|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I may not play Paladins, or hate Vancian magic, and I don't particularly care about alignment. But my ultimatum with RPGs is that I won't buy it if it doesn't encourage good roleplaying.
I know that pushing this roleplaying agenda of mine sounds selfish, but hear me out!
PF1 is a very good system. And while I'm looking forward to every single one of the slated improvements in PF2, I'm not sure if the new system will make for a better roleplaying experience for most players once the novelty wears off and the games settle in. I'm especially excited about what's around the corner with downtime and exploration modes, but I doubt that will do much to elevate mediocre play. There is a lot of mediocre PF1 play out there and it's really getting me down.
You know what would make for a better RPG? Better roleplayers! And what better place to groom gamers' roleplaying ability than in an all new CRB.
Sure, great roleplayers are great because of experience, talent, and enthusiasm, but roleplaying is very much a learned skill too and I hope that Paizo does more to help us hone it in PF2. New and experienced players (e.g. me) could benefit from a chapter that gives us exercises, tips, prompts, experiments, and other tools for us to bring our roleplaying (and in particular, my roleplaying) to new heights.
Most guides have a small section that outlines a sample session, talks about dealing with groups, disputes, GM/PC interaction, etc. No core guide that I've read delves deep into how PCs can work to better inhabit their characters, buff their acting skills, encourage creative problem solving through roleplay, and other such skills that excellent roleplayers employ. Having a large section of the CRB dedicated to roleplaying would differentiate PF2 and be a real boon to all players, especially me.
I hope that Paizo puts their wealth of latent roleplaying knowledge to ink in PF2 for us--but mostly me--to benefit from.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thats called the Game Mastery guide and I think itd be a good addition to the PF2 line. Perhaps its time for a player mastery guide?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I wanted to roleplay I’d play a videogame!
I play TTPRGs because I want to kill monsters and level up!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I may not play Paladins, or hate Vancian magic, and I don't particularly care about alignment. But my ultimatum with RPGs is that I won't buy it if it doesn't encourage good roleplaying.
I know that pushing this roleplaying agenda of mine sounds selfish, but hear me out!
PF1 is a very good system. And while I'm looking forward to every single one of the slated improvements in PF2, I'm not sure if the new system will make for a better roleplaying experience for most players once the novelty wears off and the games settle in. I'm especially excited about what's around the corner with downtime and exploration modes, but I doubt that will do much to elevate mediocre play. There is a lot of mediocre PF1 play out there and it's really getting me down.
You know what would make for a better RPG? Better roleplayers! And what better place to groom gamers' roleplaying ability than in an all new CRB.
Sure, great roleplayers are great because of experience, talent, and enthusiasm, but roleplaying is very much a learned skill too and I hope that Paizo does more to help us hone it in PF2. New and experienced players (e.g. me) could benefit from a chapter that gives us exercises, tips, prompts, experiments, and other tools for us to bring our roleplaying (and in particular, my roleplaying) to new heights.
Most guides have a small section that outlines a sample session, talks about dealing with groups, disputes, GM/PC interaction, etc. No core guide that I've read delves deep into how PCs can work to better inhabit their characters, buff their acting skills, encourage creative problem solving through roleplay, and other such skills that excellent roleplayers employ. Having a large section of the CRB dedicated to roleplaying would differentiate PF2 and be a real boon to all players, especially me.
I hope that Paizo puts their wealth of latent roleplaying knowledge to ink in PF2 for us--but mostly me--to benefit from.
I'd love for this too. However, I'd like something more concrete than: "Here is some advice on how to roleplay."
I'd like some mechanical incentives rules to encourage roleplay. I've been spoiled by the likes of Powered by the Apocalypse engine games (Masks, Dungeonworld etc), and Blades in the Dark. So when I return to Pathfinder and it's a pure combat simulator with an optional roleplaying component, I do get somewhat bummed out.
Do what CRPGs've been doing since Star Control 2: have all the NPCs be chatty. Even the monsters, especially the monsters. The Witcher 3 has negotiating with trolls, and they have an iffier grasp of grammar than most primates. Since even dungeon crawls like Shattered Star have several talky moments it really shouldn't be a stretch for future adventure paths to have more RPing.
Bonus points if you can get an icy magus to sing in an opera. ;)
|
|
I'd love for this too. However, I'd like something more concrete than: "Here is some advice on how to roleplay."I'd like some mechanical incentives rules to encourage roleplay. I've been spoiled by the likes of Powered by the Apocalypse engine games (Masks, Dungeonworld etc), and Blades in the Dark. So when I return to Pathfinder and it's a pure combat simulator with an optional roleplaying component, I do get somewhat bummed out.
Exactly, that's why I suggested exercises, experiments, etc. on top of the pure advice.
For a (very) rough example, they could have a mini-game to encourage creative problem solving, something like:
"Your party is caught in a trap (roll 1d12 and select from Table 11:4) and you have only the clothes on your back and two items (roll 2d20 and select from Table 11:5). You have 2d6 rounds to escape. Go!"
These tools along with scenarios with chase mechanics, diplomatic negotiations, puzzles, etc. would do wonders to strengthen our roleplaying acumen.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. Some players just think in terms of mechanics and others like to build the stories. Some find a balance between the two. It's just different for everyone and really up to the GM to keep play balanced in the manner her table prefers.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm fully in favor of encouraging roleplaying, including by making changes to the rules. I think this can be done in 2 ways.
First, dedicate a lot more space to social interaction in the rules. In PF1, there's only 3 types of roleplay you can do that have a described mechanical impact: Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate. And these actions are described in the most crude terms: NPC attitudes are ranked on a 5-level scale (from Hostile to Helpful), and that's it. That's really barebones. The good news is, there's a lot of opportunities for improvement in PF2.
Second, I suggest that the spells that allow PCs to bypass even these super-basic social skills should be nerfed in a major way. In PF1, as early as level 1 you get a spell that makes any social effort redundant (Charm Person). At medium levels you get Dominate Person, Suggestion and Glibness, allowing you to be a total jerk and get your way without bothering with any roleplaying at all. If these kinds of spells are removed from PF2, or severely reduced in power, then the incentive to roleplay will be much more apparent.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly I dont need anything more than what we have available for diplo/intimi at the moment. I find the more rules you shackle on RP the less genuine it becomes. Which is why I think RP section of the CRB is a mistake.
|
|
There seems to be a misunderstanding here. My OP never suggested any rules changes. I do not think that the rules in PF1 or PF2 inhibit roleplaying in any significant way.
I have experienced great roleplaying with PF1, not because of or in spite of PF1, but because the gamers were good roleplayers. I want more of that excellent roleplaying when I game using PF2, and the CRB could be an excellent way to enhance RPer's RPing skills.
All I'm suggesting is that it would be great to have a section/chapter in the PF2 CRB that gives us tools to improve our skills as roleplayers.
While many people do already run extremely RP-heavy Pathfinder games (as mentioned), I think something like this suggestion could be a great addition to encourage new players and give players who may not be as comfortable with RPing some tips.
(Stuff like the Influence system is pretty cool, too. Although I doubt it'll make it into the CRB, I hope that we don't have to wait too long for it.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly I dont need anything more than what we have available for diplo/intimi at the moment. I find the more rules you shackle on RP the less genuine it becomes.
That may be. On the other hand, having minimalist rules for social interaction means the game is very heavily influenced towards mostly combat & exploration-heavy adventures, and less towards roleplaying.
I believe adding more extensive social rules will inspire players and DMs to spend more time thinking about roleplay. It won't do anything for those groups that are already big on roleplay, but it could influence others, especially newcomers to the game.
There seems to be a misunderstanding here. My OP never suggested any rules changes. I do not think that the rules in PF1 or PF2 inhibit roleplaying in any significant way.
I have experienced great roleplaying with PF1, not because of or in spite of PF1, but because the gamers were good roleplayers. I want more of that excellent roleplaying when I game using PF2, and the CRB could be an excellent way to enhance RPer's RPing skills.
All I'm suggesting is that it would be great to have a section/chapter in the PF2 CRB that gives us tools to improve our skills as roleplayers.
No misunderstanding here. Your suggestion just inspired me to make a related, but different proposal.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We will have to agree to disagree. I think adding in more rules to encourage RP will just result in a less satisfying meta-RP.
I do get the concern though about rules being too combat driven. I have read rules books for other editions and games that are very dry and rules centric. This hands off approach to RP tends to discourage RP in the play of said games. Which, is why I think the best approach is to intertwine flavour with the rules. If you give the impression that the game is a fantasy sim, the ideas for RP are planted from inception. This has been my best experience. YMMV
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly I dont need anything more than what we have available for diplo/intimi at the moment. I find the more rules you shackle on RP the less genuine it becomes. Which is why I think RP section of the CRB is a mistake.
This is how I feel about alignment: why have it be a "shackle on RP"?
Best way to kill RP is by limiting sandbox options and making the game all about dealing damage. It was the problem DnD 4e had and it looks 5e is heading the same way. (I couldn't help but cry after watching latest Mike Mearl's stream - he takes two spells, changes them into class features and calls that a subclass.)
If the creators stop being creative, that's when the game dies.
I actually think that the 4 tier success system for skills is probably all that is needed as far as mechanical RP incentive. No longer does diplomacy need to be a matter of success or failure. The GM has an easy metric now for saying, that went really really well, or really really badly, as well as usual metrics for success.
Honestly I dont need anything more than what we have available for diplo/intimi at the moment. I find the more rules you shackle on RP the less genuine it becomes. Which is why I think RP section of the CRB is a mistake.This is how I feel about alignment: why have it be a "shackle on RP"?
Outside the Paladin, its not really an issue. The alignment system being nebulous allows room for interpretation of character and actions. It also sets up an interesting cosmic paradigm that has tangible mechanical impact. Few rules can have the flexibility and influence while remaining under the hood. Once you add thou can/can't rules it ruins that state of being and makes it an obvious paradox, which is obnoxious.
I actually think that the 4 tier success system for skills is probably all that is needed as far as mechanical RP incentive. No longer does diplomacy need to be a matter of success or failure. The GM has an easy metric now for saying, that went really really well, or really really badly, as well as usual metrics for success.
The issue is making an RP element mechanically tangible at all. Now folks know they need x proficiency in y skill at +z score to maximize their chances of really doing instead of just doing. This is the meta RP I was mentioning earlier in the thread. It may help some groups RP better, but for others, its going to make their RP a meta-game construct.
The alignment system being nebulous allows room for interpretation of character and actions.
I find that the problem and not a boon.
It also sets up an interesting cosmic paradigm that has tangible mechanical impact.
I wouldn't call it interesting... Headstratching at times but not interesting. You can have that same "cosmic paradigm" without using the initials G, E, L, C and N.
Few rules can have the flexibility and influence while remaining under the hood. Once you add thou can/can't rules it ruins that state of being and makes it an obvious paradox, which is obnoxious.
Do's and don'ts allow everyone to be on the same page: there can be a meeting of the minds. The nature of good and evil has been a philosophical question debated since the dawn of rational thought. IMO, there is NO need for 'under the hood' as the people of the setting KNOWS the do's and don'ts.
|
|
While the mechanics can do a bit to encourage situations that call for roleplaying, I often see the roleplaying done poorly. And just as often the GM and PCs sleepwalk through these opportunities to roleplay.
This includes combat!
Even kick-in-the-door RPers take pleasure in roleplaying by outsmarting enemies, traps, and assorted threats and there are plenty of opportunities for roleplaying with your weapons. Good combat roleplaying isn't just the responsibility of the GM in their having 15,000 variations of describing "you strike the orc with your sword".
I have yet to meet a TTRPGer that actually dislikes roleplaying. They just prefer certain types of roleplaying (e.g. combat, intrigue, etc.). I might be wrong, but I don't think we need more opportunities to roleplay. Almost any situation that involve PCs can be roleplayed. We need gamers who are better at roleplaying.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is making an RP element mechanically tangible at all. Now folks know they need x proficiency in y skill at +z score to maximize their chances of really doing instead of just doing. This is the meta RP I was mentioning earlier in the thread. It may help some groups RP better, but for others, its going to make their RP a meta-game construct.
So you are arguing against there being skills like diplomacy then? Would you rather have players always act out their non-combat encounters? I can see some fun in that, but I can also see it getting tedious and for some players who want to role play as characters who have social abilities and training that they do not. It can be a little harsh to make them act out every negotiation if they want to play a character capable of doing things they can't.
I am also not sure if you feel like only having two tiers of success makes this less of an issue?
For me, Four tiers is a good RP mechanic because I can have absolute failure and absolute success be very difficult, and have moderate success and moderate failure move the goal posts. Instead of having a more arbitrary skill challenge system based on "X" number of successes, and everyone in the party having to attempt the check, I can have an unreasonably high DC, and have other players think of ways to aid the primary check. Then if it succeeds or fails, but not critically, the situation can change slightly and the overall goal might be a bit easier or more challenging. I can still award situational bonuses for good ideas and role playing, but if the player is at a loss, but feels like their character would have a way forward, they can do that too.
To me, this feels like added flexibility.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Best way to kill RP is by limiting sandbox options and making the game all about dealing damage. It was the problem DnD 4e had and it looks 5e is heading the same way. (I couldn't help but cry after watching latest Mike Mearl's stream - he takes two spells, changes them into class features and calls that a subclass.)
If the creators stop being creative, that's when the game dies.
I have not seen that but if that is true its very funny. Mike Mearls does a great job with martial classes. I still remember him writing Iron Heroes & remember that book fondly but he has absolutely NO CLUE what to do with casters. Its really funny and sad at the same time
The issue is making an RP element mechanically tangible at all. Now folks know they need x proficiency in y skill at +z score to maximize their chances of really doing instead of just doing. This is the meta RP I was mentioning earlier in the thread. It may help some groups RP better, but for others, its going to make their RP a meta-game construct.
This is were we differ. I remember as a less experienced DM, being very hesitant on how to decide a NPC's reaction if what the PC was trying to do wasn't covered in the rules. Nowadays I can wing it based on a good enough understanding of the NPC's backstory and motivations. But for beginners, the guidelines provided by the rules are needed. And I feel the PF1 guidelines are too lightweight. I do agree with you on the YMMV nature of the solution: Different groups have different needs.
For me, Four tiers is a good RP mechanic because I can have absolute failure and absolute success be very difficult, and have moderate success and moderate failure move the goal posts. Instead of having a more arbitrary skill challenge system based on "X" number of successes, and everyone in the party having to attempt the check, I can have an unreasonably high DC, and have other players think of ways to aid the primary check. Then if it succeeds or fails, but not critically, the situation can change slightly and the overall goal might be a bit easier or more challenging. I can still award situational bonuses for good ideas and role playing, but if the player is at a loss, but feels like their character would have a way forward, they can do that too.
To me, this feels like added flexibility.
See if there are rules for a diplo scene and your are arbitrating a DC, that might work at your table. However, some people will be pissed if you are not following RAW DCs. I'd just assume leave the system vague and avoid such headaches.
I dont expect my players to act out everything their characters do out of combat. They are just as welcome to describe how their character would handle the situation as they are to first person act it out. The more rules attached to this process though the less organic it becomes and feels more like social combat. I'd like to avoid that.
The four steps is fine if it follows PF1. I hope it doesnt get any more complicated than that. YMMV.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are some great resources available to help people be better players and better GMs (Gamemastering by Brian Jamison is a good example). It would great if some of that material made it into the core book.
Not everyone has to read it. Some people really enjoy hacking and slashing their way through encounters. Pathfinder can be a good wargame, but I think you get the most out of it when you use it to roleplay.
I like games where players want to embody their character more, GMs have more fleshed out NPCs. Where there is more social interaction, more immersion. A successful session is where you get to experience what it feels like to be a dwarf fighter rather than just killing a thing and taking its stuff.
I think a chapter in the CRB that helps these kinds of games would really benefit the next iteration.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’m not sure why you’d think that PF2 is better (or worse) for roleplaying than PF1. Roleplaying is really up to the players. You can use any system you like, any system, and the roleplaying will still rest on the GM and players.
What PF2 needs to do is clean up (and simplify) the system with regards to how Diplomacy, Bluff, and especially Intimidate work.
If you want better roleplaying in general, BE a better roleplayer! It inspires others and sets a good example.
I’m not sure good roleplaying, or something like humor, can be learned through a book.
|
There's so many other RPGs on the market that really add some fun plot manipulation and roleplaying mechanics to the mix.
Even something like the Determination/ Value mechanic in Star Trek Adventures is interesting, encouraging you to both think of your character's traits and beliefs while also working in a way for you to challenge your beliefs to gain a mechanical benefit giving you a great roleplaying hook.