Question for the community: Do you prefer to keep combat and characterization in two separate little worlds, or do you try to combine the two? And if you do combine them, how far do you take it? When is it your responsibility to be a tactically smart team player, and when do you have the leeway to make a suboptimal play in the name of good RP?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I'm just playing my character (to the detriment and consternation of everyone else playing in the collaborative game that everyone i supposed to have fun doing)."
Yeah no thanks, feel free to find another group if you can't have fun while not also draining the fun from other people.
Note: I'm not saying every character has to be fully optimized or anything like that. But when you start doing lolrandumb things that is aggravating other people at the table, justifying it with "I'm just playing my character" you are one of the worst things about this hobby.
Question for the community: Do you prefer to keep combat and characterization in two separate little worlds, or do you try to combine the two? And if you do combine them, how far do you take it? When is it your responsibility to be a tactically smart team player, and when do you have the leeway to make a suboptimal play in the name of good RP?
When it's in the name of good RP, you always have the leeway. It's perfectly acceptable for a druid to heal a beloved (but mechanically replaceable) animal companion over the dying fighter.
The situation in the linked comic would not be.
Mostly it shouldn't come out of left field.
Yeah. I was going to say: Always RP. It's kind of the point. I have had some disruptive players though. There are problem player types whom I'd generally say "leave the nonsense behind, you're in a battle".
Two examples in particular, I had one player who always played the over reluctant hero. The emo one who doesn't want to go on adventures and needs to be convinced. That was just how they always were, and it detracted from everyone else.
The second was I was attempting to run PTU (Pokémon Tabletop United), a game built from the ground up as a d20 Pokémon game. All my players built characters who wanted to do drastically different things, despite the fact I told them "this is going to be very go through the region, win gym badges etc." So I had two players who just flat out refused to participate in things and whine when things were tough because they were trying to cheese all the encounters prior (one found out essentially below a certain level that one particular action was a win button).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Just playing your character" can be a disruptive reasoning. And playing a character (like a total pacifist that isn't even okay with buffing an ally to deal more damage) can be disruptive to the group. If those characters in your party would reasonably not want to be teamed up with your character they would be within their right to say "Sorry, we don't want you with us". And the players of those characters should have the right to say "We don't want that kind of character with us".
GMs can build around a group's level of power to an extent, but certain character concepts can be especially disruptive and party breaking. Like a rogue that wants to steal from everyone, including party members. Every character I've ever played would react poorly to catching such a thief. At best they would be kicked out of the party and not allowed near. At worst, out right killed.
Your fellow players should be open to unique and interesting characters, within reason. So long as they don't put an undue burden on the rest of the group.
Finding that balance is the hard but important part.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In 2nd edition (by the rules) players got class based xp. Meaning class A got xp for performing x action and class B got xp for performing y action. If class A did action y they didn't get extra xp for it.
anyway, because this sort of derivation existed, it was easy for me as a DM to award players xp for "playing in character" which really boiled down to doing something in a sub-optimal manner because it was how the character thought. It fostered more RP, especially during fights because players wanted that xp bonus and so they would look for ways to get it that didn't screw themselves or the party.
XP charts have shrunk so much that it's hard to justify these kinds of extra rewards because it results in characters leveling too quickly. As a result there's not a mechanical reason to RP your character if there are better ways to handle the situation.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Always play your character.
Always make a character that will be a valuable team mate and not a jerk.
Both good ideas, and even better when combined together.
Unless your group is specifically planning to engage in a non-standard game (comedic, evil PvP, etc) you should make your character not only with your particular desires in mind, but as someone who would be a valuable member of a team in a game that is all about teamwork. Don't make a character that is a liability and count on the other players to accept it because they feel that they have to. That is unfair to them. Make a character that their characters would want to be with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Always be adding to other people's experience with the game, but don't slow down combat because you are soliloquizing- flow is also important.
But I mean "I'm just playing my character" is defensible insofar as you've made wise choices as to which character to play. Some concepts are fun and interesting but aren't really suited to a teamwork oriented game, and it's beneficial to realize this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Title sums it up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Always play your character.
Always make a character that will be a valuable team mate and not a jerk.
Both good ideas, and even better when combined together.
^^^ THIS.
Also, combat without some roleplaying elements gets boring fast. You don't get any of the fun banter that a dramatic and memorable fight demands if you don't roleplay the scene at least a little bit.
I've also done that Meirril.
Specifically in a campaign where I started off as a paladin and we months later (IRL, not campaign) had a player join that wanted to be a necromancer. I pleaded and argued that it wasn't cool or okay...and eventually was met with "well he'll hide it from you". Which I begrudgingly agreed with and shouldn't have. Eventually when it was too obvious my character called out the character in person, and then told the rest of the party to shove it for lying to me about it and left the party. I brought in another character afterwards who was more amicable with undead.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"You can RP if you want to,
you can leave your friends behind
cuz your friends don't RP and if they don't RP
Well they're are no friends of mine"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a base rule at my table in normal games that Paladins get priority over evil PC's or PC's that would make a paladin unplayable.
I have a blast roleplaying in combat.
Everyone else I play with roleplays their characters in combat, as well.
I honestly didn't know that it was optional.
If your character is suddenly smarter in combat just so you can defeat the situation easier, you are playing it wrong.
Dummies stay dumb in combat, weaklings stay weak, the easily frightened stay scared.
If you are changing core elements of your character in combat just to be done with it sooner, then why not just build THAT character and play it the whole time?
I have had Rogues in the party that didn't Rogue FOR the party, and Druids who were talking to bunnies while the party got ambushed.
And both of them are better than some Jekyll and Hyde player that essentially cheats in combat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I recall playing a chaotic neutral character in a party that included a paladin.
Out of combat, we teased each other about our respective moral codes or lack thereof. One time, the party was considering something that my character had moral qualms about. When the paladin approved of the plan, I said, "Well, the paladin said it was okay, so it must be the right thing to do!" in a way that momentarily left him wondering whether he had made the right decision.
In combat, we worked well together to bring down our common enemies.
If your character is suddenly smarter in combat just so you can defeat the situation easier, you are playing it wrong.
If you have a soft-hearted GM who is going easy on you, making sub-optimal combat decisions for role-playing reasons is a lot of fun.
In any game with a tough GM trying to provide you with a challenge - which most of my GMs have been - making sub-optimal combat decisions is a way to guarantee an early TPK.
So build characters that are combat worthy from the beginning.
Combat is an essential part of this game, to ignore it during character development is foolish.
I still think that if your character is suddenly a tactical genius, but couldn't operate a fork without going blind earlier, it's cheating and I would rather go out in a blaze of honest glory, than to be party to a cheater.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Saying something is 'cheating' is pretty harsh.
There are plenty of character tropes that are savvy in combat, but not particularly educated. INT in pathfinder really only applies to the second, not the first. There are no skills for 'it is smart to take a flanking position' or 'it is best to ready an action.'
Beyond that, different stokes for different folks. Some people view pathfinder as primarily a ROLE playing game. The drama and the character is by far the most important aspect. Others view it as a role playing GAME. The tactical puzzle for the player of defeating ones enemies is the primary draw. Of course most fall somewhere between the two extremes.
If the group is having fun, any of these can be the 'right' way to play.
|
As many others have said, the key is to build a character who is sufficiently viable in combat for the campaign. "Sufficiently viable" INCLUDES role playing limitations.
So, I've had a druid who was basically a crazy cat lady. She treated her lion companion as her baby. Whenever reasonable, the cat guarded the rear, groomed itself, etc. However, when her other friends were actually in danger the cat became the pouncing kitty of DOOM the situation required. I got to roleplay, martials got to shine, characters didn't die.
I've had cowardly characters who stuck in the back and tried hard to stay out of danger. Not at all coincidentally, they were wizards or bards who could contribute to combat while staying as much out of danger as they could manage.
I've played brave foolhardy heroes who tend to charge into danger. Not at all coincidentally they would listen to their allies if their allies told them not to and were built so that they could survive while charging foolishly into danger.
"Its what my character would do" is, generally, the lamest of excuses.
That said, I much prefer campaigns where things are generally such that characters can afford to act a little less than optimally much of the time. Reacting for role playing reasons is often a lot of fun.
Although even in those campaigns I prefer it when the big boss fights are nail biters where everybody has to pull together to win
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I recall playing a chaotic neutral character in a party that included a paladin.Out of combat, we teased each other about our respective moral codes or lack thereof. One time, the party was considering something that my character had moral qualms about. When the paladin approved of the plan, I said, "Well, the paladin said it was okay, so it must be the right thing to do!" in a way that momentarily left him wondering whether he had made the right decision.
A Paladin and a character in philosophical opposition to a Paladin is great fun in a party provided both players agree to restrict their clash to intellectual and rhetorical sparring and not like "I'm going to go around their back" or "I'm going to screw over this person with in-character plausible deniability."
I've been on both sides of a good "Paladin Clash" and because I was opposite a good RPer each time, it was a ton of fun. I feel like this works when the goal of each character is to convince the other to admit that they were wrong and that they counterpart had a valid point (which as we know seldom happens in an arguemnt without the utmost respect and good faith in play) and not like "I want to change their alignment."
|
|
A Paladin and a character in philosophical opposition to a Paladin is great fun in a party provided both players agree to restrict their clash to intellectual and rhetorical sparring and not like "I'm going to go around their back" or "I'm going to screw over this person with in-character plausible deniability."
Actually, in character lying and tricking of one character by another can work very, very well in my experience. Both in terms of everybody finding it great fun and in terms of the group being quite effective.
I think the key to it working is for all the players (most definitely including the player of the character being tricked) to be "in on it" and enjoying it.
I've seen paladins built with Wis of 7 deliberately to facilitate being lied to by their companions :-). The paladin (or equivalent) gets to play the rigid lawful stupid character they want to, the party rogue (or equivalent) gets to do what they want, everybody is happy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have repeatedly renounced playing my character to the hilt, in the name of table harmony... example, a drow hating dwarf ranger (favored enemy drow) not killing the newcomer's drow character out of hand.
If "playing in character" means being disruptive to game harmony, or worse, then step out of character and rationalize why your character is no following his instincts.
It's a base rule at my table in normal games that Paladins get priority over evil PC's or PC's that would make a paladin unplayable.
My usual guideline is that no one gets to play characters that heavily limit the RP options of other players, unless everyone is on board with that style of play. That generally means no Paladins in my games, as they're the biggest offenders at trying to control other people's behavior and concepts.
People should roleplay their PCs, in and out of combat, but they should also work with the rest of the players and the GM to make PCs that can get along and work together.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being disruptive or ruining other people fun with is not rp nor is it good rp.
I can think of many stories that put the most unlikely people together and have them succeed. This happens in comic books all the time. You don't have to break character to not suck or to make smart decisions. Write the reason within the bounds of the character. Have the good decisions be luck, or just doing what your told by a smarter character, instinct, have the character get tricked, or be so greedy they take the riskier option etc. Halfway through a combat joining the bbeg and screwing the group becuase it is "in character" is just lazy writing.
That generally means no Paladins in my games, as they're the biggest offenders at trying to control other people's behavior and concepts.
In my experience is the characters that would make the paladin unplayable that are the most disruptive to other players and the game.
In my experience is the characters that would make the paladin unplayable that are the most disruptive to other players and the game.
That generally means no Paladins in my games, as they're the biggest offenders at trying to control other people's behavior and concepts.
Any time we have a Paladin in the group, I remind them that "Lawful Good does not mean Lawful Stupid, but it doesn't mean Lawful Nice either". Play according to your Code of Conduct but without sacrificing the other PC's ability to play their characters to their satisfaction. If another PC is doing some Chaotic Neutral stuff, roll your eyes, unsuccessfully attempt to convince them to change their ways, and move on :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've recently played a late-teens girl "discovering her powers" akashic character who was anything but self-confident. In combat, she was hesitant and timid until her allies were in danger, and then she just... did what was necessary to survive. Suboptimal choices due to roleplay, then useful, and she was smart so got very tactical. I mean... when not throwing her scythe at enemies out of frustration.
Now I'm playing an addled vampire (think Ozzie Osbourne, only... worse) who is neither intelligent nor wise. He makes decent combat choices out of luck or instinct, but not tactics or cleverness. Roleplay causes suboptimal choices which end up working out.
Point is, as has been said, roleplay is great, but it behooves the player to find ways to take the roleplay and channel it into something productive at the table. Even low-int, low-wis, low-cha characters should gel with the group both in personality and in combat usefulness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If another PC is doing some Chaotic Neutral stuff, roll your eyes, unsuccessfully attempt to convince them to change their ways, and move on :P
Thats the most correct way to go about it.
Its when you get the Stupid Evil, screw over the party, or do an evil act for no reason PC the problem comes up. Its not the paladins fault they are disrupting the party, its the fault of the "it's what my CHERACTUR would do" player.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If another PC is doing some Chaotic Neutral stuff, roll your eyes, unsuccessfully attempt to convince them to change their ways, and move on :PThats the most correct way to go about it.
Its when you get the Stupid Evil, screw over the party, or do an evil act for no reason PC the problem comes up. Its not the paladins fault they are disrupting the party, its the fault of the "it's what my CHERACTUR would do" player.
I completely agree. It IS at this point that the Paladin "should" flex their code of conduct and confront the evil action of the PC. This becomes true RP moment worthy of intra-party clashing, and there's nothing wrong with that.
You should RP in combat. You should not build a PC that other people wouldn't want on their team.
"Read the room" once again seems to be the silver bullet here.
You should RP in combat. You should not build a PC that other people wouldn't want on their team.
^ This sums up my opinion pretty well. It is fine to make some suboptimal choices to stay in character. But being a nuisance who makes disasters happen is a different story.
What a lot of the "I'm just playing my character" crowd don't tend to realize is that the other players are playing their characters, too. If your character is a liability, then the appropriate "in character" response for the rest of the party is to leave them in a ditch.
Saying something is 'cheating' is pretty harsh.
There are plenty of character tropes that are savvy in combat, but not particularly educated. INT in pathfinder really only applies to the second, not the first. There are no skills for 'it is smart to take a flanking position' or 'it is best to ready an action.'
Beyond that, different stokes for different folks. Some people view pathfinder as primarily a ROLE playing game. The drama and the character is by far the most important aspect. Others view it as a role playing GAME. The tactical puzzle for the player of defeating ones enemies is the primary draw. Of course most fall somewhere between the two extremes.
If the group is having fun, any of these can be the 'right' way to play.
My current character is a country bumpkin who's as dumb as a box of bricks, but she's an aasimar (which in this particular setting is a half-celestial that is, in the case of most other aasimars, specifically bred to create superheroes) so she has a natural instinct and expertise at all of the things she actually needs to be good at. I probably could roleplay this character as having zero understanding of tactics, but that wouldn't be very fun for anyone involved (least of all myself) so I... don't.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Point is, as has been said, roleplay is great, but it behooves the player to find ways to take the roleplay and channel it into something productive at the table. Even low-int, low-wis, low-cha characters should gel with the group both in personality and in combat usefulness.
A friend of mine built a barbarian with 7's in Int, Wis, and Cha, just to see if a stereotypical big, dumb brute would be viable in PFS. He has been so far, but he's also not high enough level yet for that crap Will save to really bite him in the ass. The player RPs Mongo as just aware enough to his own limits to go along with sound tactical suggestions from other PCs--as long as he gets to hit something--and to keep his mouth mostly shut when the party needs to make social skill checks. And when Mongo does open his mouth, he's funny ("Mongo caster, too. Mongo cast Muscle Fist!") so we enjoy having him in the group.
Point is, as has been said, roleplay is great, but it behooves the player to find ways to take the roleplay and channel it into something productive at the table. Even low-int, low-wis, low-cha characters should gel with the group both in personality and in combat usefulness.A friend of mine built a barbarian with 7's in Int, Wis, and Cha, just to see if a stereotypical big, dumb brute would be viable in PFS. He has been so far, but he's also not high enough level yet for that crap Will save to really bite him in the ass. The player RPs Mongo as just aware enough to his own limits to go along with sound tactical suggestions from other PCs--as long as he gets to hit something--and to keep his mouth mostly shut when the party needs to make social skill checks. And when Mongo does open his mouth, he's funny ("Mongo caster, too. Mongo cast Muscle Fist!") so we enjoy having him in the group.
His will save actually shouldn't be crap even with the low wis, given he's a Barbarian. +2 from raging and additional bonuses from Superstition (even more so if he's a human) should make him just as if not more difficult to mind control than more "standard" martials.
Main issue with this build would be those scenarios that are specifically built to just be a long series of skill checks but... those aren't very fun even if you're built to succeed at them. :v
|
It is okay to play your character in combat, but you shouldn't make have character harm other PCs in combat on purpose.
Like, if I wanted to make a character who only deals non-lethal damage in combat(with exception of things that are immune to it), I wouldn't make a character who is unable to hit with -4 penalty anything, I'd either make something that has reduced penalty, doesn't have penalty or has so high attack that penalty doesn't matter :p I also wouldn't attack other PCs because they deal lethal damage in combat.