Do you tolerate or punish Gamers for not roleplaying?


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Im new to RPGs but Its clear that I lean towards gaming as I like to create powerful characters(within the rules of course) and care less about roleplaying, making up backstory before even using a character, and giving drawbacks .

Do you as a player or Dungeon master allow this or do you enforce roleplaying?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh I enforce it alright!

If they can't talk the psycho mayor down from the tower, then they best be ready to drop and give me twenty!

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Maps Subscriber

I don't so much force as ENCOURAGE roleplay. My NPCs are wild and crazy creations made from the bones of the personalities that the scenarios provide for us. I try to interact with everyone, and bring out everyone's chance for roleplay.

A number of scenarios reward great roleplay. Perhaps you haven't found a personality for your characters that you enjoy playing yet. Would you like some help with that? It can be fun sometimes discovering quirks and a unique voice for the person you're portraying.

Hmm

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Given that RPG stands for Role Playing Game, if you aren't going to be doing any roleplaying, you are missing out on 2/3rds of the point. That said, within the story line, roleplaying is more or less necessary to receive the full rewards of many scenarios, so if you aren't roleplaying, you are also losing at the gaming side of the equation as well...

Honestly, if you are looking for a tactical gaming challenge, PFS is probably not going to be a good fit. The scenarios are designed to be easily "winnable" the first time through. In any given scenario, an average un-optomized PC should have approximately 90% chance of survival, and almost the same chance of success, and approximately a 75% chance of exceptional success. An optomized character, roleplayed well, should be able to increase both those percentages to near 99%, and quite probably should be able to avoid 50% of fights.

(These numbers are not spelled out anywhere, but you can calculate them from certain known numbers such as the wealth by level target, and the PP cost of raise dead.)

If you build a heavily optimized character, but do not roleplay well, you will be able to increase the survival and success numbers to near 90%*, but you may actually reduce your chances of exceptional success to closer to 50%

*There are a number of scenarios where killing all the bad guys will cause you to fail the scenario, and while you certainly can optimize for things other than combat, there are a number where they can only be succeeded at via roleplay.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Maps Subscriber

100% agreed, Jared!

That's part of the reason I try so hard to encourage my players in roleplay. I want them to succeed.

Hmm

Liberty's Edge

The Pathfinder Society is an organization of relic hunters, archeologists and historians. That's not to say that there isn't any fighting, but it isn't the main goal of the organization. You aren't trying to save the world (for the most part), just preserve its history (at least according to the mysterious Decemvirate).

I think around Season 4 (every year of the campaign is a new season) the difficulty of the encounters was ramped up a bit causing players to optimize more in the area of combat effectiveness.

The campaign has been trying to reign that in a bit over the last 2 seasons. There were a few adventures in Season 6 where using violence to solve every bit of opposition you can across led to certain failure. In Season 7, mission success relied on the party having a wide variety of skills.

Silver Crusade

Jared Thaler wrote:
Given that RPG stands for Role Playing Game, if you aren't going to be doing any roleplaying, you are missing out on 2/3rds of the point.

While I personally agree that roleplaying is a large part of the fun there are many people who do little roleplaying, play PFS, and seem to enjoy it.

PFS caters to lots of different tastes. You can definitely play the game with little roleplaying if that is what you wish. At my table, I'll try and encourage you to roleplay but won't force tge point

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I wont force you to roleplay, but if youre gonna make rolls, its likely that I will ask you what you are saying. Im not the most eloquently worded person myself, so if youre more comfortable giving me something like "I ask him about the missing dagger." instead of "Sir, I was wondering what information you might have about the missing dagger?" then you'll get no flack from me for it. I just want something more than "Diplomacy! 20! Yes!" :P

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I just try and make sure everyone has fun, that's what the game is about! There are some people who play for the social aspect but are uncomfortable talking with people or acting in front of people but enjoy sitting ant the table and helping somehow.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have very mixed feelings about some of the the responses on this thread. (could be I am just a little sensitive about it and am reading into responses things that are not there... if so, SORRY!)

Please, let's all of us realize that every player is different. Sometimes we role play, sometimes we roll play. And it's all part of the game. Different in the way we approach the game, different each time we sit down, and sometimes even different from round to round in the game.

Some players play different at different times...

Sometime, early in a CON, when I'm really in "the zone", I can play a demagogue that would rouse Andoran to a second revolution!... other times, I'm down and not really feeling it - in need of caffeine perhaps, and I just need to roll the dice and read off the numbers.

A judge that can play to both those moods, and recognize when he/she needs to do one and/or the other (perhaps even some of one and some of the other, often with different players at the same table) impresses me greatly.

"Do you tolerate or punish Gamers for not roleplaying?" Huh? I fear the question is missing something...

"Sometimes we Role Play, and sometimes we Roll Play. It's all part of the game."

Let's just play... have fun, and sort it out some other time...


Mechanically, no. But keep in mind the key word is TOLERATE. Its something you put up with. It doesn't mean that someone likes it, isn't going to get annoyed, or isn't going to show their annoyance with body language or eyerolling at you. Dm's are human..oidish.. too, and aren't paizo employees, trained actors or endorsed or anything. The only qualification to run is a PFS number, not years of training in dealing with difficult people.

It doesn't sound like it would be a problem, but you should probably avoid social skill characters if you're just there to kill stuff. Someone that just kills stuff is far more tolerable than someone that repeatedly says "I diplomance him. +23. rolled 17. Does a 40 make it? Yes. move on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I try to tailor that aspect to the group at the table. If everyone is chatting freely and having a good time then I'll go the extra mile and as the bard what the words to his Inspire Courage or Fascinate song are ... or I'll have them give me the whole diplo speech for the NPC and there may be a small bonus if they give a good rousing speech.

Or they are a table of new comers and already self conscious about doing anything and I'll take more of a teacher approach and work with them to build their confidence so that they can get to where they are the great orator of the party or whatnot.

There should never be a punish aspect; Gaming (at least to me) is more about reward -- that reward may take on different shapes; such as from the GM side seeing the new person half way through the scenario break out with the awesomesauce diplo speech or the bard standing up and belting out his song (I've seen players with bards have whole songs written out in the character binder).

Some people are just non comfortable public speakers and should not be punished for that -- people don't believe me, but I used to be horribly painfully shy; to the point I was in tears giving a speech in class. I think as people are given the opportunity to exceed and given the reward for exceeding they gain more confidence and become the awesome role players vs roll players. But they have to be given that confidence and "punishing" them for not having it only means that they are going to be quieter and quieter and then simply not be there anymore.

Sovereign Court Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

Michael Hallet wrote:

I think around Season 4 (every year of the campaign is a new season) the difficulty of the encounters was ramped up a bit causing players to optimize more in the area of combat effectiveness.

Chicken? Egg?

I dunno. I just ate it...


My answer is...neither. As a GM and a player I tend to encourage role playing by role playing. Nothing quite opens up a table to new players trying there hands at it like a player/GM who does everything in character.

The Exchange

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Mechanically, no. But keep in mind the key word is TOLERATE. Its something you put up with. It doesn't mean that someone likes it, isn't going to get annoyed, or isn't going to show their annoyance with body language or eyerolling at you. Dm's are human..oidish.. too, and aren't paizo employees, trained actors or endorsed or anything. The only qualification to run is a PFS number, not years of training in dealing with difficult people.

It doesn't sound like it would be a problem, but you should probably avoid social skill characters if you're just there to kill stuff. Someone that just kills stuff is far more tolerable than someone that repeatedly says "I diplomance him. +23. rolled 17. Does a 40 make it? Yes. move on.

Being the guy who often runs the PC that can do the "I diplomance him. +23. rolled 17. Does a 40 make it?"... I often encounter the judge who just rolls he eyes and sighs when I try to "waste time with the chit-chat stuff".

"Yeah, what's your static Bluff? +43? Ooooh-Kaaaay... moving on we get to Initiative."

Kind of like when my sister rolls her Barbarians attack... "What's your attack bonus? roll a '1'? No? Monster splats. Moving on...."

to quote one of my PCs:
Giamo goes on to say "I am a Matchmaker by profession you see, it is my 'day job' (finger quotes) - so if you might be interested in such a relationship, perhaps we might discuss some of my other clients?" At this point I switch to my OOC voice and say ... "Role Play often suffers due to time constraints, and we only have a limited time for this tonight so..." Back in character voice "Sigh... It appears that we have got to save the world again now, perhaps after that we'll find your one true love, yes?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We have some players that get a real kick out of role playing and some that aren't so interested. Our job as a DM is to be all things to all people and cater to our audience. Forcing players to do something they're not comfortable with is bound to end in disaster.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think this really comes down to, what do you consider roleplaying? Because for some people, anything short of play acting isn't what they would consider roleplaying, and a lot of players really aren't comfortable with this, especially when first learning the game. But this isn't really required to play the game. I will say that play acting can be quite fun, but is basically it's own reward, and shouldn't be forced on anyone who doesn't feel comfortable, or enjoy this kind of play.

The basics for roleplaying are really directing a characters actions, usually according to a set persona that you've created. In pathfinder, there's absolutely no minimum for backstory required, or for interesting character details. If you want to be the guy who doesn't ever say anything, and is just there to swing his big sword, that's fine. It's entirely possible to have an enjoyable experience doing so. PFS encourages skill usage, and out of combat challenges, so focusing on just combat does limit the character, but is by no means mandatory.

With all that said, PFS, and pathfinder in general is a group oriented game, and many players do enjoy inter-player interaction, or interaction with NPCs based on backstory or circumstance, and a character who's only created for combat will often be limited, or even excluded in these circumstances. And a lot of players enjoy the stories that are brought about by traveling with interesting characters. So if you create a character with no interesting backstory, or don't try to bring forth some interesting details naturally through play, don't be surprised if fellow players aren't thrilled to be adventuring with Man with Sword IV. This doesn't mean you always have to speak in a funny voice, or start every combat by reciting a monologue, but any little thing to distinguish the character really helps. You don't even have to have the character talk to accomplish this, locally we have 2 monks who (almost) never talk, mine and another players. Both are usually well received at tables because even though they don't talk, they're still interesting characters with personality.

So, yes you need to roleplay, because even moving your character around a board is acting out your character's role, but how much you do is up to you. Whether it's simple descriptions of what the character is doing, or talking in a funny voice, or challenging anyone who states that Taldor is not now, or ever was the greatest nation on Golarion, it's all up to what you enjoy. And the more you play, the more you'll (likely) find roleplay it's own reward, and if not, the society still needs people who know how to swing a sword.

EDIT - Huh, could have sworn this was in the PFS forums. Most of this advice will still apply, but in a home game, it's usually best to tailor your gameplay to the group. It's a bit harder to do in PFS, since you won't always know who the group is.


Mechanics and roleplay are not mutually exclusive. I have an equally hard time with people who interact too much as I do with people who interact too little.


I have this habit of asking questions I already know and hope for a different, more hopeful result. I asked if you punished(negative), or tolerate(neutral), but not if you encourage(positive) it.

Im under the assumption that I am a Power Gaming, Min-maxing, Munchkin, and everyone else either is or will be Shakespearean actors.

The non-linearity of a Role Playing Game should be encouraging to everyone, but you still see people with the desire players be actors not gamers. I asked alot of questions to DMs for Dungeons and Dragons as well as Pathfinder before I really became determined to play RPGs. One question was "Do you reward players for acting, doing creative actions, or fighting well?". I dont see that in Pathfinder Society much. As this are standardized so much going above-and-beyond in any way only earns you self-rewards.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
ChaosTicket wrote:

Im new to RPGs but Its clear that I lean towards gaming as I like to create powerful characters(within the rules of course) and care less about roleplaying, making up backstory before even using a character, and giving drawbacks .

Do you as a player or Dungeon master allow this or do you enforce roleplaying?

Are we talking about actually roleplaying, or are we talking about "speaking in first-person"? Despite common overlap, those are two different things; unfortunately, a lot of folks conflate the two.

Roleplaying is when your character's interaction with the game world is based on the character's knowledge and personality rather than that of the player. You might act this out in first-person speech, or you might describe it instead. In some cases, roleplaying requires that you not even have your character speak at all (whether portrayed in first person or not).

There's a similar distinction between roleplaying and the backstories and flaws and such. When you remember that roleplaying just means that your interactions with the world are true to character, it becomes clear that things which aren't part of your interactions with the world are not roleplaying. Thus, writing a backstory is not roleplaying. Writing a backstory is a roleplaying aid – it gives you information about your character so that when you ARE roleplaying, it will be easier and/or more fun to do so.

With all that understood, let's go back to the idea of "enforcing roleplay". This actually means "enforcing that PCs' interactions with the world are true to character". This sounds like it's obviously something worth doing, but it's not so simple. For example, just today I started as a player in a new PbP campaign, and the opening adventure hook involved the PCs being part of a larger group (more NPCs than PCs) who noticed signs of trouble in the distance. When my character expressed an interest in having some of the people investigate while others guarded the civilians, that was roleplaying (due to character motivations I won't go into here). But when the specific people I requested go with me to investigate just happened to be the PCs (while armed and capable NPCs stayed behind), that was not roleplaying, even though it involved first-person speech. In fact, it was blatant metagaming. But it was good for the game.

So do I enforce roleplaying? Only where appropriate. :)

The Exchange

ChaosTicket wrote:

I have this habit of asking questions I already know and hope for a different, more hopeful result. I asked if you punished(negative), or tolerate(neutral), but not if you encourage(positive) it.

Im under the assumption that I am a Power Gaming, Min-maxing, Munchkin, and everyone else either is or will be Shakespearean actors.

The non-linearity of a Role Playing Game should be encouraging to everyone, but you still see people with the desire players be actors not gamers. I asked alot of questions to DMs for Dungeons and Dragons as well as Pathfinder before I really became determined to play RPGs. One question was "Do you reward players for acting, doing creative actions, or fighting well?". I dont see that in Pathfinder Society much. As this are standardized so much going above-and-beyond in any way only earns you self-rewards.

The nature of the public forums (including facebook) is that if you ask an ambiguous question you are going to get more than you bargained for for as an answer.

With that in mind with so many people that play this game and read and respond to posts on these forums (and facebook) you are inevitably going to come up with answers that either you don't like or cause you to question your original point of view.

The best answer any one can give you is going to be from their personal experience and then simply to say that your personal mileage may vary as different GMs have different ways of handling things. No two GMs are going to give you the exact same answer or handle things in the exact same way.

Asking for a black and white answer is going to get you all the grey in the world and never be clear; take what you want from the answers you were given to your question; but in the PFS side of Pathfinder things will vary, in the Pathfinder side of Pathfinder things will vary -- it's the nature of the game


What is role playing anyway?

Oh, gods, not this again...

Shut up you, and get back in your hole

I run only PbP games these days, and I don't really know what to say about this question. First, everyone is typing their responses to my posts, and usually in a sort of first person/third person limited sort of way, which I suppose is a kind of role playing

Mostly the players are just telling me what their characters are doing and saying, and I suppose that is also a kind of role-playing (heck, for all I know my players, who I assume are all highly intelligent water fowl that should never be picked up in a dungeon), are dressing up in costumes, and speaking with thick accents (gods they even type in broken dialects most of the time, sheesh, but I digress).

But what I see very little of, is players asking questions about the world/environment they are experiencing, and for me, who started playing at the tender age of 12 in 1976, that was the one thing about role-playing I enjoyed the most (I started as a DM).

Practically no one asks

"What does the door look like"

or

"How does the shopkeeper smell, where does he wear his belt"

or

"Are the walls wet, do they have anything growing on or out of them"

No, practically no questions at all. it seems that today, with most players growing up on computer based adventure games, the idea that as a Player you need to interact with the DM to find out what your character hears, sees, smells, experiences, has been lost, and everyone just assumes the DM will tell them everything they need to know, and if she doesn't, than a post like this

Knowledge, History: 1d20 + 13 ⇒ (19) + 13 = 32

Is all you need to make and then sit back and wait for the DM to tell you what that reveals to you.

It makes me sad. Answering questions about the world as it is explored and experienced by the player characters was what I called role playing, from my end, as a Dungeon Master.


Heh, when I think about my threads I can usually sum it up in one sentence.

Would you play with me as I am or do I have to change for you?

I belong more in Tactical RPGs or tabletop games. If I could find somebody playing Battletech I would fit better there. Here Im trying to ignore the people saying Im wrong for not writing up backstories, and for trying to make powerful characters. That about sums up most of the responses Ive gotten from A Pathfinder Society page of Facebook. Even if people dont say it, the additional limitations placed on Pathfinder Society support that.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Terquem, why would anyone ask you questions about the environment when your initial descriptions are so wonderfully detailed in the first place?

I think your observation of less question-asking might have less to do with computer games and disinterest in the setting, and more to do with no longer needing to assume that the GM is hoping for a lethal "Gotcha!" if you fail to explicitly ask whether the statue is in the process of stabbing you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:

Terquem, why would anyone ask you questions about the environment when your initial descriptions are so wonderfully detailed in the first place?

I think your observation of less question-asking might have less to do with computer games and disinterest in the setting, and more to do with no longer needing to assume that the GM is hoping for a lethal "Gotcha!" if you fail to explicitly ask whether the statue is in the process of stabbing you.

well that's just great, ruin the surprise,

sheesh...


Most of the time, I prefer playing in games that put a focus on role-playing, and as such, I seek out those kind of games and those kind of players. Players that don't fit are replaced. Eventually I have a good group of players and everything works out well.

The Exchange

ChaosTicket wrote:

Heh, when I think about my threads I can usually sum it up in one sentence.

Would you play with me as I am or do I have to change for you?

I belong more in Tactical RPGs or tabletop games. If I could find somebody playing Battletech I would fit better there. Here Im trying to ignore the people saying Im wrong for not writing up backstories, and for trying to make powerful characters. That about sums up most of the responses Ive gotten from A Pathfinder Society page of Facebook. Even if people dont say it, the additional limitations placed on Pathfinder Society support that.

I think you'll find a wide variety of acceptance within the larger PFS community. You asked us a question about what we would do. Several people told you they try to tailor their games or their gameplay to those at the table. I don't think a single person has told you that you are wrong in not creating a backstory, or wrong that you prefer the more tactical aspects.

Personally when I first started GMing I really shied away from role play heavy social scenarios to GM because I wasn't good at it. I eventually got over it; but for a long time I much prefer the combat heavy scenarios because I was good at that. We would have gotten a long great then and we would get a long great now because I've grown as a GM and can tailor things better for the overall party make up.

If you want to think that people are telling you that you are wrong then feel free, but no one has told you that you are wrong nor would they or should they in my opinion. People play differently, if we were all the same it would be pretty freaking boring.

The one thing you have to remember going into PFS or any other organized play. The company is the ultimate GM and we are just players in their home game. They have rules for their home game just as any other home GM would have rules. To play at the table you have to abide by the rules. If you feel the rules ruin your gaming experience you have the option of walking away from the table.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Forums are WAY too long.


In PFS? It's a limited setup. You'll rarely need to do much roleplaying, beyond roleplaying a hack and slash master. A few scenarios are more focused on it, but even there there you can easily get by using your defined skills. A high result from a social skill, perhaps some creative way to relate it to your goal and you'll be fine. Often you can relegate all that to the party face, if you have one, though you may be bored in some scenarios.

In a home game, as I prefer them, you will have to do some interaction with NPCs. It won't always be up to the delegated face. Sometimes that'll be played out conversation, sometimes summaries and intentions will be sufficient. It's not so much a matter of tolerance or punishment as "That's what the game's going to involve and it's just not going to work well if you want to avoid it."


Humans respond so much better to positive reinforcement than they do punishment. When we are punished, we simply seek to avoid the punishment, rather than correct the punished behavior. Sometimes this involves correcting the behavior, but usually only if that is the least effort.

Positive reinforcement, however, works wonders. Reward roleplaying in your players, however you define and prefer that roleplaying to be. Even the least outgoing non-dramatic person does something in character once in a while that you like - reward that! Whether it's complimenting how they did something, throwing them a hero point (works well for power gamers) or a unique contact (people who like the story) etc. When you reward desired behavior you guarantee it's repetition and extension beyond the original behavior. Simple behavioral psychology.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am with the encourage dont punish team. In fact if I feel I have to punish my players for any reason I step back and evaluate our preferences and question our compatibility.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it is important to let players get the mechanical benefits they paid for, whether feats, skills, etc. So that means that sometimes Diplomacy will be rolled to deal with a situation and sometimes Knowledge (anything) will be rolled to learn things, and that's perfectly fine.

When I ran 3.5 and 3e I'd give a circumstance bonus for roleplaying such things out, even if the player wasn't perfect at it. It's not always fair to expect players to be as good at their stuff as their character is. I am not the best at being diplomatic but I love to play bards. Should I not play bards and take diplomacy because I can be abrasive? God, I hope not. I will still try to roleplay that diplomacy, but I expect that the points I put into diplomacy will matter at some point.

Also, I am not trying to say anyone in this thread said mechanical benefits shouldn't matter, nor am I responding to any particular post in this thread. Just posting my thoughts based on the discussion so far, and thinking of some interactions I've had in ftf tabletop games wherein social mechanics would be set aside and it all had to be roleplay, despite players emphasizing those skills or abilities with how they built their characters.

Anyway, as far as the question in the topic: I try not to punish players for not roleplaying, I try to reward them for roleplaying.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I encourage what I want to see in other players via leading by example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As TOZ says the either or in the thread title is misleading, as DM you encourage and assist.

I recall at least one game where the DM had all new players and I was talking to him about how it was going. He said he tried and tried to get them on board with roleplaying. I played a one shot with them as an ever lovable kender...then they got it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Remember, sometimes being a taciturn grouch IS role-playing. (There are an awful lot of 7 Cha characters out there.)


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I encourage what I want to see in other players via leading by example.

So drunken debauchery, public nudity, illegal acts with an ostrich and putting the toilet paper on the roll so it comes from the bottom instead of the top?


Encourage roleplaying by doing it myself and being a good example. Everyone like to have fun and tell stories.

If the game was tactical only, I think video games do it better.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I encourage what I want to see in other players via leading by example.
So drunken debauchery, public nudity, illegal acts with an ostrich and putting the toilet paper on the roll so it comes from the bottom instead of the top?

I take exception to the last one, sir!


You make the ostrich replace the toilet paper instead of doing it yourself?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
...putting the toilet paper on the roll so it comes from the bottom instead of the top?

You. Monster.


thorin001 wrote:
Remember, sometimes being a taciturn grouch IS role-playing. (There are an awful lot of 7 Cha characters out there.)

Well, there's that, and there's having style.

Personally, I do find it fun to have an interesting back story. I like to have it as a direction to point myself with a character. As well as an explanation as to why the party barbarian has the second best Knowledge (Planes) mod behind the bard. (Or, conversely, what to do with an extra skill point or two ... hm ... )

But don't force it down people. I'm actually OOCly afraid to some extent of trying to be a party face, being about as far from sociable RL as one can get. I knew I shouldn't've dumped Charisma when rolling for RL stats. Anyway, though, guidance is better. ESPECIALLY when it's someone who's trying out a new style of character to begin with.

(And don't force stereotypes either. That 8 Charisma person may have their own reasons ... )


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
...putting the toilet paper on the roll so it comes from the bottom instead of the top?

Isn't that the way it's *supposed* to go? Just sayin'.


ChaosTicket wrote:
Im under the assumption that I am a Power Gaming, Min-maxing, Munchkin, and everyone else either is or will be Shakespearean actors..

Like in most things, the gamers I know fall in between those two extremes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

I don't directly penalize lack of role playing - I do, however, reward role playing. Good role playing tends to make task DCs a bit easier because I have more information to base my adjudications on. Backstories and thought-out motivations give me more opportunities to engage the player via that PC's connections and motivations.

Players who don't role play miss out on those opportunities and benefits. If they're OK with that, I don't have much of a problem with them. But I generally don't stop trying to draw them out a bit more.

And for my purposes, role playing isn't synonymous with acting or the craft of thespianship. That's a subset. It's more about playing the PC with the PC's distinct character in mind. It could be all in the 3rd person as far as I care.

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
...putting the toilet paper on the roll so it comes from the bottom instead of the top?
Isn't that the way it's *supposed* to go? Just sayin'.

Dammit! They removed that darn unlike button again!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
...putting the toilet paper on the roll so it comes from the bottom instead of the top?
Isn't that the way it's *supposed* to go? Just sayin'.

Nope, that's not what the patent shows

Toilet paper patent


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CrystalSeas wrote:


Nope, that's not what the patent shows

Toilet paper patent

I wouldn't want to steal anyone's patent. That's serious business right there.


The odd time I have been a DM, when people choose not to roleplay, I don't have the NPCs really interact with them. If you won't roleplay, why should I? Besides, think of the NPCs as people. Why are they going to try to interact with the guy that wont talk to anyone and is basically just a big drone?

I find if you want to build powerful game winning stuff but not roleplay, play a table top war game or a collectible card game, or just regular board games. They take out the thing you don't like and just give you the thing that you do like.

Of course, if I have a group of roleplayers and one guy doesn't role play, the game just gets weird as he is known as that one awkward guy that has no reason to be in the party, save for maybe as a hireling You're basically making an NPC character or a powerful summon. All power, but just a blank slate everywhere else.

Heck, the other players might react to your character as a psychopath. The quiet guy that never interacts with others, that seems to really be focused on getting powerful and destroying everything in their way. This can easily be seen as a threat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
...putting the toilet paper on the roll so it comes from the bottom instead of the top?
Isn't that the way it's *supposed* to go? Just sayin'.

Come on, man. Some things are just too VILE, even for me!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

(This is from a non-PFS perspective) For me, everything's a continuum. "Roleplaying" need not be improv acting, though I like to ask what you're trying to convince people of when using Bluff/Diplomacy/Etc. or in what vague manner you might approach a problem that differs from the routine. Usually my players give me more than that without my asking, but we've gamed together for a long time and have built up a rapport of understanding. Encouragement is employed by far over punishment.

As for level of appropriate optimization, I think there's probably a range I and my group would be comfortable with. Pushing the optimization levels up high or making optimization your main focus would probably put you out of our comfort range. If you didn't fit with our group, that's probably more a goodness of fit issue rather than an indictment of how you play overall. If you ended up not being a good match, I'd still try my best to point you to resources to help you find other players/groups.

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Do you tolerate or punish Gamers for not roleplaying? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.