic I don't intentionally make any mistakes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely.
Though I'll add that it might not need to be changing the "monsters are being played as if they are real people who are trying to survive", but just using slightly weaker opponents.
OTOH, just because the monsters are trying to survive doesn't make them unemotional tactical robot geniuses either. Much like PCs, NPCs can make mistakes and do non-optimal things based on their own personalities and assumptions.
This I agree with wholeheartedly. Int and combat experience should definitely both play a role in how well the monsters can manage tactically, and they should definitely make mistakes when appropriate.
Heck, a major bad guy in my last game (a 16th level Wizard) died simply because he didn't know the PCs capabilities (he had 8th level spells, but used a 7th not knowing the 14th level Arcanist had Instant Action Counterspells, and then moved past a PC in full armor with a greatsword assuming he'd only get one AoO...not knowing he'd been using a Glaive until recently and had combat Reflexes. It ended poorly).
Well, damn I've been doing it wrong all these years. I guess my characters aren't "relatively sane".
Look, I'm here because of genre fiction mostly and I really don't find that kind of approach common in the stories that brought me into gaming. I'm not emulating real life people in these circumstances. I'm emulating genre fiction. I'm far more interested in "heroes defeating evil through bravery and valor". To the extent you have to "stop being individuals who have their own personal quirks, and start being professionals who are ruthlessly goal orientated to the exclusion of all else", I stop being interested in the game.
Sure, the pure tactical thing can be interesting for a change, but it's not at all what draws me back.
There's a happy medium here, and frankly one often found in genre fiction. Which is being very goal oriented when actively fighting or the like, but pretty normal otherwise.
Becoming completely without personality whenever there's a hint of a mission, IMO, is a bit much even in terms of real Special Forces, never mind most PCs (who tend to lack formal training to quite that degree)...but at the same time, experienced warriors will (quite reasonably) usually put personal feelings aside in the actual midst of combat, or other high danger and high stress situations.
Or to put it another way: I generally expect that by 4th level or so, PCs are professionals at violence, and will generally act in a professional manner. They won't let their emotions control them in most fights, will fight in a tactical manner with their close comrades, and will work together well to avoid anyone dying. That doesn't necessarily mean they won't behave in ways particular to their character, but it does generally mean those ways will be...perhaps more cosmetic than functional.
For example, I just finished running CotCT. I'd say that by the end, the PCs were very professional, fighting like a well-oiled machine for the most part. That didn't keep the Gnome Sorcerer from being deeply theatrical (as was his general style) at almost every opportunity, or the Daring Champion Cavalier from repeatedly insulting the enemy and kicking fallen foes in the crotch (he was kind of an ass), but it did mean they didn't let those tendencies get in the way of business. The Gnome was only loudly theatrical once combat was already engaged (not when they were sneaking) and the Cavalier didn't let his dickish tendencies out to play when they would stop him from being effective in combat. They were professionals, after all.
And that's really, I think, what Snowblind was advocating as much as anything. It's certainly what I generally see as appropriate and believable in the circumstances. And, frankly, I'm actually having a hard time thinking of any good genre fiction where the characters don't behave as professionals after having been fighting together awhile. I mean, off the top of my head, The Dresden Files, Lord of the Rings, SM Stirling's novels of The Change, Pathfinder Tales City of the Fallen Sky...in all of these any groups that fight together more than a couple times get pretty professional about it real quick.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No label is ever going to perfectly encapsulate a person's preferences, but they do help to set a range.
Sure. I just think the two you're advocating here are super bad and will do more harm than good. the fact that it can't be perfect doesn't mean it can't be either good or bad. I think the labels you've been advocating are a bad idea.
NoWhen I advertise for games, I usually include mention that I started gaming on Basic D&D and that my GM style is more informed by editions of D&D prior to 3.0 than those after. Some times I use the term "Old School Gamer."
Either way, everyone is going to draw conclusions based on those statements. Some conclusions will be spot-on and some will not. The perspective player that is concerned based on those statements will likely not sign up to play.
And that's okay.
Sure. I wouldn't dream of saying otherwise.
NoFair enough - you feel that certain labels are so connected with negative associations that they cannot be used in a neutral manner to depict general game style preference.
While we could create new terms, and try to popularize them, there will always be people that don't like the terms. I imagine that eventually negative associations with some of those words will become prevalent.
Then we'd be right back to where we started.
Well, that's only half my issue. the other is that it's pretty non-specific. I think you can get way more specific without getting too arcane.
Some examples:
"Story and character focused, serious tone, high optimization level probably required to deal with high lethality of enemies. Social skills very relevant."
"Beer and pretzels game. Humorous tone, don't sweat the small stuff, build for fun not optimization. Mostly dungeon crawling."
"Entirely character focused, expect personally tailored adventures, horror, and psychodrama. Very dark tone (discuss any elements you don't want touched on with GM in advance, or they might come up). Medium optimization level, but skills in general likely to be super important."
Those are all infinitely more useful than any references to 'role-playing' or 'roll-playing'. I came up with all three in about five minutes.
NoBut to your point of including game style preference in the pitch, I definitely do that as well. I just feel that the labels help fill in the blanks regarding my general GM outlook.
Eh...even there, I wouldn't find them super helpful. I definitely don't want to play with what I think of as a 'roll-player', but anyone who used 'role-player' specifically to distinguish themselves from that sounds potentially pretentious enough that I'd have doubts there too.
What's relevant to me is how the game encourages or discourages certain kinds of behavior.I understand that - I'm saying that looking at the issue through the filter of "how am I rewarded for this" means you're already on one side of the issue.
I would furthermore state that a lot of people view role-playing in that manner. If you have a group full of people who all view the game in this way, you've already avoided one potential obstacle in trying to have a successful campaign.
That's where the labels help.
Have you ever played Fiasco?
But as I've said repeatedly, the lack of mechanical reinforcement doesn't mean you can't or even shouldn't do the same in Pathfinder. I don't like such narrative mechanics - because of the very metagame issues you point out, but I like flawed characters anyway.
To me, having the mechanics is like a crutch. It's a way to push people who don't like doing that kind of thing into doing it. Sure, it encourages the behavior, but once you're used to doing it you don't need the crutch.All assuming your group is into it of course. There are lots of ways to play PF. If you're all focused on enjoying the tactical challenge, where one false move means death, don't do this.
I kind of concur, but approach it slightly differently.
Certain games do certain things better. You can make a game do something else, but it's going to require more effort to do it and results will be less consistent.
My favorite game ever to run as a GM is Mythender. It's a game about killing gods and in the very first session, you WILL kill a god. The game is about survival vs free will vs power. You have to make choices that determine which of those three things is most valuable to your character and those choices will have mechanical impacts later in the game. In a 4 hour session we can make characters, have an intro battle, engage in multiple roleplaying scenes and finally battle against a god.
Now... I could try to run this game using the Pathfinder rules, but for one, I doubt we could even do character creation within 4 hours, especially if we're going to do believable characters that could kill a god. Then there's the issue of making interesting encounters for high level characters that you've never seen before, such encounters can be incredibly swingy, either too easy or too hard depending on a few variables. Of course, high level combats are rarely short affairs, so again, that 4 hour goal is pretty much out the window.
I could use Pathfinder, but the system is something I'd have to overcome to achieve my goals, it wouldn't be actively assisting me at every step along the way.
Pathfinder does not reward players for making suboptimal choices, it doesn't encourage that behavior at all. That doesn't mean the behavior can't exist, but as the GM, I have to be cognizant of this issue and put extra effort to make sure that I'm encouraging players to do interesting things, not just efficient things, if that's what I want. That encouragement might only be verbal/social, me saying that's really cool, if that's all it takes for some players. Other players might need more discrete rewards, like being offered narrative control over parts of the game, or Hero Points, or Plot Twist cards.
For me, I completely discarded the CR system and ignore monster building rules. We have a house rule XP system that's evolved since the late 80's that we use, which combat makes up about 30-40% of all earned XP. We're also using the Plot Twist cards, they get 1/level, 1 for updating the campaign journal, and if they play a plot twist card to create a problem for themselves, they immediately get to draw another card.
If we were playing Fate or Smallville, I wouldn't have to modify the game nearly as much.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Late to the party, but this is relevant, especially to the dialogue between Tormsskull and Deadmanwalking:
...in our Community Guidelines we have a line that says "There are all kinds of gamers here on paizo.com. Use of derogatory labels for other gamers can be hurtful and isolate others who enjoy different styles of play. You may find yourself in a debate on our messageboards, and disagreements are bound to happen. Focus on challenging the idea, rather than the others in the conversation. Remember that there’s another person on the other side of the screen. Please help us keep it fun!" This line was written expressly because we do not want people using pejoratives like "munchkin" or "rollplayers" and terms like "Paizo Defense Force."
(Bolding added.)
Well, that's only half my issue. the other is that it's pretty non-specific. I think you can get way more specific without getting too arcane.
Got it. For the record, after describing the theme of the campaign, my usual posting goes something like this: "Story-driven game, role-playing will be the main focus. If you are the kind of player that derives the majority of your enjoyment from combat or the mechanics of the game, this is not the campaign for you."
So far that has worked well to convey my preference of the type of players I am hoping to recruit.
Eh...even there, I wouldn't find them super helpful. I definitely don't want to play with what I think of as a 'roll-player', but anyone who used 'role-player' specifically to distinguish themselves from that sounds potentially pretentious enough that I'd have doubts there too.
To each their own. I try not to advertise negatively I.e. "Munchkins or powergamers are not welcome," as it comes off as rude, but as a player, I do look more favorably upon posts that indicate a role-playing over mechanics preference from the GM.
Late to the party, but this is relevant, especially to the dialogue between Tormsskull and Deadmanwalking:
I assume this is in reference to calling someone one of those names. I.e. "User A is a Munchkin," would not be appropriate. If what you quoted was supposed to imply a blanket censorship of the words, then this thread would probably have already been locked.
Agreed - which is why I don't think DMW or myself are violating the guideline you posted.
My apologies then - I misunderstood your statement.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why one cannot do both. I and others I have seen in the hobby have ND will continue to do both. It is easier to role play the social attributes vs the physical attributes. For example a low str will always be a character who both cannot hit or lift as much as a higher str character. Players who dump star Str, Con and dex find out the hard way that I don't ppull punches when it comes to combat.
Same thing with treasure a low str player in one of my Games was unhappy that he keput coming across heavy armor. It was a area where npcs made heavy use of it. Dead npcs breastplate or banded mail was not sudeeply going to morph into leather and a chain shirt.
If your going to build a PC in a certain fashion. Ignore any advice. Expect the DM to suddenly alter the treasure because of alow physical dump state. More often not its not going to happen. Build the character you want roleplay him the way you want.then also accept that certain choices made during character creation. MY also end up causing trouble for our character in the long one. Role laying WI get one out of certain situations at a gaming table. It's also not a gimmicks to succeed at everything either Imo.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Experience taught me that the people most interested in role playing their characters are very, very often the ones that like the game enough to research more about it and how to improve...
Yes, IME, optimizers are usually the best role players as well.
OTOH, the ones who call others "rollplayers" and/or "powergamers" are usually the most unimaginitive role players... Often unable or unwilling to portray their characters as anything other than their class description. "Want to be an sneaky scoundrel! You have to be Rogue, otherwise you're doing it wrong."
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've got to agree with thejeff for the most part here, I've definitely had some really good roleplayers who were mediocre at best at the system stuff.
I do have to agree with Lemmy's final point, though. A surprising number of the people who argue hardest against 'powergaming' seem to feel that the Class Descriptions are Holy Writ that Thou Shalt Not Violate. Which is super weird to me, since that's self-evidently not even remotely how Paizo handles NPCs of those Classes, never mind PCs.
@thejeff: without going to the narrative mechanics, or at least too overtly, changing the emphasis of the system or how it's handled away from "to the death" combat is the biggest way I've seen to encourage non-optimized thought.
Stake setting, where instead of the primary goal being "kill the other guy", but rather achieving something, puts the emphasis on that goal and away from just killing. Burning Wheel had a good overall method for this (I love ideas from the game, but the whole thing together is just too much for me). Each side states their goals, the winner achieves theirs. The loser gets part of their goal, depending on how close they got to winning (or some puzzle piece that assists them later on).
Remove the emphasis on all or nothing, grant partial success and you really open up the door to interesting choices, without having to rely on optimal choices.
@Irontruth: Seems like all you're doing in that scenario is just changing what the goal is though. Instead of optimizing for murder you'd optimize for.. other things.
The Stormwind Fallacy states that one cannot both roleplay and min/max at the same time.
Huh? That's the exact opposite of what the Stormwind Fallacy says.
I'll agree with DMW and Jeff. There's basically no correlation between the two. Or there is, but it's not very significant and more a matter of experience than playstyle. You might as well ask someone for their opinion on eating cheese vs driving a car.
That said, most of the power-gaming-munchkin-rollplayers I've encountered actually have really poor system mastery and their worst offenses tend to be rules that are read wrong or misinterpreted rather than exploited. Last story I read about one it turned out he had been fudging numbers constantly and giving himself feats that simply didn't exist and that has nothing to do with power gaming really.
And on the flipside, the most militant roleplay-how-dare-you-build-a-decent-character types I've seen actually seem... really bad at roleplaying. They'll say things like "You're roleplaying that class wrong", which seems odd for someone who claims to be dedicated to the creative arts. And things like "Dump stats are munchinkinry" which again seems strange because a character who has strengths and flaws is usually considered a good thing in other forms of fiction.
So I've come to the conclusion that the real problem people have whenever this discussion comes up is just that someone at the table is an ass and that munchkinry or zealous incompetence are more just how that douchery is presented in a tabletop format.
Seriously nine times out of ten when I hear about either of these players they also tend to yell at people OOCly or try to coerce the GM into making things go there way and so on.
My experience has been that people who are really into role-playing want everyone at the table to be into role-playing. They want the characters to have at least rudimentary backgrounds, motivations, goals, fears, etc.
They want to be able to strike up a conversation with another PC and be able to talk in character.
One of the better role-players I have played with said that the best way to determine if someone is a good role-player is to ask them about their favorite character.
If the description they give back is in-character detail (accomplishments, motivations, etc.), then they are probably a good role-player.
If the description they give back is in mechanical terms detailing their stats, the feats they took, the max damage they ever dealt in a round, etc., then they are probably not.
Anything that simple is of course not going to be 100% accurate, but I've found that it is a fairly good device to determine a player's focus.
When I think of other systems I have played, it feels like in them people happen to make more matching characters than what I see in Pathfinder.
This might be because Pathfinder has never been cohesive when it comes to each scenario, because the setting is the kitchen sink. The rules are the same, even if each piece of land has completely different mood and atmosphere.
Shadowrun, 40k, WWII, all of them make it more clear what the theme will be and what is appropriate for the theme so everyone is on the same page. And power levels are more contained so after 2 months you have not jumped 20 steps in the power ladder
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the better role-players I have played with said that the best way to determine if someone is a good role-player is to ask them about their favorite character.
If the description they give back is in-character detail (accomplishments, motivations, etc.), then they are probably a good role-player.
If the description they give back is in mechanical terms detailing their stats, the feats they took, the max damage they ever dealt in a round, etc., then they are probably not.
Anything that simple is of course not going to be 100% accurate, but I've found that it is a fairly good device to determine a player's focus.
Hm, that's rather interesting. My favorite character is Thomas the Tiefling Hero, a cleric of Iomedae who delivered judgment to the guilty and protection to the innocent, and finished his career by decapitating a demon lord 3,000 years in the past. I even kept a campaign log in his messageboard profile, detailing the people he saved and the evils he ended, all from an in-character (rather than mechanical) perspective.
Despite all that, I find myself quite frequently getting labeled in the rollplayer/powergamer/munchkin/non-roleplayer group. Sometimes without even being present or involved in the discussion (i.e., I'm reading through a discussion and someone says "If your AC is higher than X, then you're playing a spreadsheet, not a character, and I would boot you from my table, no questions asked;" I wish that was a hypothetical example, but it's from a multi-star PFS GM).
It's been my experience that most people interested in discussing whether or not somebody else has any interest in roleplaying, seem to think they can make that determination by seeing whether your stats are too high or your build is too complicated. In fact, I'm having trouble thinking of any examples of "you're not a roleplayer" in which the evidence included anything other than character-building skill.
In fact, I'm having trouble thinking of any examples of "you're not a roleplayer" in which the evidence included anything other than character-building skill.
Usually the examples I see are based on a player having their character take an action that doesn't fit within their character concept. This can also often cross over into metagaming territory.
Its been my experience that role-playing a well-developed personality will virtually always lead a player into a situation where violating their character concept will allow them to accumulate more mechanical power.
When that kind of situation comes up, the good role-player passes over the increased mechanical power in order to stay true to their character concept. The not so good role-player tries to justify violating their character concept with some really strained reasoning.
That is all based on the thought that a character's concept should take precedence over mechanical power.
As has been mentioned in this thread, other groups may look at it from an angle of "This RPG does not reward me for adhering (or even having) a well-developed character concept, and thus there should be no reason to do so."
There's no universal correct answer; it all comes down to player/group preference.