|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is exactly my point :)
As I said, classes like Kineticist, Fighter, Barbarian and Champion, which are considered rather efficient overall, are actually not that good in PFS due to the importance of skill challenges. And then, I gave this example as an illustration.
I don't think it's an issue with skill challenges. It's just that some classes are mostly focused on combat and if you don't take the necessary steps to broaden their horizons then you may end up as a liability.So, we agree!
Kinda yeah.
The classes don't have an explicit sticker on them saying "yo, pick a mental stat to put a 14 in otherwise you're gonna miss out" but maybe they should have. Broadening them doesn't have to take away very much from their combat acumen at all, but people often forget it.
Kineticist? You're skilled in Nature, get a 14 Wisdom, learn Religion as well, and you're well on your way.
Barbarian? Take a look at the Intimidation oriented feats, take a 14 Charisma and go play up the muscly impressive role. Or get a 14 Wisdom and take Nature and Survival and lean into that.
Fighter? There's stylish choices for all mental stats. A shield oriented fighter who wants to repair their own shield takes a good Int and Crafting. A more "commander" style fighter picks up some Charisma. Or lean into high Wisdom and pretty good Perception.
Champion? You're kinda expected (even though some of that is 1E thinking) to be into Diplomacy. It's typically a class that has more of an "opinion" about what's going on in the adventure and being social allows you to play that. But you could also go for the Torag/Smith/Crafting/Shield path easy enough.
TL;DR - every martial class has some RP affinity for some mental stats already. You're not forced to do anything with it, and maybe not coached hard enough into doing anything with it. But if you leave it on the table, you're missing out.
I’ve never GM’d PFS, I only played it for about a little less than a year before life made it tough to keep up with, so I maybe have a pretty different way of running non-combat encounters, but it has been a lot of fun for my players.
I would say close to 40-50 percent of combat encounters that I run begin coming from some kind of non-combat encounter: either a social encounter, an infiltration, a research/investigation, etc. almost always, the difficulty of the combat encounter is directly impacted by the the events that lead up to it. Sometimes, the non-combat part is hard, and has very difficult rolls. Usually, this means combat is expected and the baseline difficulty of the combat assumes probable failure by the party. Success or better is an opportunity for the party to completely bypass a combat or get an extra reward before or afterwards. Other times, some level of success is very probable before the combat, and rushing things in to combat is very likely to result in a TPK, or at least a need for the party to retreat, cover their retreat and deal with new consequences later on. This prevents either combats or non-combats from being the exclusive point of “campaign is over” for failing to accomplish something unless the players are pretty much ready to give up on their current party for trying to solve problems for the campaign.
I wouldn’t call non-combat encounters skill challenges though, and think it is probably a mistake for PFS to do so. Players use of skills in combat should be encouraged and be as useful and critical as other kind of checks if you really want dynamic encounters. Also, items (including consumables) and spells are as fundamental to noncombat encounters as combat encounters and parties that don’t use magic (items and spells) out of combat are making things a lot harder on themselves, especially as out of combat status bonuses can get to +4 on many kinds of checks, not even mentioning circumstance and item bonuses that can temporarily boost important checks by another 2 or 3. My players also tend to use hero points out of combat more than in combat because they know that critical failure leading into a combat can often be as impactful as critically failing a save in combat.
Lastly, I often have players roll prior to going too deep into a role play situation. It is as common for me for players to suggest ideas for social interactions that are way worse than what an 18 charisma or wisdom or intelligence character would probably consider and expecting players to play up to their stats (which are all fairly problematic to over lay to real people anyway), than for low attribute characters to suggest good ideas. 10 represents a fairly average attribute in world, not the lower end of a range of possible values in world. Attributes really should only be considered subjective things relative to the rest of the party more than to the game world as a whole since level quickly surpasses the values for it. Having a low charisma value at level 1 and level 10 mean different things for almost every character that has anyway of either gaining training quickly, getting level bonuses without training (including from spells). Not having untrained scale with level only makes sense from a conceptual standpoint of “my character never ever engages in these checks ever.” If a character is negotiating complex situations via diplomacy multiple times over the course of two week adventure, they are not going to be as bad at it by the 4th or 5th time as they were the first. Skill training tends to represent player intention for rolls much more than actual character progression. As a GM, I try to be aware of that to provide the party situations that will occasionally challenge them to think outside of their “my character does x every combat/noncombat” but much more often gives them a chance to do X well.
I think the problem here is not a player with a low Charisma and no increases into Cha-based skills is able to ignore making checks (I think it can be a great RP moment for the shy character to come out and make a speech), but rather that the character that has a low Charisma and no increases into Cha-based skills is the face of the party when mechanicaly they shouldn't. As I said, I think its fine once or twice if it makes sense in the context of the scene and the character, but if the player is constantly doing it means they are sort of doubling down on skill increases. I do encourage roleplay over rollplay but if you are the face of the party you need a decent modifier in Cha-based skills, even if you are only going to use them in situations when you aren't convincing enough or if you don't want to RP the whole thing at that moment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lol another thing about this speech from a diplomacy inept character but directed by the roleplay of a player with great oration skills.
It is actually a funny moment when they roll and fail on that great speech because as a GM you narrate what actually happens based on the role not what the player says they want to do.
Thats when I tell the player, well your character formulated a passionate speech in their mind, a perfect speech. But as soon as those words left your characters mouth it just didn't come out like it was in their head. Unfortunately the villagers were not inspired with confidence, at best they look a little confused at worst afraid of another speech.
I am a big proponent of players telling the GM what they want to do, not telling the GM what they actually do.
There is more than enough room for roleplay in that model. Outcomes and GM narration of what occurs is determined by the rolls. That is the boundary of a role playing game vs pure roleplaying IMO.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dislike asking to roll beforehand, because I've unfortunately seen a few cheaters who were rolling first then decide what to do with their check. Some are really good at that: they start speaking, roll in the middle of their speech and either end the speech immediately and show the result or continue their speech if the roll is low, acting as if they rolled the die for no reason, like a tic. Deadly. So now it's after and when I say so.
In general, as a DM, if a great speech is supposed to lead to a failure, I act as if the character unvoluntarily hit a nerve or as if a misunderstanding lead to a completely opposite meaning. I also tend to be nicer afterwards, allowing the players to save the situation. So the big speech is not completely lost.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It does feel kind of weird to me to describe your action before we actually know how the action you're describing goes.
If you critfail the diplomacy check you probably didn't give the greatest speech ever, and acting as though you did and then complaining about the GM not giving you a freebie feels manipulative.
You wouldn't really do this in other scenarios. I've seen players describe critical hits in combat in flashy ways, but you wouldn't talk about the way you stylishly kill an enemy before you roll because if you miss or don't do enough damage that doesn't happen. You probably wouldn't do that with athletics either, you'd wait to see what your check is before describing your character effortlessly traversing a raging river... well, maybe at Deriven's table since that might give you a free success even if you have zero athletics or spellcasting proficiency with your weapon.
It makes much more sense to describe the outcome of your action after you know the outcome.
...Rolling dice for everything doesn't lead to much roleplay or character development or much thought. A player saying, "I roll my diplomacy check" without having to put any thought or effort into developing a good-roleplay scenario doesn't make for much character development.I'm obviously not advocating for that. I'm advocating for "good roleplay". And that's where our definitions differ. The 10 Charisma no Diplomacy Fighter making a great speech is bad roleplay to me. It's using the player skills instead of the character skills, for me it's akin to metagaming. After all, if I can forgo the roll if I roleplay well, I should be able to forgo the roll if I know the Bestiary by heart? I'm sure you don't agree with that so why do you allow it for Charisma-based checks?
That would be like going, "Mr. Player A, your charisma is only 10. You can't possibly come up with a great speech and deliver it well. Sorry you can had to spend your stats to make sure your Str, Dex, Con, and Wis were high enough so you didn't end up getting wasted by every monster with a save ability. You can't participate in the RP because of your 10 charisma."And that's exactly what I've said to a player. If you want to be the one making great speeches, then increase Charisma. At the very least, grab Diplomacy. And don't tell me it's a problem to be Trained in one skill in this system.
Now, it doesn't prevent you from roleplaying.
Roleplaying is not just about convincing people, there are tons of roleplaying opportunities that are not gated behind a roll. You roll when you want to, mostly, convince people in a timely manner. But if you are just having fun with someone you don't roll, you don't roll to get new friends, you don't roll to find a romantic partner, etc...
There are also some interesting skill substitutions, like using Lores for social interactions with specific social groups, or even I
Not even comparable.
Good roleplay isn't about incredible skill. It's about players engaging with the game and not being punished for bad rolls when they come up with something great or engage in a great piece of roleplay.
These are roleplaying games. To have a player engage in great RP and flush it away because they rolled poorly is a terrible way to DM.
For years we decided roleplay without rolls. For literally decades this game relied on GM/DM adjudication without rolls to engage with social situations and problem solving.
Some of the best times at the table would have been ruined if an over-reliance on rolls was part of the game like it is now.
Then suddenly skills are added heavily in 3E and you now think that rolls should decide everything? That's the modern player mentality? How is that good?
Lol another thing about this speech from a diplomacy inept character but directed by the roleplay of a player with great oration skills.
It is actually a funny moment when they roll and fail on that great speech because as a GM you narrate what actually happens based on the role not what the player says they want to do.
Thats when I tell the player, well your character formulated a passionate speech in their mind, a perfect speech. But as soon as those words left your characters mouth it just didn't come out like it was in their head. Unfortunately the villagers were not inspired with confidence, at best they look a little confused at worst afraid of another speech.I am a big proponent of players telling the GM what they want to do, not telling the GM what they actually do.
There is more than enough room for roleplay in that model. Outcomes and GM narration of what occurs is determined by the rolls. That is the boundary of a role playing game vs pure roleplaying IMO.
Then when they decide in the future why bother? Just roll the dice and let the DM narrate it, what then?
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
The player is the character and the character is the player. Great role-play performances are more important than rolls.
I don't let stats dictate roleplay. Numbers are numbers, roleplay is more important.
Note that this is exactly the "exploit" that people use to "game the system" by using their personal strengths to substitute for their character's weakness.
You say that "role-play" is more important than "rolls" and "stats." However, if a player is not actually "in character" (giving a "great speech" supposedly by the aforementioned low-Cha, untrained in Diplomacy character), then that is not, IMO, "great role-play" because they are not actually role-playing that character.
The character is not the player. The character is merely portrayed by the player.
It does feel kind of weird to me to describe your action before we actually know how the action you're describing goes.
If you critfail the diplomacy check you probably didn't give the greatest speech ever, and acting as though you did and then complaining about the GM not giving you a freebie feels manipulative.
You wouldn't really do this in other scenarios. I've seen players describe critical hits in combat in flashy ways, but you wouldn't talk about the way you stylishly kill an enemy before you roll because if you miss or don't do enough damage that doesn't happen. You probably wouldn't do that with athletics either, you'd wait to see what your check is before describing your character effortlessly traversing a raging river... well, maybe at Deriven's table since that might give you a free success even if you have zero athletics or spellcasting proficiency with your weapon.
It makes much more sense to describe the outcome of your action after you know the outcome.
I can see people play different ways.
I personally require very intensive roleplay in my games. I expect and require well thought out responses to roleplaying and problem solving. I may use email or chat to roleplay with a particular player engaging in a social situation. It may require fairly intensive interaction.
An entire session or between session period may be spent coming up with ideas for how to solve a particular problem or engage in a particular RP scenario.
If the player is clever, then I let it work. If everything sounds well-reasoned with no real cause why it should fail, then it works.
I'm of the mind that engagement in RP is more important than some sort of codified rules structure for anything but combat. If the system is short-circuiting good roleplay by causing everything to be decided with a roll, then the game is failing at what it is supposed to do: encourage role-playing.
If you want everything decided by a roll, seems to me you're playing the game less like an RPG and more like a board or video game. If I feel like playing that type of game, I will go play that type of game.
The player is the character and the character is the player. Great role-play performances are more important than rolls.I don't let stats dictate roleplay. Numbers are numbers, roleplay is more important.Note that this is exactly the "exploit" that people use to "game the system" by using their personal strengths to substitute for their character's weakness.
You say that "role-play" is more important than "rolls" and "stats." However, if a player is not actually "in character" (giving a "great speech" supposedly by the aforementioned low-Cha, untrained in Diplomacy character), then that is not, IMO, "great role-play" because they are not actually role-playing that character.
The character is not the player. The character is merely portrayed by the player.
You are assuming everyone is some kind of greater orator. They are not.
The character is portrayed by the player. They are the character. Most people are not actors, but regular people attempting to play a game where they get to step into a character and act a little bit to the best of their ability.
So when someone who is a regular person, not an actor or specialist at much else, steps out of their comfort zone to engage in some extraordinary role-playing, you don't want to kill their creative spark by going, "Oh gee dude, You put all that thought and really had an inspired moment of role-play, but you rolled a 1. Sorry you wasted your time."
That just encourages them to not bother to try and let the rolls decide everything.
Why exactly do you think this is good in a role-playing game?
Right now you are all fabricating this situation where the player themselves are great at whatever thing they are role-playing. My experience is they are not and they especially don't start out that way. In fact, a lot of folks who play these games can be socially awkward and have trouble openly engaging as a character.
So as a DM I prefer to coax RP out of them by creating an environment where they feel comfortable engaging in RP. Part of that environment is rewarding good RP with success, which encourages people who might otherwise not bother to speak much and rely heavily on rolls to step out of their comfort zone and play a character in a more interesting manner than they might if you just decide everything by rolls.
I prefer to reward the mostly regular people stepping up and trying to role-play. Around the table you get a lot of trying if you encourage and reward the effort put into RP even by people who might not be the greatest at it.
I can see people play different ways.
You are mixing things that have not much in common.
Encouraging players to roleplay is not linked to rolling or not. We do that at most of the tables I've been in.
If a player really acts in character and gets an inspiring moment, there'll be at least a circumstance bonus (that can get as high as +4) and a reroll through Hero Point (sometimes even awarded for the good roleplay). So failure is actually the rarity.
Also, the game is not "short-circuiting roleplay". First, the roll is not enough, you need the roleplay to get the chance to roll and even a potential bonus. So it's not short-circuting anything.
What it's short-circuiting is players who build their characters without Charisma and still benefit from high Charisma, ie. cheaters.
You are fine with that, but I think you can realize you are in the minority. And I think you are scared by what doesn't exist, you may even realize that your players prefer to roll than not after their great speeches because most players who like to speak also put the necessary work for their character to be good at it. As such their rolls will certainly be outstanding.
As a side note, I've played at games without checks and I dislike it. It's roughly a game of convincing the GM that your character should succeed. It promotes behaviors I dislike, like the player who's always pushing for more or the one who knows how to manipulate the GM (especially the boy/girlfriend who's unbeatable at that game but some eternal newbies also succeed very well at it). Not my cup of tea, I want my rolls.
I can see people play different ways.You are mixing things that have not much in common.
Encouraging players to roleplay is not linked to rolling or not. We do that at most of the tables I've been in.
If a player really acts in character and gets an inspiring moment, there'll be at least a circumstance bonus (that can get as high as +4) and a reroll through Hero Point (sometimes even awarded for the good roleplay). So failure is actually the rarity.
Also, the game is not "short-circuiting roleplay". First, the roll is not enough, you need the roleplay to get the chance to roll and even a potential bonus. So it's not short-circuting anything.
What it's short-circuiting is players who build their characters without Charisma and still benefit from high Charisma, ie. cheaters.
You are fine with that, but I think you can realize you are in the minority. And I think you are scared by what doesn't exist, you may even realize that your players prefer to roll than not after their great speeches because most players who like to speak also put the necessary work for their character to be good at it. As such their rolls will certainly be outstanding.
As a side note, I've played at games without checks and I dislike it. It's roughly a game of convincing the GM that your character should succeed. It promotes behaviors I dislike, like the player who's always pushing for more or the one who knows how to manipulate the GM (especially the boy/girlfriend who's unbeatable at that game but some eternal newbies also succeed very well at it). Not my cup of tea, I want my rolls.
This has nothing to do with it.
You don't seem to understand that we come from different generations. There was a time in these games when skills did not exist. You didn't roll everything. Problem solving and role-playing trumped all but combat.
I still go by that. To some older generation of gamers, the interactive roleplaying is the main element of the game that drove many of us to play it. It wasn't decided by a roll for everything.
I attribute this to a younger generation of gamers that grew up playing 3E or PF1 or other skill based games like GURPs.
I've already stated that I use rolls as well, but it doesn't trump good role-play. This means that I might do something like the following in a social situation:
1. Player A comes up with a decent role-play scenario. I may give them a bonus, then roll. Tell them what happened.
2. Player B puts on a command performance. Absolutely inspired. Memorable to everyone at the table. It was a great idea. I let the plan succeed. Not killing inspired RP.
3. Player C has to convince the guard they are there to deliver a message to the commander. Pretty standard reasoning. Roll your deception.
You should be using all your tools as a DM. One of your tools should definitely be giving a success to inspired RP since it happens so rarely. Like with most things, volume of RP will provide more opportunities for extraordinary moments. As a DM you want to encourage as many moments as possible to cultivate those few moments of great and memorable RP.
You want players to walk away from the table, especially after a campaign, with a character or two they will remember for life.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Deriven Firelion are you saying I wasted my best stat rolls on Cha for all my early edition Dnd characters?
No table plays skills in the same way, so even when I have my preferences as I said earlier, there's no wrong way to use them really. As I said the only real problem I think skills have is the existance of skill feats which gate certain basic actions behind a feat, but otherwise skills already do a really decent job to codify stuff that needs to be codified while leaving enough room for GMs that would want to explore a bit with the system.
Deriven Firelion are you saying I wasted my best stat rolls on Cha for all my early edition Dnd characters?
You don't even sound like you know what the older editions of D&D were like with a statement like this.
The rolling methods in the early days led to very low stats. No class but paladin used charisma and the paladin required a 17 charisma to even make one. So you had to roll a 17 using 3d6 or maybe 4d6 if the DM was generous, then hope for at least one good combat stat on top of the 17 charisma.
If you were lucky and rolled the rare 18, you really had to think about that as an 18 meant you could try to roll percentile strength. Percentile strength was a heavy rarity that set a martial far apart from other martials. If I recall correctly, only certain martials and races could obtain 18 percentile strength.
Early D&D was a very, very different game from the one now. Doubt you played it. The above statement alone shows you didn't much play the game or understand the weird mechanics in early D&D.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Rolls and stats don't interfere with roleplaying, if one wishes to roleplay. Tables that abide by the numbers (to even the utmost degree) can be as immersive as tables that don't. As default at my tables, players are assumed to be speaking in character.
2. Being able to surpass one's PC's abilities is not RPing "in character". Presenting that as superior RPing is laughable. It means the player's divorced from their actual role (or as others have mentioned, that many of their stats & abilities have little to no purpose).
3. Ask improv performers or drama students how they feel about limitations, heck creators in general, and most will have recognized that limits augment creativity rather than hinder it. So yeah, using the results of a roll as the seed for RPing enhances it, not lessens.
Not caring what you and your table prefer, Derivon, only clearing up the misconceptions about those who play by the numbers, most of whom embrace RPing just as enthusiastically.
1. Rolls and stats don't interfere with roleplaying, if one wishes to roleplay. Tables that abide by the numbers (to even the utmost degree) can be as immersive as tables that don't. As default at my tables, players are assumed to be speaking in character.
2. Being able to surpass one's PC's abilities is not RPing "in character". Presenting that as superior RPing is laughable. It means the player's divorced from their actual role (or as others have mentioned, that many of their stats & abilities have little to no purpose).
3. Ask improv performers or drama students how they feel about limitations, heck creators in general, and most will have recognized that limits augment creativity rather than hinder it. So yeah, using the results of a roll as the seed for RPing enhances it, not lessens.Not caring what you and your table prefer, Derivon, only clearing up the misconceptions about those who play by the numbers, most of whom embrace RPing just as enthusiastically.
I don't agree with this. I think it is provably wrong, but doubt anyone would do the study to test it.
I don't think tables that rely on rolls are as immersive. I think they start to default to rolls and that has been my experience. You reach a point where if the DM is just going by rolls, they just want to get it over with and use the roll as too much thought in the roleplay doesn't impact the outcome.
So I don't consider what I pose as a misconception. It is based on my forty plus years of experience DMing.
If you want role-play to be pursued and an immersive table, then the role-play must be able to impact the game as much or more than the rolls. Or players are naturally inclined to default to rolls and some loose explanation of why because the rolls matter more than the role-play.
I doubt we'll ever see eye to eye on it. I've been DMing for a long time. I've run many players using my methods. I've built numerous memorable experiences for my players over the years. That's far more important than over reliance on rolls which has risen during the 3E and PF1 era.
As far as improv goes, improve is driven by forcing people to adapt to changing situations. Random rolls can be one way to force an adaptation, but so can interactive roleplaying by changing the reaction or situation based on the role-play. I prefer that method as it provides a far greater range of adaptation than a roll.
I know this is hard to DM for most, but it makes the game entertaining if you put the effort in it.
It is human nature to understand that encouraging certain behaviors by rewarding them is a way to drive those behaviors. Gamers are not different. They role-play more if you reward role-play with success.
I'll leave it there as this is turning into another combative thread that I'll never much agree with. I will always allow great role-play to succeed regardless of roll. Always and forever that I play and DM these games.
I know with 100 percent certainty this works. It creates a table where every player, even often social introverts who are uncomfortable role-playing to step out of their usual comfort zone to try to role-play a character in an environment where they feel safe and able to express themselves without ridicule or fear of failure with a DM that enjoys seeing folks step out of their comfort zone.
As I've been running this game for fourty plus years and always found players that seem to prefer me as a DM, I'll keep using my methods as I see them driving RP and encouraging some very interesting and immersive interaction in the game.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean that's fine, you're allowed to have your own style and houserules, but insisting other people are playing the game in a "provably wrong" way because they use dice is still just ... kinda goofy. It comes off as weirdly condescending and like you don't understand a lot of how the game or other tables work.
Also why try to discredit whether I played older editions of DND?
If you must know i rolled an 18 only once ever. And yes I made a fighter and put it into str so I could roll 2d10. I got a 06 I was pretty sore about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Social encounters are only one kind of non-combat encounter. There are a lot of ways to use skills in and out of combat, and a lot of ways for other kinds of checks to be relevant.
I don't make my players roll climbing checks every 5 to 10 ft of an environmental-based encounter where the party is ascending a cliff face to a dragon's lair, especially as they can't do so stealthily by raw unless they are all rogues with the ability to climb and sneak at the same time, or they are all have climb speeds. Instead I might choose to run that like an infiltration or other victory point-based encounter if that makes the most sense, keeping track of both progress up the cliff face and how much attention the party is drawing to themselves. If one of the players was a rogue and had the feats to be stealthing and doing something else, I'd probably let them roll 2 times every round of the encounter, once for each VP point total I am tracking, just like I might let some spells count as an automatic success for a certain number of points in either category.
It is perfectly fine to not force rolls all the time when they don't make sense to the specific task at hand.
But social encounters that hinge everything on one diplomacy check are not actually encounters really, they are just a skill check. If a party got to bypass an entire social encounter because one player wanted to give an impassioned speech to one NPC, then I would argue that the GM is making a mistake because they are basically saying "out of combat encounters are not real encounters, so the party really does not need to think about how they engage them." This is a mistake because the PF2 ruleset expects out of combat encounters to be challenging encounters that consume party resources and require character and party planning. At the point your write all of that out, you have reduced PF2 entirely to a combat simulator, and every thing not combat related on your character sheet is just accessorizing your character/barbie doll. (Not that accessorizing or fashion is a bad thing! I am not shaming anyone for wanting to put time and attention into the details that bring their character to life for them, but the game expects skills, items, spells and tactics to be used in more than just combat encounters.)
...1. Rolls and stats don't interfere with roleplaying, if one wishes to roleplay. Tables that abide by the numbers (to even the utmost degree) can be as immersive as tables that don't. As default at my tables, players are assumed to be speaking in character.
2. Being able to surpass one's PC's abilities is not RPing "in character". Presenting that as superior RPing is laughable. It means the player's divorced from their actual role (or as others have mentioned, that many of their stats & abilities have little to no purpose).
3. Ask improv performers or drama students how they feel about limitations, heck creators in general, and most will have recognized that limits augment creativity rather than hinder it. So yeah, using the results of a roll as the seed for RPing enhances it, not lessens.Not caring what you and your table prefer, Derivon, only clearing up the misconceptions about those who play by the numbers, most of whom embrace RPing just as enthusiastically.
I don't agree with this. I think it is provably wrong, but doubt anyone would do the study to test it.
I don't think tables that rely on rolls are as immersive. I think they start to default to rolls and that has been my experience. You reach a point where if the DM is just going by rolls, they just want to get it over with and use the roll as too much thought in the roleplay doesn't impact the outcome.
So I don't consider what I pose as a misconception. It is based on my forty plus years of experience DMing.
If you want role-play to be pursued and an immersive table, then the role-play must be able to impact the game as much or more than the rolls. Or players are naturally inclined to default to rolls and some loose explanation of why because the rolls matter more than the role-play.
I doubt we'll ever see eye to eye on it. I've been DMing for a long time. I've run many players using my methods. I've built numerous memorable experiences for my players over the
RP is completely subjective. If you're the DM and you see a player put great effort into the RP and reward it, it does mean it was great RP. You know that player and you rewarded that player for coming up with something great or above what they usually do.
You're not concerned if the group thinks it's great or some consensus. You're only concerned if you as a DM knowing that player consider it great.
The goal is encouragement of engagement with the narrative of the adventure.
When a player wants to do something that involves an uncertain outcome i call for a roll.
I dont see a difference between a player saying I want to strike that creature or a player saying I want to convince those villagers they have a fighting chance against the coming raid. The outcome is not certain and there are checks involved to determine the outcome.
The strike is more straitforward since everything is written down. Convincing villagers they can fight back and win takes more GM intuition about the difficulty.
Is it a raid from a group of bandits but the pcs being there makes them at most worried that some of them might die in the effort? A simple trained diplomacy DC might be right.
Is it a raid from a a foreign country regiment and the villagers are worried they will all die even with the players there? A simple master DC diplomacy is probably more apt for the situation.
When you take the rolls out of this situation you change it from one where character build played a role in the outcome to one where cha and diplomacy had no role in determining the outcome. I would have a huge problem playing in a game where a character with no investment in either of these doesnt have to roll and succeeds.
Unicore I was just giving an example of a single skill check that could have involved roleplay that I wouldn't have skipped a role on and then made it an extreme example by using a pc with no skills related to the task to show why I felt why enforcing a roll is important.
But I am interested in how the situation would be flushed out into a full social encounter if thats what you had in mind. That could be interesting to use sometime.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't agree with this. I think it is provably wrong, but doubt anyone would do the study to test it.
It's very easy to prove: Navigate to the play by post section of this forum where even combat rolls come with descriptions and roleplay.
Roleplaying is what we do, no dice can stop us.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unicore I was just giving an example of a single skill check that could have involved roleplay that I wouldn't have skipped a role on and then made it an extreme example by using a pc with no skills related to the task to show why I felt why enforcing a roll is important.
But I am interested in how the situation would be flushed out into a full social encounter if thats what you had in mind. That could be interesting to use sometime.
One of the strengths of the PF2 skill system, in my mind, is that it is pretty clear what a one skill check situation is approximately capable of accomplishing by looking at the activities associated with that skill.
So for diplomacy we have Make an Impression and Make a Request.
If the party is meeting an NPC for the first time, it is unlikely this NPC is going to be friendly to all of them and thus willing to do anything for the party without equal compensation. Does this situation require the entire party to be on friendly terms with the NPC to proceed, or is one character enough? That will depend on what kind of favor or request is being made and whether it involves the NPC doing things for someone they don't like, or where the NPC's reputation will be on the line based upon the actions of the whole party (like giving them permission to explore a tomb of a revered ancestor. If one of the PCs has upset the NPC, why would they let that PC into the tomb just because they kinda like her friend?).
So minimally this could be a 2 to 8 check situation depending on whether it is worth everyone's time to flesh out this situation into a full fledged social encounter or not. Now instead of making each PC make the NPC friendly through diplomacy, then either making a request or coercing the NPC into compliance, it might be better to turn this into a 6 VP, 2 or 3 round social encounter where you include a wider array of skills for success and you have more than just a Yes/No outcome to the encounter.
Like total failure on the social encounter can mean either a combat encounter follows, or the party will have to infiltrate the tomb instead of being granted access. Partial success can be standard access granted, while a higher level of success could mean the NPC tells the party about a set of secret passages that bypass some of the old traps, or more information about creatures or challenges the party might face ahead.
In this situation a well role played turn might be worth one free standard success, or an extra hero point, or a circumstance bonus to the roll, but if it totally removes the entire social encounter, then you have a situation where the rest of the party are prevented from participating and potentially earning rewards of their own, or contributing to an even higher tier of success for the party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't agree with this. I think it is provably wrong, but doubt anyone would do the study to test it.It's very easy to prove: Navigate to the play by post section of this forum where even combat rolls come with descriptions and roleplay.
Roleplaying is what we do, no dice can stop us.
He seems in a bubble where he thinks only his method gives his results, results I (and so many others) have achieved at RPG tables for decades, tables where roleplaying involves a distinct role one plays. Anthony Hopkins doesn't break into a comic monologue as Lecter, not matter how clever or memorable the words. Jim Carrey & Robin Williams have to swallow their humorous ad libs when they play their most acclaimed dramatic roles.
And I can attest that theories re: creativity support the concept that limitations & inspirational seeds increase creativity. Frameworks have been essential to many creative endeavors. So I'm unsure what portion he thinks is "provably wrong", only that he disagrees despite the weight of observations demonstrating otherwise. And I'd love to be corrected by data so I could update my understanding, and appreciate my tables that much more.
|
I mean, I say this because its something I don't like about the base system but its not something that has an effect in my table because I ditched skill feats a long time ago. Do you meet the prerequisites of the skill feat? Its yours. There's a very short list of skill feats I don't give for free (Additional Lore, Assurance, Automatic Knowledge, Dubious Knowledge, Experienced Professional, Kreighton's Cognitive Crossover, Master of Apprentice, Skill Training, and Unmistakable Lore) which are now general feats. So far its been a change for the better and even when I don't GM those I play with took this as a house rule too.
So any character that is trained in Acrobatics gets Cat Fall
So any character that is trained in Arcana gets the Detect Magic cantrip for free(Arcane Sense)So any character that is trained in Athletics gets Hefty Hauler and Combat Climber
So any character that is trained in Crafting gets Alchemical Crafting, Snare Crafting, and Tatoo artist
So any character that is trained in Diplomacy gets Bon Mot
So any character that is trained in Medicine gets Battle Medicine and Stitch Flesh
So any character that is trained in Occultism gets Read Psychomatic Resonance and Root Magic
So any character that is trained in Religion gets Pilgrim's Token
That certainly adds to the power and versatility of skill monkeys.
A lot of the value of a skill monkey IMO is the bonus skill feats. Giving those out for free lessens the value of a skill monkey class, while increasing the value of skills themselves. I suppose that's one way of increasing the relevance of Int, but that generosity feels a bit cheap to me. I'd play a halfling just to pick up a second (Ancestry) Lore feat at 5th. PF2 is resilient enough that this causes no major ramification I can see, but as a player I'd dislike it even as I exploited it.
A lot of the value of a skill monkey IMO is the bonus skill feats. Giving those out for free lessens the value of a skill monkey class, while increasing the value of skills themselves. I suppose that's one way of increasing the relevance of Int, but that generosity feels a bit cheap to me. I'd play a halfling just to pick up a second (Ancestry) Lore feat at 5th. PF2 is resilient enough that this causes no major ramification I can see, but as a player I'd dislike it even as I exploited it.
As someone that gives skill feats for free if you meet their prerequisites, I disagree. The skill monkey classes not only have more skill feats but also more skill increases. If those skill increases also give you free skill feats (and why wouldn't they, its not like they are temporary) it means that you still have more skill feats than the average character.
A lot of the value of a skill monkey IMO is the bonus skill feats. Giving those out for free lessens the value of a skill monkey class, while increasing the value of skills themselves. I suppose that's one way of increasing the relevance of Int, but that generosity feels a bit cheap to me. I'd play a halfling just to pick up a second (Ancestry) Lore feat at 5th. PF2 is resilient enough that this causes no major ramification I can see, but as a player I'd dislike it even as I exploited it.As someone that gives skill feats for free if you meet their prerequisites, I disagree. The skill monkey classes not only have more skill feats but also more skill increases. If those skill increases also give you free skill feats (and why wouldn't they, its not like they are temporary) it means that you still have more skill feats than the average character.
I was aware of everything you've stated, and yes, all boats rise with the water. My main point still stands, by lessening the gap, you lessen the value of skill monkey classes. And PF2's resilient enough that the effect will be small, yet enough to make me feel icky as a player (unless there was some balancing force I suppose).
I actually like the skill feats. it gives players a way of differentiating themselves using a limited resource.
I just dont gate the ability to do things that I can also resolve with a roll. So its good to have things like rolling landing but your not all of a sudden unable to attempt to roll after a fall just because there's a feat that lets you do it automatically.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In Pathfinder 2E what is a check?
When does the Player Core say to use them?
I mean play the game however you want. That's your prerogative. But this is pathfinder 2E, saying its a generational thing doesn't make it a rule in this game.
I played older versions of DnD and even then when there was a chance of failure you rolled, usually a stat. And no two DMs had the same idea of what is certain and what needed to be rolled.
I would not ascribe certain success to a speech like the one weve discussed coming from a character with no skill at diplomacy and 10 charisma. Not under current rules and not under older ones. Even back then you were still supposed to play the character you rolled. Especially if you were rolling per stat and not able to move them around. You roll a 6 Charisma? you would be expected to play a very uncharismatic character and not expecting you can give out inspiring speeches to hapless villagers and succeed very often if at all.
in fact that 6 cha character giving that great roleplay speech? Some GMs wouldnt even let you roll, you would fail automatically. It would be something like your speech was bold and inspiring until it came out of your mouth. The villagers did not seem impressed and look more worried than before you spoke. Why because GM fiat was more prominent back then and it was not a good thing. I had so many arguments over things like this. In Derivens case hes giving auto successes for the roleplay but GMs back then would just as easily given auto failures with the same justifications.
If the pathfinder character rolls for it and succeeds at the check they get the result they rolled. No problem. Saying out of combat roleplaying where a player is trying to do something with uncertainty to it is not a matter of game balance is actually also saying they are a matter of complete GM fiat. Thats not a fun game table IMO and causes a lot of arguments in my experience.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rolling the dice allows the game to be fair. A shy child with solid Cs on their report card who is playing a maxed out bard diplomat should not be pushed aside in Diplomacy by the fifty year old doctor of rhetoric, theater, and international relations who is has playing a barbarian with Charisma as a dump stat.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you also penalize characters with average charisma for rolling too well on charisma skills? If not, why wouldn't you treat that character giving a great speech about something they know well as that character rolling high on said check?
That's just a completely nonsensical comparison. The criticism is that the player is not roleplaying their character; if you're playing an 8 CHA character with no training in any social skills, they might know the subject matter very well but they can't give a great, convincing speech on the topic. That's what an untrained, minimum-stat character means. If they're lucky they can still give a solid one, and I'd be tempted to give a nice circumstance bonus on the check if it's a topic that the character knows well and cares about - they might even break DC 20 on a good roll with a circumstance bonus. Good roleplaying isn't about giving a convincing speech, it's about playing a character well. The mechanics of the game mean that if you want to be good at influencing people, you should either be charismatic, well-trained in the area, or both (with some fun exceptions letting you use something like Society, which I think honestly should be more common than they are now). If that isn't your character, you're not just not embodying the character with your masterful speech, you're actively neglecting the character's established traits. That is bad roleplaying. Penalizing a character with average charisma for rolling too well on cha checks is a complete non-sequitur - it has nothing to do with roleplaying, which is what the comment yu're replying to is about.
There's a fair critique to be had for Pathfinder centralising all social interactions behind CHA without using specific subsytems - nerding out to the engineer with a Crafting check, or convincing the cleric with your knowledge of their Religion are interesting ways to embody a character, good roleplaying, and are a reasonable way of befriending those NPCs. The Influence system helps here, but given it has to be GM-applied, I can see people being frustrated with their character being locked away from these interactions. That's not what people are looking for here, people are looking for the ability to succeed at an in-game skill check through out-of-game skills. Wanting your players to be more engaged with the game, and rewarding them for being engaged, is also reasonable - but don't pretend it's about roleplaying if they're being wildly out of character to get those rewards.