| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because roleplaying is not the same as acting. Roleplaying is creating a character and making decisions based on their personality, not making a convincing speech. You could be an excellent actor but a s&&+ roleplayer because you are incapable of thinking of anything that someone else hasn't written for you. Now are you finished insulting people for Doing It Wrong?
I'm not saying that you're doing it wrong, I'm saying that there are better ways of spending time with other people while rolling dice and killing monsters than a game which explicitly expects you to act things out. Descent, Gloomhaven and all the other dungeon crawler board games are just that, D&D without having to feel silly because the other person at the table is channeling Matthew Mercer while all you can do is state "I say something nice, can I roll for this because I really don't like acting it out?".
Square pegs, round holes and all that.
This is a particularly toxic attitude, also it's fundamentally flawed. There are a lot of things to enjoy about RPGs without requiring actual acting. There is nothing about an RPG that 'explicitly' requires you to act things out or speak in the third person. You can interact quite happily in the third person and still be telling a story.
|
This is a particularly toxic attitude, also it's fundamentally flawed. There are a lot of things to enjoy about RPGs without requiring actual acting. There is nothing about an RPG that 'explicitly' requires you to act things out or speak in the third person. You can interact quite happily in the third person and still be telling a story.
Because roleplaying is not the same as acting. Roleplaying is creating a character and making decisions based on their personality, not making a convincing speech. You could be an excellent actor but a s&&+ roleplayer because you are incapable of thinking of anything that someone else hasn't written for you. Now are you finished insulting people for Doing It Wrong?
I'm not saying that you're doing it wrong, I'm saying that there are better ways of spending time with other people while rolling dice and killing monsters than a game which explicitly expects you to act things out. Descent, Gloomhaven and all the other dungeon crawler board games are just that, D&D without having to feel silly because the other person at the table is channeling Matthew Mercer while all you can do is state "I say something nice, can I roll for this because I really don't like acting it out?".
Square pegs, round holes and all that.
Maybe we're disconnecting at some fundamental level, but for me, interaction in third person is game-breaking. Short of time-saving interactions of negligible importance ("We tell the innkeeper that we'll be back by midnight") I expect everybody to sweat it and act in first person, even if they're not the world's best actors. And yes, I do act out all NPCs in first person.
To me, interaction in first person is a core element of RPGs as opposed to board games/video games and I don't do groups that don't share this view. Fortunately, all my current groups do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I realized that maybe an actual example of variant approaches should help. This references one of the games I myself am running, a copy of the original Temple of Elemental Evil updated to PF1 rules. We have the Earth Temple, which has 4 earth elementals who rise up, but don't go hostile unless players enter specific parts of the room or try to steal the items on the altar. Meranthryl, our sorcerer, who is focused extensively on charm and diplomacy, decides that he'd like that chest, contents unseen, but doesn't fancy fighting the elementals, which he has already figured out likely would attack if he just 'tries to take it'. Instead, he recognizes that he'd just picked up a lodestone (literally, he was the party member who actually succeeded in the strength check to do so). He carefully goes as close as he imagines is safe, and attempts to find a language in common with the elementals. This part is entirely outside of the original module's 'script', so, yes, I do have to wing it. One of the elementals rolls high enough to seem to understand at least a bit of abyssal, and, discovering that, Merahnthryl begins negotiations, offering the lodestone, which is an elemental earth magic, in exchange for the chest. He has significant bonuses, which overcome the difficulty in communicating in what amounts to a pidgin dialect, and convinces the elemental to trade. Yes, this is completely *not* the intended scenario for the adventure. But that does not make it wrong, or bad in any way. I reward creativity like that. So do all of the other dms I play with. Finding alternate solutions to a situation is always cause for at least a compliment, if not other rewards. The problem I see with PF2, is that your chances for success in much of anything are terrible, and characters do not have enough chance for a 'personal niche' to pull something like this off. And these are the sorts of problem solving we do pretty much *Every* game session in our group. Being told that we just don't have the ability to alter a...
Nothing in the current rules prevents this type of interaction - there is nothing in the current rules that prevents you from proposing a course of action and the GM setting some appropriate skill checks. The only thing preventing you from finding alternative solutions to encounters and going 'off script' is your GM.
I fail to see any substance to your perceived problems with PF2.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a particularly toxic attitude, also it's fundamentally flawed. There are a lot of things to enjoy about RPGs without requiring actual acting. There is nothing about an RPG that 'explicitly' requires you to act things out or speak in the third person. You can interact quite happily in the third person and still be telling a story.
Because roleplaying is not the same as acting. Roleplaying is creating a character and making decisions based on their personality, not making a convincing speech. You could be an excellent actor but a s&&+ roleplayer because you are incapable of thinking of anything that someone else hasn't written for you. Now are you finished insulting people for Doing It Wrong?
I'm not saying that you're doing it wrong, I'm saying that there are better ways of spending time with other people while rolling dice and killing monsters than a game which explicitly expects you to act things out. Descent, Gloomhaven and all the other dungeon crawler board games are just that, D&D without having to feel silly because the other person at the table is channeling Matthew Mercer while all you can do is state "I say something nice, can I roll for this because I really don't like acting it out?".
Square pegs, round holes and all that.
Maybe we're disconnecting at some fundamental level, but for me, interaction in third person is game-breaking. Short of time-saving interactions of negligible importance ("We tell the innkeeper that we'll be back by midnight") I expect everybody to sweat it and act in first person, even if they're not the world's best actors. And yes, I do act out all NPCs in first person.
To me, interaction in first person is a core element of RPGs as opposed to board games/video games and I don't do groups that don't share this view. Fortunately, all my current groups do.
Thats fine- its right for you and your players. Doesn't make it universally right, and doesn't mean those doing it differently shouldn't be doing it that way. RPGs are wonderfully versatile things and there are more ways to enjoy them than just yours.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Once I got my current group to grok "you don't have to ask me if your character knows something, just go ahead and assert it and if your character is mistaken the dice will show that" we have ended up acting out practically everything, and PF2 does not seem particularly incompatible with this approach.
Two characters with absolutely identical choices can be role played completely differently.I would consider that a near-fatal flaw in a game system.
I really want to set up an experiment at a convention some time. Have dozens of tables, all using pregen characters. Maybe even have some small differences between otherwise identical pregens (like the Fighter has either Wis 11/Cha 9, or Wis 9/Cha 11), record it on video, and then challenge people as to how accurately they can identify which players are playing which variations of the character AND to show people how much interpretation is going on when looking at a character sheet. The experiment isn't on the players, but to test observers and challenge how much people really understand what is going on at their table.
Part of the reason why is because you just identified this as a "near fatal flaw", but it's been true about D&D for over 40 years. But you aren't alone in your perception.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a particularly toxic attitude, also it's fundamentally flawed. There are a lot of things to enjoy about RPGs without requiring actual acting. There is nothing about an RPG that 'explicitly' requires you to act things out or speak in the third person. You can interact quite happily in the third person and still be telling a story.
Because roleplaying is not the same as acting. Roleplaying is creating a character and making decisions based on their personality, not making a convincing speech. You could be an excellent actor but a s&&+ roleplayer because you are incapable of thinking of anything that someone else hasn't written for you. Now are you finished insulting people for Doing It Wrong?
I'm not saying that you're doing it wrong, I'm saying that there are better ways of spending time with other people while rolling dice and killing monsters than a game which explicitly expects you to act things out. Descent, Gloomhaven and all the other dungeon crawler board games are just that, D&D without having to feel silly because the other person at the table is channeling Matthew Mercer while all you can do is state "I say something nice, can I roll for this because I really don't like acting it out?".
Square pegs, round holes and all that.
Maybe we're disconnecting at some fundamental level, but for me, interaction in third person is game-breaking. Short of time-saving interactions of negligible importance ("We tell the innkeeper that we'll be back by midnight") I expect everybody to sweat it and act in first person, even if they're not the world's best actors. And yes, I do act out all NPCs in first person.
To me, interaction in first person is a core element of RPGs as opposed to board games/video games and I don't do groups that don't share this view. Fortunately, all my current groups do.
We all can't be Brad Pitt.
I mean, sure I am, but that means the rest of you are shit out of luck.
From what I've seen of the playtest pdf, it seems likely that it would be better described as the latter, rather than the former. But I would, personally, like your opinion on the matter, because that does, in fact, dictate whether I will follow the matter any further. Do you want to focus on mechanics to the exclusion meaningful choices beyond race and class, or do you want to create a game that elicits a shared storytelling experience between creative dms and players? Making that decision clear will also make it far easier to tell what you need to do to make the game fit your vision. Partially, at least, because it will allow you to focus on players who would be interested in your product, rather than those who have vastly different interests. The choice is yours, and I'd like to see what choice you make. It will, in turn, decide my next steps.
As many spelling, grammatical, and syntactic mistakes as Paizo makes in its publications, consumables, communications, et cetera, I'd say roll a 1d100.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the character is a super genius hacker but the player needs help to use google, how does it play out?
I can't actually bring dead people back to live, but with a roll of the dice my character sure can. I'm an atheist who knows nothing about religion and yet my character is a walking encyclopedia of all things Sarenrae. Another character is a middle aged mother of adopted kids who has faerie wings and can turn into a bear on command, and I'm none of those things whatsoever.
I don't see why someone playing a hacker who is themselves computer illiterate is a game breaking problem. RP is often about doing things you can't actually do or don't actually know much about, which why its nice when the system offers a mechanic to determine what your character can do.
I'm going to ignore how tired and old meme the whole Role-playing vrs ROLL-playing thing is. The thing that confused me is someone said they wanted to role play a scenario but weren't very charismatic for the acting part and that as a reason they wanted to make sure the game allowed role-playing... I'm so confused by this. the suggestion was to act out diplomacy but then the said what if the person isn't good at acting? well then wouldn't you just roll the diplomacy check instead? I am so confused.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am so confused.
The issue that was bothering some people was the idea that some GMs would let some players skip a Diplomacy roll because they did good acting, and it wasn't fair on the people who weren't good at acting. Like if you let someone do extra damage because they were strong in real life.
But it's a confusing conversation because role-playing has two opposite definitions:
(a) Role-playing is when you forget about character sheets and just play the character and use your imagination and wit to make them say and do entertaining and clever things. Success depends on the intelligence of the player, irrespective of what their character ought realistically to be capable of.
(b) A role-playing game is one where you play not by using the imagination and wit of the player but using dice, skill points, and so forth to find out what your character is able to do. Success depends on the capabilities of the character, irrespective of the player.
I am so confused.The issue that was bothering some people was the idea that some GMs would let some players skip a Diplomacy roll because they did good acting, and it wasn't fair on the people who weren't good at acting. Like if you let someone do extra damage because they were strong in real life.
But it's a confusing conversation because role-playing has two opposite definitions:
(a) Role-playing is when you forget about character sheets and just play the character and use your imagination and wit to make them say and do entertaining and clever things. Success depends on the intelligence of the player, irrespective of what their character ought realistically to be capable of.
(b) A role-playing game is one where you play not by using the imagination and wit of the player but using dice, skill points, and so forth to find out what your character is able to do. Success depends on the capabilities of the character, irrespective of the player.
Oh ok well in that situation I give an circumstance bonus to the character but don't make it an auto success I have them role so they can see how well their character said all of that.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder and Dungeons and Dragons would probably be better described as Personal Tactical Combat Games than Roleplaying Games.
There are no rules or rewards in Pathfinder for acting on your characters feelings. A barbarian can rage sure, but sometimes a rogue can feel anger too. The game doesn’t reward you for revealing your tragic backstory at a dramatically appropriate moment, or playing to your alignment, your race or your class.
Right now the game mostly rewards tactical combat vs monsters and NPCs, and disabling/navigating traps and hazards.
Rules as written the best way to play Pathfinder is to optimise your character, and go looking for fights to get stronger.
Rewards in games are used to reinforce desirable behaviours. Right now the most desirable behaviour is to get into fights for xp to gain abilities that make you better at fighting, repeating the cycle until level 20.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, all the best role-playing and character-building moments I've seen were in games that didn't reward it. Because that stuff done well is a reward, and when you say there's also a reward of '5 happy story buttons' for it, that warps things. Because it's not 'normal' to have that rule, people see the '5 happy story buttons' as a reward and forget the story they're building as a reward, and the role-playing becomes a spreadsheet and loses its emotion and quality I often see from your average TTRPG group.
I run a lot of freeform RP. I love a good story. The main issue I have with freeform RP is that stuff like combat can be a nightmare to adjudicate. I see systems like Pathfinder as an adjudication mechanism for RP, and that's super valuable. What the system needs to do for me, at the end of the day, is offer enough options to model what's going on in the story/RP within the rules, so that I can adjudicate without having to make too much up, while feeling it's captured the elements involved.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh ok well in that situation I give an circumstance bonus to the character but don't make it an auto success I have them role so they can see how well their character said all of that.I am so confused.The issue that was bothering some people was the idea that some GMs would let some players skip a Diplomacy roll because they did good acting, and it wasn't fair on the people who weren't good at acting. Like if you let someone do extra damage because they were strong in real life.
But it's a confusing conversation because role-playing has two opposite definitions:
(a) Role-playing is when you forget about character sheets and just play the character and use your imagination and wit to make them say and do entertaining and clever things. Success depends on the intelligence of the player, irrespective of what their character ought realistically to be capable of.
(b) A role-playing game is one where you play not by using the imagination and wit of the player but using dice, skill points, and so forth to find out what your character is able to do. Success depends on the capabilities of the character, irrespective of the player.
What I do is have them roll first, and then they can roleplay to the results, instead of roleplaying first, and trying to make the dice match what I think the outcome should have been.
Acting can happen before the dice roll takes place, but once it is clear the player is trying to achieve an in game effect, the dice come out.
Think about it like combat. The player doesn't describe the orcs head being chopped off and THEN you roll to see if he hits. The player describes making the swing, but the narration stops before the potential impact. A similar principle should apply to talking with NPCs. Before you get too deep in the conversation, once an intent is made obvious, there should be a roll. Then, based on the outcome of the roll, the bulk of the conversation should follow and be based on that outcome.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly don't get the distinction in most RPGs. The amount of roleplaying has very little to do with the system and everything to do with the group and the GM's focus for the game. It's true that certain games will attract certain types of players that might also have certain preferences in RP content, but that's neither here nor there.
In truth, the game I played with the highest amount of RP content was D&D4e. Yeah, that sounds strange, but it was true. You see, my group did not enjoy the combat in D&D4e that much. Because our sessions ran kind of short (3-3.5 hours), a combat would easily consume half of our play time. Thus, no one wanted to fight, which meant we went to great lengths to RP our way around combat.
From that, I conclude that the best way to have a game with a ROLE focus is to have the ROLL be extremely painful in some way. In D&D4, it was because the actual act of combat wasn't enjoyable for us. In GURPS, it's usually because any random fight can get you killed. Heck, in PF2 so far, the TPK rate from a handful of goblins has been enough that you'd be well advised to avoid combat there, too.
In the end, I don't think most people that trot out the ROLE/ROLL argument are actually after what they think they are after.
The thing is, all the best role-playing and character-building moments I've seen were in games that didn't reward it. Because that stuff done well is a reward, and when you say there's also a reward of '5 happy story buttons' for it, that warps things. Because it's not 'normal' to have that rule, people see the '5 happy story buttons' as a reward and forget the story they're building as a reward, and the role-playing becomes a spreadsheet and loses its emotion and quality I often see from your average TTRPG group.Yes, some swear by Inspiration in 5th Ed, I never remember to hand it out, and people going out of their way to role-play their characters traits/ideals/bonds/flaws, in order to get a reward, can get pretty obnoxious.
It's like, alright but not exceptional? I think I've mostly given it out for stuff like the barb swinging through and attacking Maegera the Flame Titan (landing by crashing through a window. At least, I think I gave it out for that), or an incredibly brave yet reckless plan paying off (splitting the party considerably via Dimension Door to save an imprisoned angel on the other side of an ambush). I actually used it more when it was co-opted into a daily resetting pseudo-ShadowrunEdge mechanic (inspiration number equal to prof mod, can get one daily back for normal reasons, can use inspiration for some other stuff and also after a roll) for in-game Reasons.
For the most part though I don't really care for it, similar to how I'm not really a fan of Hero Points (though I like them slightly less because of the "do stuff for GM" aspect).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m kind of surprised we still have discussions of ROLLplay vs ROLEplay. You can have both. I’ve had AMAZING roleplay moments in Pathfinder, just like I’ve had in LARPs (where there are no dice).
PF2 is going to have more options and defined mechanics compared to other RPGs. That may or may not be for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’m kind of surprised we still have discussions of ROLLplay vs ROLEplay. You can have both. I’ve had AMAZING roleplay moments in Pathfinder, just like I’ve had in LARPs (where there are no dice).
PF2 is going to have more options and defined mechanics compared to other RPGs. That may or may not be for you.
Quite frankly, almost every time I've ever seen the question posed, it's a "loaded" question that's meant in a derogatory fashion toward the thing to which it's compared. That, plus adding ultimatums to a post, don't really foster clear communication and good will.
"I don't believe that PF2 as-is encourages roleplay choice and player agency outside of purely mechanical choices, and here are examples why I believe this" is more helpful, and much less likely to draw criticism.
"To the Devs: Do you want PF2 to be a roleplaying game or not? ...The choice is yours, and I'd like to see what choice you make. It will, in turn, decide my next steps" however, is confrontational and makes no leeway for a dialogue. To me, it implies, "bow to my requirements, or I walk, and I or my belief is important enough that you should care about this." If I'm wrong, my apologies, but that's what I get from the original post.
Ha, yeah, Brad's cute and all, but for current actors, I would go with someone who really has the chops, like, as you say, Edward Norton, or Benedict Cumberbatch (and does a better Bostonian accent than Johnny Depp).Am I the only one who read this and felt the urge to check whether I had, without noticing, turned into Edward Norton ?We all can't be Brad Pitt.
I mean, sure I am
But, I don't look anything like those two, I do however look like Brad Pitt in Legends of the Fall.
Oh ok well in that situation I give an circumstance bonus to the character but don't make it an auto success I have them role so they can see how well their character said all of that.I am so confused.The issue that was bothering some people was the idea that some GMs would let some players skip a Diplomacy roll because they did good acting, and it wasn't fair on the people who weren't good at acting. Like if you let someone do extra damage because they were strong in real life.
But it's a confusing conversation because role-playing has two opposite definitions:
(a) Role-playing is when you forget about character sheets and just play the character and use your imagination and wit to make them say and do entertaining and clever things. Success depends on the intelligence of the player, irrespective of what their character ought realistically to be capable of.
(b) A role-playing game is one where you play not by using the imagination and wit of the player but using dice, skill points, and so forth to find out what your character is able to do. Success depends on the capabilities of the character, irrespective of the player.
What I do is have them roll first, and then they can roleplay to the results, instead of roleplaying first, and trying to make the dice match what I think the outcome should have been.
Acting can happen before the dice roll takes place, but once it is clear the player is trying to achieve an in game effect, the dice come out.
Think about it like combat. The player doesn't describe the orcs head being chopped off and THEN you roll to see if he hits. The player describes making the swing, but the narration stops before the potential impact. A similar principle should apply to talking with NPCs. Before you get too deep in the conversation, once an intent is made obvious, there should be a roll. Then, based on the outcome of the roll, the bulk of the conversation...
Thats cool too. I like to reward them for their role play but thats an interesting way of doing it as well.
I’m kind of surprised we still have discussions of ROLLplay vs ROLEplay.
Some debates never seem to settle... Sadly, in this case.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m kind of surprised we still have discussions of ROLLplay vs ROLEplay.Some debates never seem to settle... Sadly, in this case.
Its a MEME argument at this point. I'm legit tired of seeing roll vrs role typed out.
|
|
Its a MEME argument at this point. I'm legit tired of seeing roll vrs role typed out.I’m kind of surprised we still have discussions of ROLLplay vs ROLEplay.Some debates never seem to settle... Sadly, in this case.
The pun on words linked with the reality of different playstyles means this will exist as long as the hobby does IMO ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The pun on words linked with the reality of different playstyles means this will exist as long as the hobby does IMO ;-)Its a MEME argument at this point. I'm legit tired of seeing roll vrs role typed out.I’m kind of surprised we still have discussions of ROLLplay vs ROLEplay.Some debates never seem to settle... Sadly, in this case.
My poor poor sanity...
|
|
Unless you're exploring Runeforge and the different wings are reacting differently to your sins and virtues.
There are no rules or rewards in Pathfinder for acting on your characters feelings. A barbarian can rage sure, but sometimes a rogue can feel anger too. The game doesn’t reward you for revealing your tragic backstory at a dramatically appropriate moment, or playing to your alignment, your race or your class.
Well, yes. There was a mechanical and in-game reinforcement for roleplaying choices that you made in the game. However, those rules are in the design of the Adventure, not the design of the core rules themselves.
Compare and contrast to Apocalypse Engine style games that might directly affect your characters feelings when they hit a setback.