The two gaming styles are mutually exclusive at any given point in time.In the same way that only the moon or the stars can be out at night, but never both!
See the example I posted above for Roleplay vs Rollplay.
You are comparing Spheres to black; not mutually exclusive.
Two completely different arguments.
But Battletoad, what about when someone creates a very strong backstory and personality... whilst optimizing the character for his purpose 'In The Field.'
Those who are so close to that middle-point between the two that choosing one is splitting hairs [I would say within 10% in either direction.]
Then we say they like both.
|
The two gaming styles are mutually exclusive at any given point in time.In the same way that only the moon or the stars can be out at night, but never both!See the example I posted above for Roleplay vs Rollplay.
** spoiler omitted **
Except that implies that they're mutually exclusive... which is the very heart of the Stormwind Fallacy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The two gaming styles are mutually exclusive at any given point in time.In the same way that only the moon or the stars can be out at night, but never both!See the example I posted above for Roleplay vs Rollplay.
** spoiler omitted **
Still not seeing the exclusivity here. I can in the middle of combat get into my characters head mocking and taunting my foes as they fall around me, choosing my targets as a cunning swordsman would calling out those that hang back with bows as cowards. All without a dice being rolled or needed beyond each swing of my blade.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Rollplaying" is a derogative term. It only exists to demonstrate its supposed inferiority to "roleplaying" by its perpetuators.
The real problem here is that with Ultimate Intrigue's rules on things like Social Combat and interpersonal interactions, we now have to find a way to keep them separate because now one can actually use dice to simulate a character's personality and the line between who is playing the game right and who isn't is getting blurry.
What do you even mean by this? Can you give an example of which each would do differently in a certain situation or something?stuffMy group has used both terms multiple times in non-insulting ways. When we use them, they describe the style of character build that the person being labeled generally prefers. I typically build for rollplay, while another member of our group generally is considered a fan of roleplay more than mechanics. Neither of those things are seen as insults by our group members. The terms are not inherently insulting, and neither do they have objective meaning.So an example of someone who builds for rollplay (as used by my group) would be when I built my Grippli rogue for the sole purpose of having an extremely strong bluff chance and to focus my combat utility entirely on getting the highest sneak attack damage output as possible (which is general rogue stuff, but that was pretty much my entire focus). I didn't really create any backstory for the character and his personality was all over the place, changing based on what would be most beneficial to us, while staying close to his alignment.
An example of a roleplay build would be a character one of our group members created who intentionally took skill ranks/traits/feats that would provide minimal utility to that character or the group (not all of their skill ranks/traits/feats, but some) because it fit that characters story/personality.
None of us really see either of these as inherently bad since they're based on preferences. Plus, we pretty much exclusively play published APs instead of home-brewed campaigns, so min-maxing isn't really necessary. Additionally, this isn't to say that you can't do both well, but rather we use it to describe which of the two each player tends to prefer. Even on my characters with really well established backstories and strong roleplaying interactions, I tend to base almost all of my build decisions on...
Is your "roleplayer" not making his character to be good at their personality thing?
If your "roleplayer"'s does no in character speaking or describing of his actions, but "built his character as a roleplayer" is he still a roleplayer?If your "rollplayer" is very vivid and descriptive of his character's actions and often speaks in character is he still a "rollplayer"
Is your "roleplayer" not making his character to be good at their personality thing?
If your "roleplayer"'s does no in character speaking or describing of his actions, but "built his character as a roleplayer" is he still a roleplayer?
If your "rollplayer" is very vivid and descriptive of his character's actions and often speaks in character is he still a "rollplayer"
Sometimes, yes, and if he gears more towards mechanics-based optimization, then yes. As I said previously, being accurately labeled as one of those two (in the context of our group) does not imply that they are incompetent at the other, or even that they have no characters where they lean more towards the other label. It just means that the person being described has a tendency to prefer X play-style over Y.
haha, that is a very interesting view. It seems you're using it as code for how much optimization they prefer to do with their character.
Most common use is describing how people play, and not just the builds they start with.
The problem is while you may use the term rollplaying in a nonoffensive way, and a few people posting in here use it that way, the overwhelming majority of times it comes up is in a derogatory way. (Note: This is an anecdote, I'm aware, but a lot of people are sharing the same experience in this topic, so I think it's worth *something*). I'm not personally sure if it was originally used nonoffensively then got hijacked by a bunch of people who use it as an insult or the other way around, but most of the time there's far more baggage on the "rollplaying" side than the "roleplaying" side. Essentially, you're using a slightly different definition of the word than the people who are using it as an insult.
To be clear, the word isn't super offensive. It's not like "*gasp* he said rollplayer, shun him". It's just low level mean spirited sort of thing, like calling someone a nerd as an insult. And people often call themselves nerds, being proud of their "nerdy" behavior, but that doesn't change the fact that it is often used in a mean spirited way, as an insult.
So if you are using the term rollplaying in a nice, level headed manner, then all I'd ask is to be aware that sadly not everyone is using the word in the same way you are, and don't be surprised if misunderstandings arise.
Except that implies that they're mutually exclusive... which is the very heart of the Stormwind Fallacy.The two gaming styles are mutually exclusive at any given point in time.In the same way that only the moon or the stars can be out at night, but never both!See the example I posted above for Roleplay vs Rollplay.
** spoiler omitted **
A mutually exclusive example has already been provided.
If you care to quote that example and explain how the example given is not mutually exclusive, I'll listen.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like there is a bit of an issue here with Definitions, only a couple of people seem to agree on what "Roll-player" and "Role-player" actually mean, which is making reasonable discussion difficult, largely because we seem to be assuming that everyone else is using the the same definitions as us, even though (for the most part) they aren't.
Some people have inoffensive definitions that would be perfectly acceptable in polite conversation SO LONG AS THE PEOPLE THEY ARE CONVERSING WITH HAVE THE SAME DEFINITIONS.
Likewise, some people see these words differently and have extremely offensive definitions of them, and would therefore like to see these terms to stop being used.
Both of these definitions are real, valid, and (in the case of the first only, not the second) actually quite useful when describing either GMs, Players, Character Builds or Gaming Styles, all of which these terms can be applied to (although some peoples definitions of the terms allow them to only be applied to, say, Players, and not GMs or anything else.
More or less where I'm going with this is that if you know that the people you are speaking with have the same definition of the terms then you can continue to use them as you have been, but be aware that these are extremely subjective words with NO official definition that everyone use differently (there may actually be an official definition; if there is I am not aware of it. In any case, my point still stands as many people other than me are also clearly not aware of it and therefore will use the words differently). Because of this, unless you are absolutely certain that you and everyone else present shares you views of what the words mean, you should be very clear in you meaning because otherwise people will most likely misinterpret them in one way or another, even if they don't find them offensive.
TL; DR: Some people have inoffensive definitions of the words. Some people don't. In both camps there are a variety of sub-divisions regarding what PRECISELY the words mean, so unless you're very clear about you're meaning, some people are bound to be confused. Since this forum is online, all types of people will be reading you're posts, and many of them will fall into the camp that finds it offensive. Since these words are ill-defined and cause confusing and argument of their meaning anyway, you're probably better off using different words, or at least ensuring you're clear what you mean when you use them
A mutually exclusive example has already been provided.
If you care to quote that example and explain how the example given is not mutually exclusive, I'll listen.
Basically, which of the two I do depends entirely on my mood that day. Occasionally, I'm even switching mid-session. (To paraphrase, "I had a lot of fun talking the last four guys to death, but I need a break. Can I just roll?"/"Okay, break is over. I'm in the mood for some tale spinning, I need another bluff-victim!")
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I am playing a character (a role) in a tabletop roleplaying game. I am roleplaying, period. There is not other requirement for one to be "roleplaying" and as one who is roleplaying I am a roleplayer. Anything else is simply telling people that they are having fun in the wrong way same as all the angry people who claim x, y, or z is "not a video game" when it is a game on a computer that communicating itself to the player via video.
Now it is possible to someone to roleplay poorly, which is what is implicitly being implied by calling someone a rollplayer, but there are also multiple ways to roleplay poorly. One could fail to make a compelling character, fail to maintain a consistant personality, or optimize significantly stronger than the rest of the party breaking story immersion. Something that I see called out far less frequently for poor roleplaying though is optimizing significantly less strong than the rest of the party, even though it is just as poor roleplaying as the reverse. If you are on a team of people who regularly rely on eachother for life of death situations they would notice if you are considerably less competent than the rest of the team they will notice. Then you're forcing them to break their roleplaying because there is no reason in character for them to bring you along besides the fact that out of character they know you are a player character. Now there could be a story of them training a rookie to be more competent represented mechanically via retraining, but refusing to fix your mechanics is simply bad roleplaying.
Basically, which of the two I do depends entirely on my mood that day. Occasionally, I'm even switching mid-session. (To paraphrase, "I had a lot of fun talking the last four guys to death, but I need a break. Can I just roll?"/"Okay, break is over. I'm in the mood for some tale spinning, I need another bluff-victim!")A mutually exclusive example has already been provided.
If you care to quote that example and explain how the example given is not mutually exclusive, I'll listen.
I included that in my example.
While the game styles are mutually exclusive, nothing prevents the game from shifting styles based on current circumstances.
The problems tend to arise when different players at the same table are using different gaming styles and cannot resolve their differences.
My group, for example, sometimes runs into a conflict between an individual who favors murderhobo roleplay and an individual that insists on attempting to resolve every conflict with rollplay and diplomacy - no matter how much the rest of the party groans. Most of the group sits between these two extremes.
My group, for example, sometimes runs into a conflict between an individual who favors murderhobo roleplay and an individual that insists on attempting to resolve every conflict with rollplay and diplomacy - no matter how much the rest of the party groans. Most of the group sits between these two extremes.
To me, that sounds more like a murderhobo/diplomacy conflict than an role/roll conflict.
In my group, there is usually one person "roleing" while the rest just rolls with it (we take turns, and technically, everyone can always act out his character as much as they want, but it just tends to end up like that) and there is not much arguing - but then, none of us is interested in blatant murderhobo gaming.
(If we go murderhoboing, it's either against mindless enemies or for in-character reasons, like our priest's fanatical hatred of undead and necromancers, or my summoners equally fanatical hatred of kytons and devils, which the whole group knows about and expects.)
So, yeah, "roleing" and "rolling" can comfortably exist right next to each other, but murderhoboing and diplomancing need some agreements to work out without conflict.
Except that implies that they're mutually exclusive... which is the very heart of the Stormwind Fallacy.The two gaming styles are mutually exclusive at any given point in time.In the same way that only the moon or the stars can be out at night, but never both!See the example I posted above for Roleplay vs Rollplay.
** spoiler omitted **
A mutually exclusive example has already been provided.
If you care to quote that example and explain how the example given is not mutually exclusive, I'll listen.
How about you link to this post you say you made that sums this all up nicely. I believe there's been like 6 or more people asking you about this and can't find any post you've made that answers these questions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
peanut butter vs jelly
capitalism vs socialism
Ebony vs Ivory
Cheese vs Dough
Milk vs cookies
These are things that are supposed to work together. Your mechanics and character inform each other and help you flesh out a personality that works WITH the mechanics.
How about you link to this post you say you made that sums this all up nicely. I believe there's been like 6 or more people asking you about this and can't find any post you've made that answers these questions.
I assume Snowlilly means this post, in which the difference between "roleplay" and "rollplay" is used to describe the amount of description any given action gets. Basically, the difference between "Sir Valiant the Golden bravely storms into battle, striking the nearest foe!" (roleplaying) and "My pally charges the closest enemy." (rollplaying), independently of the optimization involved.
Which is fine to describe a single action, but at least everyone *I* know switches between either of the two depending on mood, situation, and all kinds of things. And most telling is that by this definition, most of the time our group has half roleplayers and half rollplayers, without any conflict. Oh, and who is what keeps changing.
So, it's not much more useful than the "original" use of the terms, just not contradictory any more (for any single action).
_________________*
That being said, I had an idea: The player alignment chart. In place of "Lawful / Chaotic", we have "Rolling / Roleing" (which, as by Snowlilly's definition, just means "actions with few descriptions" or "actions with elaborate descriptions"), and in place of "Good / Evil" we have "Diplomancers / Murderhobos", depending on how plot-driven / combat-focused a player sees the game.
Would that help? Most definitely not. I just thought that the only way to make this topic more polarizing was to bring alignment into it. By the way, I'm a Neutral Diplomancer.
Now excuse me, I have to get me some snacks.
* The line is where I start joking.
I don't find roll play vs role play to have anything to do with optimization or power gaming.
Some people like the acting and getting into character. Some like play the game like table war game of rules and mechanics. I like both personally. Sometimes I'm just not into getting into character and roleplaying and I just want some tactical combat with loot and experience watching my character grow. Mostly I get my fix of this from video games. When we get together to game I like to get into character and roleplay as it's fun social activity. But sometime I'm just no in mood for.
So what we do is have two games. The roleplaying game and table top war game of combat where you don't really get into character play the game like a game chess.
GJ guys, I think we're approaching a dozen different definitions for each word. Just a little more to go.
|
|
Yes, it is possible. But not always doable. Not everyone has the time to make a character that's good in both the fluff parts as well the crunch parts. In such case the player simply prioritizes the part he enjoys more.But it is possible to do both.
When presented as an either/or situation we find the Stormwind fallacy.
This paragraph makes no sense. The two aren't separate processes, they're intimately connected to each other and doing one in a vacuum from the other makes basically no sense.
I mean, how do you even come up with any detailed backstory absent the character's stats so you know what their capabilities are? Do you guess at random?
And how do you come up with stats without knowing who you want to play?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The two gaming styles are mutually exclusive at any given point in time.In the same way that only the moon or the stars can be out at night, but never both!See the example I posted above for Roleplay vs Rollplay.
** spoiler omitted **
In both examples, dice were rolled. Therefore, they are both examples of rollplay.
no you make their backstory and then randomly assign everything else, since the roll-play doesn't need to match the role-play ;)
If you say in your backstory that you're the greatest swordsman feared everywhere then you don't need stats or intimidate to back that up, because it already is because you said it was.
the acting out or performance of a particular role, either consciously (as a technique in psychotherapy or training) or unconsciously, in accordance with the perceived expectations of society with regard to a person's behavior in a particular context.
Players do that every time they speak in character and say something that their player wouldn't say in that same situation.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do players REALLY do this? I don't see it much in modern RPGs. I will see people playing "let's pretend" and defining what they feel their character is/does/can do/will do/has... etc. Or sometimes talking (in character or OOC) about what the PC they built can do... Seldom about HOW to play the role... or even about the role they are playing...
I dunno about you, but most people I play with think and talk about this pretty extensively. I really don't enjoy games where that didn't occur (and have quit games over them not encouraging doing so, actually).
Talking like focusing on the characters and who they are isn't common thus seems deeply surreal to me. If you aren't doing so, what's the point of playing an RPG rather than a complicated board game?
I mean I like complicated board games, and they're quite a bit less effort to prep for. Without caring about your character and the story of their adventures, why would you ever put in the work an RPG requires?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
In over thirty years of RPGing, I've had friends who had to have other people not only create their character, but keep them updated, and help them with almost every roll. I've had friends who could literally - used properly - not act (roleplay) their way out of a paper sack, or who couldn't go from 'my character does X' to 'I do X'. I've had friends who could come up with a character's entire history, personality, friendships, school experiences, work and color and home and clothing preferences in a ten-page document or thirty-panel powerpoint before they ever managed to start on the character's technical bits. I've had friends who couldn't NAME their character until they had every number set, item bought, THAC0 determined, and at least two gaming sessions went by for them to find out who the character was.
There is no One Right Way to roleplay.
(You knew it was coming.)
There ARE wrong ways to play.
The person who needed their hand held would take twenty minutes to figure out 'the best way' to open up a door, and had to have every option explained to them again and again. Yes, eventually he learned how to keep track of things himself, and not worry about every single possible consequence. But he had to be taught how NOT to be a bad roleplayer.
The person who had no real concept of roleplaying-as-acting could go through characters like paper, because that's all they were to him - which means he did frankly stupid sh!t that would, half the time, get other PCs killed - and couldn't understand why they got so upset because 'it's only a game'. He too learned that other people made emotional connections with their characters, and how to not do dumb/crazy stuff and be a team player instead of enjoying getting himself killed in new and psychotic ways. But he had to be taught how NOT to be a bad roleplayer.
The girl who wrote thirty pages before starting character generation would try to be the center of Every Single Scene, and then felt betrayed if something bad happened to her character, because she felt it was aimed at HER instead of simply being part of the risks that an adventurous person such as her PC ran by going out into the world, and would Bring The Drama in spades. She learned how to put some seperation between 'hey, Danae took an arrow to the knee' and 'no, Diana, we don't hate you', and also learned that to be able to play with other people, they needed to have fun too - which means they needed spotlight-time, and she couldn't hog it all. But she had to be taught how NOT to be a bad roleplayer.
The guy who couldn't name his character before the third session ... actually, we never had a real problem with him, because despite his inability to create a person until he had the bones and was trying to find out what the flesh was like, he was a fantastic 'role'player as well - it just took him time to discover what each character was like. And as he went on, his backstory got developed in-game, and in his mind, and he could pull out fantastic and (as importantly) probable twists for the GM to giggle at, grab, and run amuck with.
But I HAVE known rules-lawyers who milk every method to be able to turn into little tin gods by level 7, who will spend an hour trying to argue against physics, common sense, and the GM by demanding a textual ruling on some stupid thing (such as whether or not you can use TWO lances while charging) because the rules might imply something, but the idea is blatantly dumba$$. And we tried to teach him. And we tried to teach him. And boy, did we try to teach him to be a better RPer. But he kept up his rules-lawyerly manner, and after fifteen months we kicked his sorry a$$ out of the group and made no bones as to WHY we were doing it.
And I've known people who couldn't stay connected to the game if you put a ten-dollar bill down on the table and told them that if they could keep from swerving off onto some other topic (the football game, a video game, what to have for dinner, this great book I read, the girl I'm interetc.) for only 15 minutes they could have it. Just couldn't stay on topic. We eventually got him focused enough to play the game, but it took us learning tricks to keep him focused, like turning him into our gofer, and it took him being willing to do that sort of thing so that he COULD focus on playing the game and not go all hare-brained on us. But he had to be taught how NOT to be a bad roleplayer, and we had to learn how to be a good gaming group for him.
There is no One Right, True Way to roleplay.
But there are wrong ways. And our responsibility as roleplayers, however we approach the game, is to teach those who RP in bad ways (scene-stealing, spotlight-hogging, emo-drama-queening, take-it-personally-ing, rules-lawyering, no-focusing, side-conversationing) to learn how to be better players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In over thirty years of RPGing, I've had friends who had to have other people not only create their character, but keep them updated, and help them with almost every roll. I've had friends who could literally - used properly - not act (roleplay) their way out of a paper sack, or who couldn't go from 'my character does X' to 'I do X'. I've had friends who could come up with a character's entire history, personality, friendships, school experiences, work and color and home and clothing preferences in a ten-page document or thirty-panel powerpoint before they ever managed to start on the character's technical bits. I've had friends who couldn't NAME their character until they had every number set, item bought, THAC0 determined, and at least two gaming sessions went by for them to find out who the character was.
There is no One Right Way to roleplay.
(You knew it was coming.)
There ARE wrong ways to play.
The person who needed their hand held would take twenty minutes to figure out 'the best way' to open up a door, and had to have every option explained to them again and again. Yes, eventually he learned how to keep track of things himself, and not worry about every single possible consequence. But he had to be taught how NOT to be a bad roleplayer.
The person who had no real concept of roleplaying-as-acting could go through characters like paper, because that's all they were to him - which means he did frankly stupid sh!t that would, half the time, get other PCs killed - and couldn't understand why they got so upset because 'it's only a game'. He too learned that other people made emotional connections with their characters, and how to not do dumb/crazy stuff and be a team player instead of enjoying getting himself killed in new and psychotic ways. But he had to be taught how NOT to be a bad roleplayer.
The girl who wrote thirty pages before starting character generation would try to be the center of Every Single Scene, and then felt betrayed if...
Yes there are bad ways to play
The person who came to the table with a wonderful backstory and vision that required her character to cower from any combat, and choose only spells that would help her escape a fight. Yes playing a pacifist is fine but not if you are a detriment to your fellow adventurers. After a while she learned how great buffs or de-buffs could be eventually preventing some combat all together.
The guy who wanted to be the party face but thought he should be able to get by on words alone without ever picking up a dice. After a bit he left the group not really happy with us that we needed the dice to tell the story.
Or the guy who had to be the best he found every internet build and pushed to the max till he was the only one doing anything. We removed him from the group for a while when he came back he was calmer and understood everyone wanted to play.
There is no One Right, True Way to rollplay.
But there are wrong ways. And our responsibility as rollplayers, however we approach the game, is to teach those who make characters who get people killed, who only want to tell a story, or optimize to the point of no return to learn how to be better players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if the "optimizer/non-optimizer" distinction is preferable, since "optimizing" is really a sliding scale, virtually everybody does some of it. All optimizing is in the context of this game is "identifying which mechanical choices are likely to be better than other ones, and taking the better ones". If your fighter takes Power Attack at level 1 instead of Deceitful they are optimizing. If a player decides one race is better than another for a certain class, not for conceptual reasons, but because the racial bonuses are better, they're optimizing.
Everybody does this to a certain extent, so I don't know if characterizing people as non-optimizers is even accurate. Even if people come to the table with weird and fun concepts, they're probably still going to make sure they're capable of doing what they are supposed to do (even if that's not very useful).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if the "optimizer/non-optimizer" distinction is preferable, since "optimizing" is really a sliding scale, virtually everybody does some of it. All optimizing is in the context of this game is "identifying which mechanical choices are likely to be better than other ones, and taking the better ones". If your fighter takes Power Attack at level 1 instead of Deceitful they are optimizing. If a player decides one race is better than another for a certain class, not for conceptual reasons, but because the racial bonuses are better, they're optimizing.
Everybody does this to a certain extent, so I don't know if characterizing people as non-optimizers is even accurate. Even if people come to the table with weird and fun concepts, they're probably still going to make sure they're capable of doing what they are supposed to do (even if that's not very useful).
I generally agree. However, it's actually the people who DON'T do this at all which seem most likely to use the rollplay vs roleplay argument or something similar.
I actually had a PFS game at a convention where a rogue was using a single handed weapon with nothing in his off-hand (also a Dex of 16 I believe... at level 5ish), and during a bit of a break between scenes I asked him why, since he wasn't TWF he didn't try a buckler in his off-hand, explaining that the lack of ACP meant he could do so without any drawbacks.
He proceeded to tell me that it was because he wasn't a munchkin and gave me a dirty look - obviously implying that my competent character made me one. (I believe I was playing a monk at the time, and not even a Umonk. Go figure.)
(That same player also ended up storming off halfway through the session for reasons which were unclear.)
There seems to be a lot of GNS theory gone horribly wrong in recent posts.
As far as 'character competency' goes, you really have to consider the medium in which the group is playing. PFS promotes hyper-specialization and optimization because from what I understand, it is mostly based on putting the players in a combat scenario where combat is the main medium of play. Characters who aren't built for this type of game will perform more poorly than those that aren't.
Someone brought up pacifist or nonviolent characters, and I just can't agree that it's the 'wrong way' to build a character since we have hard rules on how to run things like heists (where escaping and subterfuge are the mediums of conflict rather than combat) and social combat where skill versatility becomes more prominent. As a player, one would be expected to build their characters in a way that compliments your primary mediums of conflict (or in most group scenarios have someone that can cover those bases should they come up). In these scenarios characters who are optimized for combat/dpr harshly fall short. From what I understand, PFS does not reward this style of role playing, since a large number of products and a large portion of the player base opines their preference for combat based games with their wallets (which is what Paizo ought to care about).
I would then go on to say that the only wrong way to play is one where you disrupt this balance with expectations that the game/DM/group must accommodate your own preference and style. This distinction is largely divorced from whether or not a character can be considered 'optimal' and is more drawn to characters being evaluated as 'appropriate' imo.
Telling someone that their respective mode of play is wrong is offensive; saying that it is inappropriate or suboptimal for the expected medium(s) of conflict within the context of any given game is not.
PFS promotes hyper-specialization and optimization because from what I understand, it is mostly based on putting the players in a combat scenario where combat is the main medium of play. Characters who aren't built for this type of game will perform more poorly than those that aren't.
PFS has more skills and social interactions than most games, but lets face it, the rules for diplomacy is one table and combat is 5 pounds worth of dead tree. This is a combat heavy game and its unfair to blame PFS for that.
Hyper competency is not usually required in PFS because the combats are usually pretty easy and you usually have action economy on your side.
Usually.
|
PFS does not require optimization.
I just completed Scions of the Sky Key II last night with a Gunslinger1, Vigilante2, Swashbuckler2, and Paladin2/Bloodrager1.
PFS is not hard. You don't have to optimize for it.
I don't think organized play tilts the game towards optimization, I think it tilts the game towards a combat focus rather than creative problem solving, narrative agency, in depth-roleplaying, etc. This isn't the fault of PFS, the "tactical combat" focused sort of game is the best sort of game to run for random strangers who show up at a table who may never have seen each other before, let alone collaborated on a well-rounded party.
The sorts of "dinner party intrigue" games are much better to run at home with your friends who all know each other. In a more supportive environment like that people are more apt to push boundaries with their role-playing, and to think outside the box in terms of problem-solving just because your friends are at least likely to be affectionate when they berate you for your weird ideas.
BNW- thanks for the input, I'm not a PFS player (morally opposed, but I appreciate what it does for the community) and I'm glad to have an opinion from someone who does play it. I would be inclined to agree that the diplomacy rules don't see much play and leads to dead trees. Hopefully though future games (and some help from books like UI) the community can expand upon and improve this problem.
Aside:
TOZ- seems anecdotal, but then again data is nothing but a collection of anecdotes with their respective trends and similarities measured. I am grateful for the opinion though since a large misconception of mine seems to be what to expect from the experience should I play PFS or by PFS rules.
|
|
Fair point, and a more nuanced explanation would quantify that PFS has varying difficulty the same as any other group of adventures written by a body of different authors. The forums is really not the best place to determine such a thing, but the time investment of actually playing in the many different groups and many different adventures is a barrier to that as well. And I certainly have my own personal bias that colors my view of the campaign. I do feel safe in saying that PFS is skewed towards the casual game rather than the optimized game, with notable exceptions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BNW- thanks for the input, I'm not a PFS player (morally opposed, but I appreciate what it does for the community)
It really isn't as bad as you'd think looking at all the technical rules and whatnot. Its far more permissive than most DMs in terms of what's allowed, and the dm really does run the game pretty much the same way they'd run everything else.
a brief overview of how pfs actually works
and I'm glad to have an opinion from someone who does play it. I would be inclined to agree that the diplomacy rules don't see much play and leads to dead trees. Hopefully though future games (and some help from books like UI) the community can expand upon and improve this problem.
Aside:** spoiler omitted **
PFS year 5 was only slightly jokingly referred to as the year of the diplomat for all the talking and recruiting you had to do, the mission and the bonus point very often require that you NOT murderhobo the place
Role playing is, by its nature, not something that there are rules for. Ultimate intrigue opened up a more complex system and thats starting to get a little bit of play in the scenarios.
TOZ- seems anecdotal, but then again data is nothing but a collection of anecdotes with their respective trends and similarities measured. I am grateful for the opinion though since a large misconception of mine seems to be what to expect from the experience should I play PFS or by PFS rules.
I'm a 4 star dm which means I've run over 100 pfs games, toz is a 5 star which means he's gone completely insane.
Fair point, and a more nuanced explanation would quantify that PFS has varying difficulty the same as any other group of adventures written by a body of different authors. The forums is really not the best place to determine such a thing, but the time investment of actually playing in the many different groups and many different adventures is a barrier to that as well. And I certainly have my own personal bias that colors my view of the campaign. I do feel safe in saying that PFS is skewed towards the casual game rather than the optimized game, with notable exceptions.
But does that detract from the notion that PFS and other mainstream adventures that are published mostly lean towards the 'crunch sections' of character building and development are largely rewarded in the 'physical combat' sector of the game?
Optmized for it or not, if physical combat is the mode of play, then characters built for that mode of play would be rewarded, logically speaking.
Mode of play in this instance would be defined as the most played aspect of the game (typically most literature on this subject defines the modes of play as combat, social interactions, and exploration).
Medium of conflict in this scenario would lean towards things like enemies built for combat and not social encounters, shopkeeps who interact with the players mroe like videogames where you simply exchange the gp you have written on your sheet for items rather than incorporating a true barter/questing scenario to obtain particular items, and exploration that is more inclusive of skill checks and trap encounters vs puzzle and maze type of encounters which really doesn't interact with the numbers on the sheet.
Ideally, characters and games are both designed with these factors in mind, and we ought to have literature and published games that facilitate all these types of play, however it is a more common trend (at least on the forums) to focus on the lethal physical combat aspect being the mode of play and such the medium of conflict most players experience is based on this general observation and assumption.
I may be totally incorrect, but this is a game and the game is a business so when product design and organized play become factors we must consider that when we look at the games we play and the characters we design to play in them. The overall result of this business model and our interaction with it as consumers is more or less what spawns threads like this.
But does that detract from the notion that PFS and other mainstream adventures that are published mostly lean towards the 'crunch sections' of character building and development are largely rewarded in the 'physical combat' sector of the game?
Optmized for it or not, if physical combat is the mode of play, then characters built for that mode of play would be rewarded, logically speaking.
But that only means that there's no or less role play if you subscribe to the stormwind fallacy: the idea that optimizing your character makes your roleplay worse. That simply isn't the case.
How much role playing there is in a scenario is a combination of the scenario, the group and the DM. I've had a Nagaji Bard talk through 3/4s of what was supposed to be a straight out dungeon crawl because they were basically a giant kobold with obscene bonuses vs talking to reptilians.
But does that detract from the notion that PFS and other mainstream adventures that are published mostly lean towards the 'crunch sections' of character building and development are largely rewarded in the 'physical combat' sector of the game?
Optmized for it or not, if physical combat is the mode of play, then characters built for that mode of play would be rewarded, logically speaking.
But that only means that there's no or less role play if you subscribe to the stormwind fallacy: the idea that optimizing your character makes your roleplay worse. That simply isn't the case.
I suppose I'm not being clear, as again in my ideal scenario I would expect all modes of play to be incorporated equally such that the Stormwind Fallacy could not even happen in the first place.
This would mean that characters who are built in any particular way (meaning geared towards any of the modes I briefly summarized) would all have equal opportunities to shine and become largely successful compared to other characters at the same table built for different modes.
Optimization notwithstanding as the encounters designed in the game can have varying difficulty for each respective mode.
Optimization within the context of the Stormwind Fallacy is normally about lethal combat numerical values, so far as most internet discussions go. Being that the modes of play and mediums of conflict are themselves variable, should the different modes be incorporated Stormwind Fallacy in that context may actually not be true. This is largely because the main assumption (and thus the domain of the mathmatical equation that numerical optimization is based on) that Stormwind makes is that lethal combat is the presumed mode of play.
If I make a rough around the edges physical combatant who lacks social skills and put him in a scenario where he must engage in encounters (s)he isn't designed for then we have a scenario where the general presumption of numerical optimization proposed by Stormwind is turned on it's head.
What I'm really saying is: Roll-playing can be optimized towards modes of play other than combat, and thus the premise of Stormwind becomes variable, and in those scenarios we ought to consider that when determining whether or not Stormwind is true for the respective derivative we are representing in any particular game.
I may be biased in this, as I am of the play style that 'any role playing is good role playing' and I do not expect fully fleshed out characterization from my players so I would accept a player simply describing their general ideas for what their character is doing followed by a die roll to be equal in weight at my table as a player fully acting out their character's lines and encompassing verbiage and proper language as far as the context of the in-game dialogue is concerned. To me, both of these are valid forms of play, one is not an inherently superior form of role-playing.
The person who came to the table with a wonderful backstory and vision that required her character to cower from any combat, and choose only spells that would help her escape a fight. Yes playing a pacifist is fine but not if you are a detriment to your fellow adventurers. After a while she learned how great buffs or de-buffs could be eventually preventing some combat all together.
The good old days :)
I once played a pacifist.
It was a fun character, even if I did roll lousy stats, including a three strength.
But that only means that there's no or less role play if you subscribe to the stormwind fallacy: the idea that optimizing your character makes your roleplay worse. That simply isn't the case.
I agree with this.
Optimization, or lack of, has nothing to do with roleplay vs rollplay.
One is a game style, the other is just numbers on a piece of paper.
The only point of intersection is that rollplay, as a game style, tends to place a primary focus on the numbers. It does not mean you cannot rollplay with an unoptimized character, no more than an optimized character is barred from rollplaying.
PFS year 5 was only slightly jokingly referred to as the year of the diplomat for all the talking and recruiting you had to do, the mission and the bonus point very often require that you NOT murderhobo the place
Role playing is, by its nature, not something that there are rules for. Ultimate intrigue opened up a more complex system and thats starting to get a little bit of play in the scenarios.
And year 7 was year of the skill checks
The person who came to the table with a wonderful backstory and vision that required her character to cower from any combat, and choose only spells that would help her escape a fight. Yes playing a pacifist is fine but not if you are a detriment to your fellow adventurers. After a while she learned how great buffs or de-buffs could be eventually preventing some combat all together.The good old days :)
I once played a pacifist.
It was a fun character, even if I did roll lousy stats, including a three strength.
But that only means that there's no or less role play if you subscribe to the stormwind fallacy: the idea that optimizing your character makes your roleplay worse. That simply isn't the case.I agree with this.
Optimization, or lack of, has nothing to do with roleplay vs rollplay.
One is a game style, the other is just numbers on a piece of paper.
The only point of intersection is that rollplay, as a game style, tends to place a primary focus on the numbers. It does not mean you cannot rollplay with an unoptimized character, no more than an optimized character is barred from rollplaying.
I've always understood Roll playing defined as whether or not your character is numerically optimized for the mode of play. IF the mode of play changes and your character all of a sudden becomes numerically optimized, then the role playing side of things may be affected as a character who, according to Stormwind, would be considered suboptimal is no longer considered such, then the designation of being a roleplayer or a roll player is changed.
Role playing defined antithetically to roll playing simply means someone who's character is not based on numbers. It goes without saying that these players have a right to play that way, however if we assume Stormwind is true then we have no basis to assert whether or not they are playing the game 'correctly'.
The definition and designation of roll-play vs. role-play is the topic of the thread, and Stormwind is a part of that, but not the focus.