GM Freedom


Pathfinder Society

101 to 126 of 126 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for sharing that nosig. Every time you rant like that I stop and assess my games, and ask myself if I am being the best GM I can.

Where did the term Judge come from? I see it often on these forums but have never seen it used elsewhere.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Not giving someone a +2 is not the same as giving them a -2.

Grand Lodge 4/5

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

But giving a -2 for not roleplaying is.

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

here's a post by "Bill Baldwin - Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill" posted on Jun 8, 2016, 10:05 am on a different thread... but I really like it, so this is quoting him here...

"The biggest problem I have whenever this type of discussion comes up is that is seems those asking for rewards for good role-playing seem to limit good role-playing rewards only to those characters with good social skills. Eloquent characters are rewarded for role-playing eloquent speeches while ineloquent characters are chastised for bad role-playing when they wax equally eloquent. Yet I see no suggestions of a reward for role-playing ineloquent characters in an ineloquent manner. If we want to reward good role-playing, why are we only rewarding players who are role-playing their good social skill characters well?"

yeah - I don't think I can add much to that.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Role playing ineloquent characters is it's own reward. Usually on the order of 4 build points...

The Exchange 5/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Role playing ineloquent characters is it's own reward. Usually on the order of 4 build points...

...and Role playing eloquent characters is it's own reward....IMHO

The Exchange 5/5

Ward Davis wrote:

...

Where did the term Judge come from? I see it often on these forums but have never seen it used elsewhere.

Link for you....

The Exchange 4/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Role playing ineloquent characters is it's own reward. Usually on the order of 4 build points...

i got one of those, a bloatmage with -2 diplomacy. recently i was playing him at a con and the other players were just sitting there while i talked. after a few minutes I stopped and told them you might want to jump in cause my character will mess this up. i have to remind myself of that. roll the dice and than start being rude cause that low roll is your characters best.

3/5 **** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro

nosig wrote:

Do we do the same thing for someone who just rolls her climb skill checks? or her swim? Does she have to say "I'm doing a 'dog paddle' over to the wall and try to climb out... ah... using both hands to boost me out of the water and the wall as leverage." Should she take us down to the hotel pool to show us HOW her character does that swim check? (realizing here that my wife would do MUCH better at this - as I can't swim and she is a Water Aerobics instructor.)

Isn't the climb skill the most common skill that grants circumstantial modifiers for purposefully narrating what you do? And its usually the one that even compared to diplomacy always gets narrated because it changes its a hefty hefty bonus/reduction in DC.

5/5 5/55/55/5

nosig wrote:


...and Role playing eloquent characters is it's own reward....IMHO

Which is something I want to see more of and i want to encourage it. hence the +2 bonus. As suggested in the core rulebook.

Silver Crusade 1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like a lot of the issue with the social skills and "roll play / role play" is the result of the mere existence of the skills.

But this is because I'm an old timer too. In early editions of D&D there were no skill checks. How on earth did we resolve social encounters then? Well, we bluffed, we intimidated, we even sometimes attempted to be diplomatic. But all of that was done in simple conversation, with no dice rolling involved. The DM could judge outcomes based on NPC motivations, and what was actually said.

The transition to codified social skills has resulted in much of the debate and discussion with NPCs being rendered irrelevant because a player can say "I diplomacy: I rolled 38" and that's all within the rules, regardless of how much or how little actual talking has occurred.

I suppose I just prefer for the old way when it comes to social encounters.

The Exchange 5/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
nosig wrote:


...and Role playing eloquent characters is it's own reward....IMHO

Which is something I want to see more of and i want to encourage it. hence the +2 bonus. As suggested in the core rulebook.

While I would want to see more eloquent PLAYERS that play their PCs in Roles. Is the PC a gruff uncultured barbarian? Play it that way.... but I'm not sure if I should "reward" the player by giving the character a bonus to his social skill checks. I guess if the Player were to build a hut to play in, I could give his wizard PC a bonus to Survival checks... but it still seems a bit miss placed.

The Exchange 5/5

MadScientistWorking wrote:
nosig wrote:

Do we do the same thing for someone who just rolls her climb skill checks? or her swim? Does she have to say "I'm doing a 'dog paddle' over to the wall and try to climb out... ah... using both hands to boost me out of the water and the wall as leverage." Should she take us down to the hotel pool to show us HOW her character does that swim check? (realizing here that my wife would do MUCH better at this - as I can't swim and she is a Water Aerobics instructor.)

Isn't the climb skill the most common skill that grants circumstantial modifiers for purposefully narrating what you do? And its usually the one that even compared to diplomacy always gets narrated because it changes its a hefty hefty bonus/reduction in DC.

Sorry - I don't understand your post. Please expand on this... so I can understand what you are trying to say.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
As suggested in the core rulebook.

It's actually not.

5/5 5/55/55/5

nosig wrote:


While I would want to see more eloquent PLAYERS that play their PCs in Roles. Is the PC a gruff uncultured barbarian? Play it that way.... but I'm not sure if I should "reward" the player by giving the character a bonus to his social skill checks. I guess if the Player were to build a hut to play in, I could give his wizard PC a bonus to Survival checks... but it still seems a bit miss placed.

Okay, you keep acting as if this is a unique situation in the game and it's not. There are hundreds if not thousands of examples where the player's skill can make a difference for their character. Naming absurd options where it might not work in other skills does absolutely nothing to udermine the idea that it works in some circumstances

And if my players want to build a pillow fort on the spot? yeah that much fun is worth a +2. Knock yourselves out.

More likely they'd get the bonus from using something they have with them (the gnome wears a tarp like a superman cape) , or remembering the thick rich mud of the area (a la the excelebt survival hut videos) , or the very big leaves mentioned in the scenario, or using the sap to seal the place up or something.

If someone is uncultured and still making the facey talky talk skill checks* they're going to have to do it in a way that would actually work: someone with the int to diplomacy skill checks can launch into sesquepadelian loquaciousness or the dwarf can be brutally honest But perfectly on point and reasonable.

* gives you some idea of where MY diplomacy score is.

5/5 5/55/55/5

nosig wrote:

Here's a side note... just my opinion, and we all know how much that's worth...

I have noticed that the rules in Ultimate Intrigue seem to be an attempt to turn the Role Playing aspect of our game into a set of Rolls. To convert the Role Playing into Roll Playing.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's how it seems to me.

Change Social Encounters into Social Combat - with dice rolls...

My response to ultimate intrigue and how it relates to pfs can be found under A general ARRRGHH over ultimate intrigue and its impact on reading the rules for PFS

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
Paul Jackson wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:


Also, I wonder how many GMs provide misinformation for a poor knowledge check?
I thought we were supposed to run as written. That strikes me as a possibly reasonable house rule that has absolutely NO place in Society play.
I don't see how giving them misinformation is against RAW.

Because the rules don't say "Give misinformation on a failed roll"?

Its EXACTLY the same limitation that means that I can't have the player stab himself in the foot on a failed attack roll. Even if that attack roll was a 1.

There is a HUGE difference between "You don't know" and "You think it has DR Slashing".

I've had GMs very obviously lie to me as a joke many a time. Just as I've had players very obviously lie on a low roll as a joke. But the key word there is "joke"

Shadow Lodge

Paul Jackson wrote:
Its EXACTLY the same limitation that means that I can't have the player stab himself in the foot on a failed attack roll. Even if that attack roll was a 1.

An example that more closely mirrors the "misinformation" bit would be telling someone that their theive's tools broke because they rolled a nat 1 on Disable Device to pick a lock, versus setting off a trap when you fail to disable it by 5 or more. One is in the rules, the other is not.

To state this more clearly: you're not allowed to make up rules where we already have rules. Which is to say, if you encounter a situation that the rules don't really cover, you can wing it and make something up. But in areas the rules do cover, you gotta use the rules we have. The Knowledge skill rules don't impose a "misinformation" penalty (or any penalty for failure, beyond simply not getting the info), so to give the party bad info for a bad Knowledge roll is inventing a rule where we already have rules.

TL;DNR version: No, you're not allowed to give players bad info just because they botched their Knowledge checks.

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Even if they proudly proclaim at the top of their voice "LIE TO ME!".

...especially then.


Now THIS is a topic I'm quite interested in!

It reminds me of a Starfinder game I played once. One of my teammates was playing a face. but when it came around time to RP the conversation, they seemed quite out of their comfort zone. I wanted to jump in and help, but given my character's rather mediocre Charisma score... It's at that point that I realized that I'd LOVE to be on face duty, but sadly, limited ability points and my desire for tip-top combat performance kinda stifled that. (On a somewhat related note, I would later find out that I botched a Diplomacy check to gather information so badly that my big mouth apparently tipped off and ticked off some enemies we faced later that day.) So it got me thinking, what would be the right balance between roleplay and ability score so as to not trivialize either?

I'd like to hear other opinions on this, but I'm thinking something like this: Pretty much anyone with a 10 Charisma or higher could feasibly hold a diplomatic discussion. In such cases, roleplaying it out is a viable option, should the player prefer it, only taking into account Diplomacy checks for mood improvement and making requests. What others have said in this thread about giving bonuses based on roleplay sounds good as well.

And finally, this is a bit off-topic, but NOW I'm wondering how I can play my innocently insensitive and brutally honest 7 Cha Barbarian kid without actively sabotaging my party or coming off as a jerk. Hmm...

Scarab Sages 1/5 5/5

"Oh, tha's easy. Jus' don' be a total butt 'bout it an' watch y'r party's back!"

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paul Jackson wrote:
I thought we were supposed to run as written. That strikes me as a possibly reasonable house rule that has absolutely NO place in Society play.

Depends a lot on the situation. I was not suggesting a poor roll to identify a lich is gonna get you, "its a dragon!" At the same time, roll poorly against a skeletal champion and you might get, "it looks like a skeleton" or botch a roll vs a bebilith, you might get, "it looks like a huge spider, but there's something unusual about it that you cannot put your finger on." Those are perfectly reasonable descriptions and not the same as "its a [redacted]."

The fact that I cannot recall any GMs doing this means this is all hypothetical anyway. I've flubbed a check to identify creatures before and the GM simply said I had no idea what it was. That a d6 was being used as a pawn didn't help visualization and prevented any guessing based on its appearance whatsoever. If I see a skeletal creature, I am may not determine its an actual skeleton or some more powerful variant, but if it has any damage reduction, its a good bet its overcome with bludgeoning (at least). That's a reasonable assumption.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

Bob Jonquet wrote:

At the same time, roll poorly against a skeletal champion and you might get, "it looks like a skeleton" or botch a roll vs a bebilith, you might get, "it looks like a huge spider, but there's something unusual about it that you cannot put your finger on." Those are perfectly reasonable descriptions and not the same as "its a [redacted]."

These I have absolutely no problem with at all. Looks like I misinterpreted what you meant before

The Exchange 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:

here's a post by "Bill Baldwin - Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill" posted on Jun 8, 2016, 10:05 am on a different thread... but I really like it, so this is quoting him here...

"The biggest problem I have whenever this type of discussion comes up is that is seems those asking for rewards for good role-playing seem to limit good role-playing rewards only to those characters with good social skills. Eloquent characters are rewarded for role-playing eloquent speeches while ineloquent characters are chastised for bad role-playing when they wax equally eloquent. Yet I see no suggestions of a reward for role-playing ineloquent characters in an ineloquent manner. If we want to reward good role-playing, why are we only rewarding players who are role-playing their good social skill characters well?"

yeah - I don't think I can add much to that.

And thanks to Post-Operative Pain - I can't sleep, and am in need of something to distract me... so I'll expand on this post some...

What I think is ment by "reward players who are role-playing ineloquent characters in an ineloquent manner" is to provide an in game - in encounter - bonus to the skill check that that player is having her PC attempt for role playing her socially inept PC doing socially inept things/saying things the Socially Challanged PC would do. Some examples might be...

A) Socially Challanged PC is being subjected to a Interview by the local authorities. Player states her PC Farts during questioning - whenever asked a question. This is her "Bluff" check... Rolling a 15 with her -2 for a CHA 7, and she gets a 13. The judge figures this is "very much In Character, and good roll playing (hopefully the PLAYER did not "Act Out" the action!) so awards her a +2 to her skill check - and perhaps the PC thus gets the 15 Bluff needed to avoid being "detained for further questioning"

LINK at own risk

B) A SC-PC attempting to do an aid another check on Diplomacy states that she steps out of the room - going to "see a man about a dog" - and thus is trying avoid the social interactions that her PC tries to avoid because she is so shy... The Socail Wall-flower rolls a 10 -2 skill, but a bonus of +2 for "playing her PC in character - Role Playing the Right Way" and so means her PC Aids the Face Character trying to Gather Info... basically by NOT being in the room to distract the NPSs from the Face PC.

C) During an "interview" of mook prisoners by the most Intimidating Party Face, the Socially Challlanged Knife-Master PC (named Jane the Knive for a reason and during Introductions she stated her PC was "All about the Knives), states that she "makes a point being seen watching the Paladin step around a corner, and when he's out of sight my PC will be TOTALLY disinterested in the mooks (she's not good a People Skills PC) and so I'll pull out a whetstone to start re-sharpen the knives I used in combat. Totally engrossed in the work at hand... take a moment to enjoy the gleam of light reflected on the blade, and TOTALLY NOT watching the mooks. - Roll an Aid on the Intimidate check.. I got a final 9..." ... Heck, I'd give her a +2 bonus to that skill check, so I'd count it as an Aid Another. But then I would likely give the Paladin the same bonus to an Aid Another on the SAME check - just for stating that he was "Confident that the other PCs wont do more than scare the Prisoners - I know my party isn't EVIL after all, so with a knowing look at all my friends I'll nod and say something about checking the back trail and do just that - move back around the corner to check the back trail with a detect evil just incase something has picked up our trail."

hay! Looks like it worked! My belly doesn't hurt as much... maybe I'll go look for another thread to add to...

3/5

Story time.

Once, a long time ago, and in an organized play campaign that shall remain nameless, was a jaded table where no one roleplayed. After about an hour of trying to get the players to pay attention and to stop talking while he was describing a room, the GM silently got up, grabbed his coffee, and said, "I'll be back in a few minutes.".

Three hours later, the GM returned to the deserted table, dropped a pile of signed chronicle sheets, and packed his stuff.

Legend has it that he got a standing ovation.

The Exchange 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrezzi Alazzario wrote:

Story time.

Once, a long time ago, and in an organized play campaign that shall remain nameless, was a jaded table where no one roleplayed. After about an hour of trying to get the players to pay attention and to stop talking while he was describing a room, the GM silently got up, grabbed his coffee, and said, "I'll be back in a few minutes.".

Three hours later, the GM returned to the deserted table, dropped a pile of signed chronicle sheets, and packed his stuff.

Legend has it that he got a standing ovation.

Sorry to hear that. Hate it when the judge and the players aren't playing the same kind of a game - when each wants to get something else out of the game. I do wonder if the players were just playing the way they had been taught... if so, it strikes me the Judge (and anyone cheering his action) was being very rude. If you don't like the way the players are playing - at least tell them that. To just get up and leave was bad enough - to tell them "I'll be right back... " and leave them hanging ... I wonder how long they wasted? An hour and a half each? Two? Wow... 10 hours of game time (5 players?) wasted, waiting on the judge. If it were my judge that blew me off that way - just because of a difference in play style? I don't think I'd ever sit at his table again. For sure I wouldn't have learned anything that would have "improved" my game - that would have encouraged me to play the way the judge wanted me to....

So - as long as we are in Old Story Time... and I'm all drugged up on pain killers...

I can recall a very strange game back in LG days, in Year 2 I think (that would be 2002), The judge was very much a Role Player in the old school (kind of like me), as were several of us older players at the table. The majority of us in fact. The first combat encounter had just been triggered (the "token thug encounter" that often started LG mods), and we were getting ready to roll Inititive when the judge said, "just mark of a spell or two and a few charges on a happy stick and we'll get on with the rest of the scenario". The old guy Ranger at the table chimed in with the statement "and I'll mark off 3 rounds worth of arrows...". Setting the mood of the game...

And that's the way the rest of that game went mostly.... we just handwaved the combats (including the final Boss encounter, which was a very scenamatic story mostly guided by the judge with input from each of the players) and Role Played with silly voices and much in character play gaming (jokes, Monty Python quotes and all the Old Guy gaming Troupes ), without ever touching a die. Encounters became social events rather than combats - combats were just handwaved with the "resource tax" and social skill rolls became full blown talking encounters (with no rolls actually done) - in other words the mod (which is what LG scenarios were called) was Role Played out, with little or no dice rolling by the players. Combats were handwaved for the most part, though a few were just discribed in flowing prose by the Judge. We did have one younger player who was very upset about it... but then he was the local "dice cheat" and the rest of us tended to just ignore him anyway. (Ane this is the part that made me tell this story: I like to think I am more mature now and would try to include him more in the group if it happened again....and I'm kind of ashamed that I enjoyed his discomfort at the time.. But he really was a bit of a twit.... though that is no excuse. And I know that now...)

SO - put yourself into a game like that. NOW imagine that the judge is a Roll Player who plays for the combat - who knows the mechanics of the game and has no skill at Role Playing. And the players want him to "just skip past that - I mean, it's not like we can't handle this! Come on! They are just nameless thugs! Can't we just mark off the 'resource tax' and get on with the REAL GAME...." (Cue scene from Austin Powers Gold Member - with the Nameless Mood just laying down).

Hopefully, as a judge, I am going to be able to give my players - be they Roll Player or Role Player or some mix of those things - a game they will enjoy. And I'm going to try to enjoy it myself (which should be easy, as I have the most fun as a judge when my players are haveing fun). And I will try to do all this while remaining true to PFSOP and the "run as writen" rule.

And I try really hard not to tell (even non-verbally) my players that they "are not having fun the right way". What is fun for them might not be what is fun for me... But they sat down hoping to have a fun time... and I offered to run the table and try to give them that.

101 to 126 of 126 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / GM Freedom All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society