|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
At one of them, they made some unfortunate choices on what skills to use
I haven't played this scenario yet so I don't know if the following applies to this specific scenario or not.
Paizo loves to invent new rules subsystems that violate their own base rules. How many mutually contradictory chase mechanics has PFS had now? How many times have the rules for social interaction skills been negated by fiat?
One of the biggest problems I have, both as player and GM, is that lots of scenarios seem to want the players to guess what skills to use. Or they expect a very particular approach by players. They routinely ignore the ACTUAL rules in the CRB. That comment above about gather information bothers me.
I find that you have to be pretty explicit to convince a player to use Know Arcana rather than diplomacy to befriend someone, otherwise they're likely to assume that the skill that is explicitly for befriending someone might actually be the one that is used:-).
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
"We give a skill bonus for good descriptions because they make the game more fun for everybody, and should be encouraged." Often this is true. But should we?
Yes, absolutely.
Note that there is a difference between "things I like" and "things that make the game more fun for everybody", and part of being a good GM is telling them apart.
I except this in theory, but often I do not see it in practice. I actually wish it was more like you describe.
I find that most GMs welcome feedback (assuming it's after the game and told in a constructive manner). GMs that don't encourage roleplaying, or that play favorites, are often unaware that they're doing that, and can become a better GM if either you give them good feedback, or by giving a good example when you are the GM.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At one of them, they made some unfortunate choices on what skills to useI haven't played this scenario yet so I don't know if the following applies to this specific scenario or not.
Paizo loves to invent new rules subsystems that violate their own base rules. How many mutually contradictory chase mechanics has PFS had now? How many times have the rules for social interaction skills been negated by fiat?
One of the biggest problems I have, both as player and GM, is that lots of scenarios seem to want the players to guess what skills to use. Or they expect a very particular approach by players. They routinely ignore the ACTUAL rules in the CRB. That comment above about gather information bothers me.
I find that you have to be pretty explicit to convince a player to use Know Arcana rather than diplomacy to befriend someone, otherwise they're likely to assume that the skill that is explicitly for befriending someone might actually be the one that is used:-).
Part of the mechanic is making a Discovery roll (Knowledge/Sense Motive check) to learn the best skills to use to influence an NPC. It's set up to be analogous to the Knowledge check you make upon encountering a monster to remember tidbits about it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the mechanic is making a Discovery roll (Knowledge/Sense Motive check) to learn the best skills to use to influence an NPC. It's set up to be analogous to the Knowledge check you make upon encountering a monster to remember tidbits about it.
Is this made explicit to the player? That is my single biggest issue, it is generally not made clear in the scenario how explicit the GM should be about the rules being changed/ignored in a scenario
In a couple of scenarios, making such a check took ones "turn" and so was a bad idea if one had good diplomacy. In others, it is necessary. And the players need to know.
On the one hand, I kinda like not having everything be diplomacy and having to figure things out by talking to the NPC. On the other hand, I kinda dislike the fact that the character that I've spent lots of resources getting its social skills high doesn't actually get a benefit from those social skills, even in social situations.
I fully acknowledge that the social skills in Pathfinder have some pretty major flaws. Ultimate Intrigue is a wonderful source book for a home campaign focussing on intrigue. But I am not at all sure that forcing these rules into some PFS scenarios is a good idea. It makes it pretty hard to build an effective character and internalize the rules when the rules keep arbitrarily changing.
Ummm...the ones with nuts?
Hay! can I get a +2 on all my Social Skill checks if I bring Brownies to the game? How about beer?
Hell yes.
+4 if they're a certain type of brownie.
Obviously too young to remember. :)
|
|
Getting back to the original complaint, let me tell you about a social encounter that I ran a while back. I had 6 players at the table for Sharrowsmith part 1 and they arrived at a social encounter. I read the box text and hinted at RP angles. I then asked them how they wanted to approach the situation.
*silence*
About 10 awkward seconds later, I asked them if they wanted to just move to the checks and there was an enthusiastic sense of "yes please." They rolled well, we moved on, a relatively good time was had by most.
I get where the OP's concern regarding RP not necessarily playing out into successes due to dice comes from - I've certainly been there myself, after all. Sometimes, though, even if you apply +2 or +4 bonuses, it's just not in the cards. The thing to consider here is that, even in real life, you can make a super persuasive argument or be incredibly diplomatic, but the other party just doesn't respond the way you had hoped. The dice merely simulate that chance.
Thursty addressed a lot of the challenges in authorship that come up. Particularly in OPC, you have to account for players with less interest or ability in role playing at the moment (perhaps they're tired, distracted, or just not engaged for some reason). Putting some kind of mechanic in place to allow the scenario to progress without in-depth roleplaying is a necessity of the campaign. Sometimes that works against you.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
As an example, my current homebrew Tian Xia game has gone 4 full length-sessions without having a single combat. I'm as loose with the dice as they come, and believe in rewarding awesomeness and creative thinking.
So Thursty... when am I getting an invite to this awesome game?
|
|
I have to disagree that giving a bonus for good roleplay is equivalent to penalizing those who don't roleplay wellI really hate the way this is phrased, because it contains an implicit definition of "good roleplaying" that I don't like.
If my character is conceptually supposed to be surly and taciturn, and I choose to portray her as surly and taciturn, then that precludes doing a big socially-adept speech that hits all the right notes and is generally pleasing to the listener. If I do the smooth-talking well-executed speech, then in my terms at least that would be bad roleplaying, because I'd be abandoning playing the character concept (i.e. the role) in order to win the game.
I agree that good roleplaying does not mean making a good presentation out of character - if I were the GM, I would probably not to give a bonus for good roleplaying if your character suddenly switched from being surly to being obsequious, unless it were done in character (using obviously overly flowery speech as if making a great effort, or maybe using a little veiled sarcasm, for example). I think it's possible for a rude person to rise to the occasion, but I think in the situation you described it's more likely that I would only give credit for hitting any cited talking points. Judging "good roleplay" is going to be subjective.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the mechanic is making a Discovery roll (Knowledge/Sense Motive check) to learn the best skills to use to influence an NPC. It's set up to be analogous to the Knowledge check you make upon encountering a monster to remember tidbits about it.
Is this made explicit to the player? That is my single biggest issue, it is generally not made clear in the scenario how explicit the GM should be about the rules being changed/ignored in a scenario
In a couple of scenarios, making such a check took ones "turn" and so was a bad idea if one had good diplomacy. In others, it is necessary. And the players need to know.
On the one hand, I kinda like not having everything be diplomacy and having to figure things out by talking to the NPC. On the other hand, I kinda dislike the fact that the character that I've spent lots of resources getting its social skills high doesn't actually get a benefit from those social skills, even in social situations.
I fully acknowledge that the social skills in Pathfinder have some pretty major flaws. Ultimate Intrigue is a wonderful source book for a home campaign focussing on intrigue. But I am not at all sure that forcing these rules into some PFS scenarios is a good idea. It makes it pretty hard to build an effective character and internalize the rules when the rules keep arbitrarily changing.
I can't speak for everyone, but I took ten minutes to explicitly explain the rules to the table, and that's judging by the GM thread that was standard practice. The way the rules work (talking about "rounds" and "actions") really structures it like a combat, so it seemed very natural to talk about it at that same level of abstraction. There were also sentences like "this gives players who are very quiet things they can do during the encounter".
The advantage that a character trained in social skills has is that they can influence anybody. When I ran it what happened was that everyone who could be influenced with a specialty skill was influenced first, and then the diplomancer went and worked on whoever was left.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Taking a round for discovery was 1) always a waste of time 2) Obviated in most adventures by having 24 hours notice and the party doing their homework on the characters they were going to schmooze BEFORE they got there.
Depends on the party. Our group had an Exchange character (who needed additional discoveries for her faction mission) and a character who had good skills for discovery, but horrible skills for influence checks. That meant they used a *lot* of discovery actions, which paid dividends in giving them bonuses allowing for two-for-one influence checks. And let the discovery character feel useful.
|
|
If my character is conceptually supposed to be surly and taciturn, and I choose to portray her as surly and taciturn, then that precludes doing a big socially-adept speech that hits all the right notes and is generally pleasing to the listener. If I do the smooth-talking well-executed speech, then in my terms at least that would be bad roleplaying, because I'd be abandoning playing the character concept (i.e. the role) in order to win the game.
Taciturn is a poor choice for PFS. Your character not saying anything looks a lot like the player just sitting there, which happens a lot due to limited spotlight time.
Surly can be fun, especially if the dm won't penalize your party face for it or is willing to roll with your diplomacy check as "the hard dr phil truth the other person needs to hear" kind of surly.
|
|
Taking a round for discovery was 1) always a waste of time 2) Obviated in most adventures by having 24 hours notice and the party doing their homework on the characters they were going to schmooze BEFORE they got there.Depends on the party. Our group had an Exchange character (who needed additional discoveries for her faction mission) and a character who had good skills for discovery, but horrible skills for influence checks. That meant they used a *lot* of discovery actions, which paid dividends in giving them bonuses allowing for two-for-one influence checks. And let the discovery character feel useful.
Its seems like too small of a bonus. Unless your 5 charisma dwarf can't even make the check on a 20, (The odds of making the check X the odds that the diplomancer needs exactly a +2 bonus to make their check) were less than 1/20 chance you had of just making the check yourself.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If my character is conceptually supposed to be surly and taciturn, and I choose to portray her as surly and taciturn, then that precludes doing a big socially-adept speech that hits all the right notes and is generally pleasing to the listener. If I do the smooth-talking well-executed speech, then in my terms at least that would be bad roleplaying, because I'd be abandoning playing the character concept (i.e. the role) in order to win the game.
Taciturn is a poor choice for PFS. Your character not saying anything looks a lot like the player just sitting there, which happens a lot due to limited spotlight time.
Surly can be fun, especially if the dm won't penalize your party face for it or is willing to roll with your diplomacy check as "the hard dr phil truth the other person needs to hear" kind of surly.
As I have said before, role-playing in PFS plays out more like a radio show than a movie. The strong silent type may work well on the big screen, but is non-existent on the radio.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Its seems like too small of a bonus. Unless your 5 charisma dwarf can't even make the check on a 20, (The odds of making the check X the odds that the diplomancer needs exactly a +2 bonus to make their check) were less than 1/20 chance you had of just making the check yourself.
This is only the case if there's no penalty for failure. And in terms of diplomacy, offending the person you're speaking with is not usually a good idea.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its seems like too small of a bonus. Unless your 5 charisma dwarf can't even make the check on a 20, (The odds of making the check X the odds that the diplomancer needs exactly a +2 bonus to make their check) were less than 1/20 chance you had of just making the check yourself.This is only the case if there's no penalty for failure. And in terms of diplomacy, offending the person you're speaking with is not usually a good idea.
Failing by 5 meant you could not influence the same NPC with the same skill for the rest of the game. Failing by 10 meant you couldn't influence that NPC with any skill. Succeeding by 5+ gives a free discovery, succeeding by 10+ counts as two successes.
Making a discovery check to give your best influencer a situational +4 can often give a better chance of getting an extra success via succeeding by 10+ then your chances of getting a success on your own. At least early in the scenario. Totally depends on the situational math.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find the taciturn character works just as well in tabletop as it does in fiction.
Which means you spend a lot of time describing how they're not talking rather than just not speaking.
My storm druid in our Skull and Shackles group does not speak often or long. But he has the entire crew terrified of him due to his presence and actions. (And this is extra difficult due to being a Roll20 game, very akin to the radio drama that trollbill mentions.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
Taciturn is a poor choice for PFS. Your character not saying anything looks a lot like the player just sitting there, which happens a lot due to limited spotlight time.As I have said before, role-playing in PFS plays out more like a radio show than a movie. The strong silent type may work well on the big screen, but is non-existent on the radio.I am a naturally quiet person who defaults to characters as quiet as I am (because to do otherwise requires social energy, a resource I am often desperately short of). I don't have the option to cease being quiet, or suddenly gain the energy to stop playing quiet characters. So I think your advice boils down to "quit playing". Maybe you should work on that recruitment technique.
It's a little odd, because my experience of PFS has never been that I'm short on things to do.
I think there is a difference between being quiet as a character, and trying to use silence to influence story. Preferring not to engage in polite conversation is much different than refusing to do so.
If you aren't a talker, and neither are your characters, you can still find ways to influence the action. (It does still involve telling the GM what you are doing, though).
I don't think BigNorseWolf and trollbill are suggesting that everyone needs to be performer, just that everyone needs to be involved. For example, a quiet character that spends her time observing. I'm sure you have plenty of examples of being effective while also being quiet.
|
Designer
|
Its seems like too small of a bonus. Unless your 5 charisma dwarf can't even make the check on a 20, (The odds of making the check X the odds that the diplomancer needs exactly a +2 bonus to make their check) were less than 1/20 chance you had of just making the check yourself.This is only the case if there's no penalty for failure. And in terms of diplomacy, offending the person you're speaking with is not usually a good idea.Failing by 5 meant you could not influence the same NPC with the same skill for the rest of the game. Failing by 10 meant you couldn't influence that NPC with any skill. Succeeding by 5+ gives a free discovery, succeeding by 10+ counts as two successes.
Making a discovery check to give your best influencer a situational +4 can often give a better chance of getting an extra success via succeeding by 10+ then your chances of getting a success on your own. At least early in the scenario. Totally depends on the situational math.
Agreed; discoveries didn't used to be as effective in some of the earlier influence scenarios, but in the UI version, they've become a strong early-game tactic. Heck, discovery of influence checks might even be giving effective bonuses of +10 (or more, if you have a character better at the easiest influence skill than they are at Diplomacy) due to the lower DC, which means if you would have succeeded without the discovery, you're guaranteed to get two successes with the discovery, causing it to pay for itself.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I for one am inordinately proud of recently defusing a potential combat encounter with hugging.
:)
-j
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Haven't read everything. But if I were someone that liked roleplaying, or GMing for someone who liked roleplaying. I'd appreciate a reminder to the GM that good roleplay can be awarded a +2 bonus. Like, make your roll and say, "I got a 19, but you can give me up to a +2 for my good speech." Or something like, "Here I go, GM remember, you can add a +2 to my roll if you thought I was convincing."And I'm on board with that. It might even stand to be a sentence or two in the Creative Solutions section of the Guide, for I really don't want a lack of a reminder to be interpreted as a complete lack of permissiveness.
Sadly, there are a NUMBER of GMs who run scenarios at that extreme. Even posts on the board are held as gospel from which you cannot depart. I think in the upcoming published material there should be both a refresher on the hierarchy of authority and reminding all GMs that they are encouraged to reward not just roleplaying, but creative solutions. I was once awarded a +2 to a pivotal attack roll for describing with flourish (and backed up with a successful acrobatics check) a John Woo-style dive through the air off a cliff, and expending a Featherfall spell to get my pistol shot within it's first range increment.
I honestly don't remember how successful we were in that particular scenario, or the other players at the table, but I just overheard that story being told at PaizoCon by someone else didn't recognize me. The moment endured. And it's moments like that which deserve rewards, that are indeed why we are all playing in the first place.
And reminding moderators as a whole that they can create those moments by rewarding them, by validating them, would make for richer experiences for everyone I think.
|
|
Speaking directly to the specific scenario Fedora brought up:
I ran this at Paizocon and was thrilled to see a social scenario. As a GM, I look forward to places where I can really play up the individual characters and let my players do the same. At both of my tables, everyone did role-play and we all had a great time.
At one of them, they made some unfortunate choices on what skills to use and combined it with some really bad rolls, so they actually failed to get enough influence to even succeed at the mission. They earned 0 prestige and reduced gold for the scenario. And you know what? All five of them thanked me for an enjoyable session. They got to really play their characters (even the ones who weren't specced out to be strong in social situations). One of them even said it was the best time they had ever had failing a mission.
So if you didn't get to enjoy the roleplay and felt that the rolls were overemphasized, I suggest that it is not the scenario that is to blame. The GM and the players are the ones who really make it work or not. If the players were getting into the scene and the GM made *no* allowances, then maybe they have some blame here.
On the other hand, if the GM did reward your roleplay (and they may well have done so without telling you explicitly how) and the rolls were just against you ... I just have to ask, did you enjoy the game while you were playing it? Was a good experience soured because you didn't earn your prestige points and gold? Don't get me wrong, I look forward to those rewards so I can get my character the next great piece of equipment as much as the next person; however, in the end, isn't the point of the game to enjoy the game?
HA! Didn't even see you there. I was AT that table. I was the guy who made the poor choice of attempting the wrong Knowledge, and I was the guy who had an absolute blast completely faceplanting on the objectives. And I'm going to run that scenario at the upcoming Friday Night PFS I'm organizing.
Bid for Alabastrine is an extraordinarily refreshing departure from combat heavy missions, and I commend it's author and it's editors. Very well put together, very well run. And everyone who wants to run it? Take notes from Tony there; he practically built a mini board game based on who was interacting with what NPC at which social event, which gave us something to do with our minis and made it more real. He also put together each bit of intelligence that it was possible to pry loose on little cardstock strips so that we could line them up alongside each NPC as we succeeded or failed in hobnobbing. I do not imagine it would have been nearly as fun without the visual aids, and I heartily recommend going that extra mile for any unconventional scenario.
To succeed at them, the goal is to make sure you have the highest numbers.
But Pathfinder is filled with many different numbers to raise. The game is choosing which numbers to raise. Diplomacy, bluffing, or swords and spells?
That's one way of designing a roleplaying game. The "interface" to the game world is your abilities, using them, fishing out which works best in a particular situation, selectively raising the right numbers when leveling etc.
And many, many people enjoy such play, and its a core part of Pathfinder's design.
It's just not "Its no use the game is playing itself for me, the dice are doing the work"; you are doing the work through the dice, through the stats system and selecting the right stats and the right skills.
This post:
Each person that you need to influence lists ways that you can get bonuses (or penalties) to your checks against them.
this perfectly illustrates the depth available in this gameplay mode. It's not just about rolling high. It's challenging and it allows the table to find out what would happen in that situation, with those characters, with those NPCs. It's interesting and beautiful.
All that said. In my home campaign we play differently. I haven't called for a social skill roll once since I started DMing two years ago (and I told my players that before they made characters). We only rely on RP. And... there are lots of social scenes in the games, too. It's a huge part of the game and (at my table) it's all player skill, no random rolls. We play with the rule where you get mechanical rewards for failing in these situations, so every situation brings with it the choice; are you gonna bring every argument to the hilt trying to convince that mayor to release the prisoners you care about, or are you going to bumble through it to be true to a haughty or snobby character concept, or... are you going to try to do both in some sorta tightrope walk, trying to convince the mayor while still portraying the haughty/snobby character concept? It's an interesting and challenging part of play that we enjoy.
That's not meant to disparage Pathfinder's design. It's different philosophies, that all.
In one mode, you're engaging with the world through a mechanical "interface" with all the joy and curiosity such an interface brings, and the emotional engagement that can come when you can trust in a solid mechanical system to help adjudicate situations. You can easily care about the outcome, because the outcome is mechanical and reliable and therefore real.
In the other mode, you're engaging with the world through your own words and your own gestures, with all the sense of presence and "being there" and acting challenges that's inherent to such a mode. I prefer it. But. Both ways are valid. It's just different ways.
|
|
Overall, I agree with the OP. PFS can be fun because it lets you play with a lot of different people in an "official" setting, but then again you could just play with those same people on your own terms and probably have more fun. The lack of continuity from one scenario to another is quite limiting, however, it's not necessarily PFS's fault.
While it's certainly possible to inject personality and tone into a PFS scenario, it still amazes me that people insist on trying to play the paired down, convention version of Pathfinder as if it were a real game. After having played through several scenarios, I just don't understand the appeal of playing in a "shared" game world if it requires giving up so many essential parts of the game itself.
I mean, if you find people willing to play PFS, they'd probably be willing to play a normal game with you too. Anyway, I've digressed. It remains my opinion that PFS is best taken as roll-playing, with bits and pieces of character interaction strewn in.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay I have a few issues with the title of this thread.
By the simple act of showing up to an event an sitting down to a table and participating you are RolE-playing. All I need to do to Roleplay a diplomatic character by doing nothing more than rolling a d20 for every interaction.
So a few definitions here:
Roll: To pick up and cause a die to tumble onto the table.
Role: Caster, healer, archer, melee combatant, diplomat, craft( )er, Perform( )er.
Acting: Putting specific words in your character's mouth.
This is the one thing that a GM can do that will really irritate me as a player is as follows: "Make a Diplomacy check"; player picks up their d20 rolls it and adds their modifier; GM: "What is your character saying" and will refuse to accept any check result without specific character words. This GM has committed one of two errors: They have asked for a check roll too soon, by not having enough information to evaluate the check result. More commonly they are attempting to force the player to ACT (as in: performer on stage, actors in TV or Movie filming); and see themselves as being able to replace the game's built in system with their own judgement.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Overall, I agree with the OP. PFS can be fun because it lets you play with a lot of different people in an "official" setting, but then again you could just play with those same people on your own terms and probably have more fun. The lack of continuity from one scenario to another is quite limiting, however, it's not necessarily PFS's fault.
While it's certainly possible to inject personality and tone into a PFS scenario, it still amazes me that people insist on trying to play the paired down, convention version of Pathfinder as if it were a real game. After having played through several scenarios, I just don't understand the appeal of playing in a "shared" game world if it requires giving up so many essential parts of the game itself.
I mean, if you find people willing to play PFS, they'd probably be willing to play a normal game with you too. Anyway, I've digressed. It remains my opinion that PFS is best taken as roll-playing, with bits and pieces of character interaction strewn in.
The benefit of organized play is having a framework of support, interaction, community, and accessibility. SURE, I could run a home campaign (or play in one).
But there's no 'shared experience', no "So there we were in Bonekeep"-type stories, and while it may feel like it is 'pared-down', that restriction of choice has evolved over years of play to make for a smoother experience that more people can enjoy together.
As a player in the campaign, we bring to the table our life experiences, our game style, our own individual ways of handling things. Not everyone is social. Not everyone is a savant at rules. We all learn when we sit down at a table, even if it is the realization that some of the people that one is playing with are not an ideal 'fit' for one's play-style.
And *good* roleplay, the things that legends spring from, can come from both application of mechanics and application of interaction.
Realizing this, and remembering the core tenet of 'don't be a jerk' along with explore, report, cooperate -- the extended family of those who play Pathfinder can grow in a positive and affirming fashion.
Trust me when I say that I've been in a different organized play environment where this *wasn't* a goal, where everything had truly devolved to the point of driven solely by 'how much mechanical benefit' options could give a given character, and the story of the character or why they were even was actively discouraged by a vast majority of players because it was viewed as a 'selfish self-nerf that brings the party down'.
Society play is the closest I've seen so far to 'getting it right'. Like life, though, it's a work in progress. It's up to each and every one of us to help our fellow players learn when we sit at a table, even when it is hard, even when it is loud, even when we're tired/drunk/hung-over/fighting some bug or allergy.
The mechanics should not drive the story, nor should the story force the rules in a true immersive gaming environment. However, guidelines and structure are there for a reason, and it is a necessity to ensure that the play experience is roughly analogous for all.
|
While it's certainly possible to inject personality and tone into a PFS scenario, it still amazes me that people insist on trying to play the paired down, convention version of Pathfinder as if it were a real game. After having played through several scenarios, I just don't understand the appeal of playing in a "shared" game world if it requires giving up so many essential parts of the game itself.
Careful
|
Venture-Agent, Minnesota
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Overall, I agree with the OP. PFS can be fun because it lets you play with a lot of different people in an "official" setting, but then again you could just play with those same people on your own terms and probably have more fun. The lack of continuity from one scenario to another is quite limiting, however, it's not necessarily PFS's fault.
While it's certainly possible to inject personality and tone into a PFS scenario, it still amazes me that people insist on trying to play the paired down, convention version of Pathfinder as if it were a real game. After having played through several scenarios, I just don't understand the appeal of playing in a "shared" game world if it requires giving up so many essential parts of the game itself.
I mean, if you find people willing to play PFS, they'd probably be willing to play a normal game with you too. Anyway, I've digressed. It remains my opinion that PFS is best taken as roll-playing, with bits and pieces of character interaction strewn in.
Those who play under me know that I'm a role-playing GM. I read through scenarios 5-6 times to get a sense of their story. I try to find the personalities and voices of all the NPCs. And I get rewarded by the joy of discovery, the moments of hilarious player paranoia as their characters are poking at something they're certain is dangerous, and the aha! moment as they finally figure out what is really going on in these little stories.
A shared world means shared stories. "You did WHAT in Consortium Compact?" It means being able to meet and have fun with a variety of new people. For me, PFS has been better than my F2F games because it's been free of jerks, PVP, and because everyone who's there wants to be. In PFS, I'm not dealing with players who are distracted, doing anything else but game. I have people who want to Explore, Cooperate and Report.
PFS also hits my challenge level about right. Some of the games are really scary. I've failed a couple times. However, it mostly strikes the right balance by requiring me and the rest of my table to work together and bring our 'A' game.
Then there's the variety. What you call lack of continuity, I call time travel and a chance to travel the world.
Hmm
|
|
Guys, it's PFS. Nobody's going for "your momma" jokes. Sure, it's been pretty decent 8 years, but it's still just organized play: Continuity is barely there, economy is crazy abstracted, just about anything short of crafting and mythic goes, every other character I see online is some kinda jokey expy, optimisation is all over the place(high and low together just makes people angry), gm's are just scenario proxies instead of world interpreters, the Society is a wussified do-gooder corp playing at being grey, Rovagugists/Demonists etc are somehow able to practice in broad daylight, there are thousands of agents and dozens of seekers but we never meet them, Calisro Benarry doesn't love me, Wood spirit's not legal and Gencon is a distant dream.
Or not. These are, afterall, opinions.
|
|
Taciturn is a poor choice for PFS. Your character not saying anything looks a lot like the player just sitting there, which happens a lot due to limited spotlight time.As I have said before, role-playing in PFS plays out more like a radio show than a movie. The strong silent type may work well on the big screen, but is non-existent on the radio.I am a naturally quiet person who defaults to characters as quiet as I am (because to do otherwise requires social energy, a resource I am often desperately short of). I don't have the option to cease being quiet, or suddenly gain the energy to stop playing quiet characters. So I think your advice boils down to "quit playing". Maybe you should work on that recruitment technique.
It's a little odd, because my experience of PFS has never been that I'm short on things to do.
I think there is a difference between being quiet as a character, and trying to use silence to influence story. Preferring not to engage in polite conversation is much different than refusing to do so.
If you aren't a talker, and neither are your characters, you can still find ways to influence the action. (It does still involve telling the GM what you are doing, though).
I don't think BigNorseWolf and trollbill are suggesting that everyone needs to be performer, just that everyone needs to be involved. For example, a quiet character that spends her time observing. I'm sure you have plenty of examples of being effective while also being quiet.
Lucy,
KingOfAnything is correct. How you play PFS is perfectly fine. My comments went strictly to the notion of role-playing at the table, or perhaps I should more accurately describe it as 'active' role-playing. I have a few 'quiet' character types I have experimented with. Nobody notices that I am 'role-playing' my character because nobody notices the quiet guy. So at least in regards to enjoying the role-playing aspects of my character, the quiet characters are the least enjoyable.
Of course, as you have pointed out, there is more to Pathfinder than just enjoying the 'role-playing,' so I can still have fun with the game without it. I just personally find it more enjoyable when I also engage in it. But not everyone is going to find the same enjoyment with it as I do, and that's fine. Heck, there are days I don't feel like 'role-playing' either. That is what it so great about Pathfinder. There are many ways to enjoy it and I can focus on whichever I happen to be in the mood for at any given time. I encourage active role-playing when I can because I would like other people to get as much enjoyment out of the game as I do. But I know that doesn't work for everyone.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay I have a few issues with the title of this thread.
Every few months we get either a thread with this title or a thread that asks this question and they always annoy me, because they show what I consider to be wrong headed thinking regarding the game in general. They suggest, first of all, that the game should either be one or the other. This suggestion usually also implies that one of those two choices is better than the other. This is confounding because to anyone who really looks at the game, the answer should be obvious. It is both a role-playing and a roll-playing game. To suggest that it should only be one or the other is to limit one’s potential enjoyment of the game as both aspects can be fun. So I am always flummoxed as to why people would push for only one aspect. All that does is limit fun and lead to gamer elitism that divides the community. I don’t see any good that comes out it.
This is the one thing that a GM can do that will really irritate me as a player is as follows: "Make a Diplomacy check"; player picks up their d20 rolls it and adds their modifier; GM: "What is your character saying" and will refuse to accept any check result without specific character words. This GM has committed one of two errors: They have asked for a check roll too soon, by not having enough information to evaluate the check result. More commonly they are attempting to force the player to ACT (as in: performer on stage, actors in TV or Movie filming); and see themselves as being able to replace the game's built in system with their own judgement.
I do ask this question but only to get an idea of how you are trying to approach the conversation, i.e. what are your key discussion points? It’s great if you want to role-play that out, but really I just need something to work with to give you a response after you roll the die.