I'm thinking I'm probably the odd man out but the role playing part of the game is a side item for me. I was wondering what the level of interest would be in an AP but using a Gloomhaven style of play. For those not familiar, the story is presented up to confrontation. You fight the battles and then the narration picks up again to take you to the next confrontation. I was thinking you could throw in some important social interactions and perhaps choices on the direction of travel or area to review.
What do you guys think?
Which AP, Module, or other were you thinking?
And, what edition?
I would definitely be up for that. Also curious about what system/edition :)
It largely depends on which story for me. Most of them really rely on the storytelling components, but in some others the idea could interest me imo.
I'm definitely up for this. My style of play is much more hack'n'slash than talk'n'plan.
Just conceptual right now. Trying to decide what sorts of scenes would need to be played. I would want to include moments for social skill use so players don’t just dump those totally. It’s the extensive RP scenes between players and PC to Relatively minor npc scenes i want to ditch.
If I run such a game it would be 1e, not a fan of 2e. As to the AP, I am not sure. I have a lot of experience with rise of the runelords. Iron Gods seems neat, currently playing through carrion crown and could see doing that one. I like the concept of wrath of the righteous even though i hear horror stories about mythic rules.
Would the social combat rules be worth looking at?
I am the other guy ... and role-play versus roll-play has been a hot topic for me recently. That said, I probably like transparancy even more than good roleplaying, and it's refreshing to have to someone straight up say "let's dump that"
This sounds almost like a speed run style, where you skip a lot of the non essential encounters/scenes?
If so, and we would still play out the important aspects of a given AP, I would definitely be interested.
Despite playing PF1e since the alpha play test, I've never completed a single AP. Furthest I got was the beginning of book 3(I think) of Rose.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am curious. I like the tactical aspect of the game as much as the role play.
@Monkeygod, it's a huge commitment to finish an AP. I've only managed to finish one as a GM. Got close on a second before the weight of the rules collapsed it.
Would the social combat rules be worth looking at?
Don't feel I can give an 'educated' opinion on this one, since I never looked at those :D But I do agree with situations of social skill use. The way I interpret your concept is to perhaps make the AP more about 'scenes' and set pieces? Then the nature of these could be Social, Combat, Puzzle, etc. Am I understanding correctly?
Good news about using PF1. I much prefer it over PF2.
And I can really relate to your stance regarding the 'extensive RP scenes between players' - to each his/her own of course, but I would not mind playing in a game in which these are toned down a notch.
Nowadays I also have some particular hesitation regarding the railroad-y-ness of Adventure Paths, and much prefer open ended sandbox-y games. But that being said, this might actually be a good way to experience an AP.
Excellent way to encapsulate it; narration > scene > repeat. The scene could be combat, puzzle, or social conflict.
I like it. And I also find it might be particularly appropriate to PbP.
I like it. And I also find it might be particularly appropriate to PbP.
Might be really appropriate for well administered, GM-engaged PbP, which both IP & IK are really good at, but would profoundly suck if roleplay were discouraged AND there was an absentee GM. One of the things that I would point out tends to spawn player exposition is lack of GM attention and/or input. The players know that if nothing else is going on, at least their characters can talk to each other, so they do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like it. And I also find it might be particularly appropriate to PbP.Might be really appropriate for well administered, GM-engaged PbP, which both IP & IK are really good at, but would profoundly suck if roleplay were discouraged AND there was an absentee GM. One of the things that I would point out tends to spawn player exposition is lack of GM attention and/or input. The players know that if nothing else is going on, at least their characters can talk to each other, so they do.
From my perspective it is true sometimes player exposition spawns from lack of DM attention, but many times it just as much a product of overly verbose players with their character story 'all planned out' in their head, and wanting to impose it on the game, and whomever is around.
So completely agree, absentee GMs are the death of PbP, much the same way self involved or absentee players are.
Opinions, we all have them of course. These are just mine :)
I like this idea. I think this may get a game to move a little faster as well. All mine are slowing down including the one I'm running. I wouldn't mind something moving a bit more.
My two are going along ok. Had some issues getting one to move at first. Holidays will be hard but i try to push the story to keep things moving. I think people ghosting is the main game killer.
|
I could be interested depending on the AP chosen.
Regarding Wrath of the Righteous: I've played a little bit of it and I could see it working well for this concept. I've also heard terrible things about mythic, but there are also workarounds. Gestalt and maybe mythic limited to 2 or 3 levels, or a higher point buy and gestalt, or some other combination of milder substitutes could work to keep things sane.
Regarding the social combat rules from Ultimate Intrigue: I've played with the social combat rules a little in War for the Crown and mostly I don't think they would be all that helpful for speeding things along, with the possible exception of the part about structuring social encounters as events. You might find some ideas in that part about how to set up social encounters so they're more linear and efficient to play through.
I definitely am one for more RP than mechanics, but I also agree there's a place for it here. Some players definitely want to get to the tactics bits.
Building off what some other folks said, I think the thing to be aware of is the potential burden--yes, burden--on the GM. I've run a couple PBPs and you really need to be *on* and ready to post frequently through combat. Track initiative, track foe status, prepare often lengthy combat summaries. Even using tools to help me manage things, it can take me almost an hour to post a combat post sometimes depending on what's going on and how many enemies I'm managing. Out of combat, GMs always have to be available to respond to die rolls the players make. So if the bulk of the gameplay is solely mechanical, a GM with a few busy days is going to vastly break the pace of the game, as the players have nothing to do in the meantime, which in turn increases the likelihood of player attrition.
It's nice when the PCs dig into roleplay and/or you dig into the narrative because you can just write and not track die rolls. Which is not to say that writing well is easy, but it allows you to focus on just one thing.
If the game is largely only the mechanical checks, you need a very engaged, often online GM to keep things going. GMs can and do burn out on PBP so if you want to run this I would advise reviewing your schedule carefully and set and stick to posting expectations.
I also might try out a module before diving into an AP as well.
I'm leaning toward Carrion Crown because my virtual group is finishing up book 4 which means we are closing in on the finish. Doing repeats means I have familiarity with the storyline and I have most of the maps and villains setup in roll20.
Quaker, I fully agree with the combats. I've tried to develop a rather well nuanced combat tracker. Always looking for ways to better present the info to the players.
I see it as a tactics game. I'm an Axis and Allies fan and Warhammer 40k. I like the combat development with some personality development as the game goes along. Planning brings in character development as does chatter during and immediately after combat.
As for the module vs the AP, I'd rather offer up let's do book 1 of AP X and if it rolls well we can keep going. We may even decide we want more cut scenes if you will and add those as we go along.
Another thing came to my mind. Typically, players build a cool character concept they like, which sometimes leads to not building a mechanically optimal character.
If the focus on mechanics is the name of the game, people might want to optimise a bit. This means that combat encounters "as is" might become too easy. I think the GM should be prepared to adjust difficulty, or make it clear to players that weird builds that maximise numbers is discouraged.
Thanks for the input guys. I've picked a storyline and started putting it together. It'll be a while before you see it advertised but I appreciate the feedback. I'm going to do an old Basic D&D boxed set vice a new AP so I have a lot of converting to do plus I have two active games I want to focus on for the moment.
Basic D&D sounds really good.
Enjoy the mini-project! ;)
Somewhat late, but yes... along with combat, puzzle and social would be skill challenge?
Basically anything a character can invest in and be better at.
Sounds like PFS without the excluded stuff. That's essentially how those are run and you catch whatever RP moments you can.
I was considering such a concept a while back. But starting from a board game perspective, like chess (or Axis & Allies).
Identify the obstacle and overcome as best you can, tactically.
Might work better if the presumption was all characters trusted, knew or knew of each other. That removes, "well my characters is thus, why would they go along with..."
Some might gripe this takes away full control or player agency, but then this may not be the game for those folks.
It would appeal if think to min-max'ers, but ultimately if the encounter/map isn't what you're built for and you're not somewhat rounded, you're less effective. Could your partners help, sure.
I'm a big fan of RP, but like it in short concise bursts for flavor. As opposed to were writing a novel together.
But let's also call a thing a thing, if that's okay. It isn't like there's been all that much RPing in TT"RP"Gs in a long time. Like a long time. Like a few great scenes in Stranger Things (the Vecna scene for sure), and maybe that's kinda it. But truth be told, not all that much. A few moments when a bunch of gamers substituted their actual wussy nerd voices for their this-is-what-I-think-a-tough-guy-sounds-like voice to say: "Who dost you thinketh you arest? Thou cannot boss me around as thoughest my liege lordeth!" Clouds part and the Role Playing angels sing.
This is why recruitments here on Paizo are a nightmare. It's the final battlefield for role play & creativity. Everyone knows that Gameplay is where characters go to die, right? The token with a blue outline casts fireball ... in Recruitment, that token had a name, but no one really cares once you meet a Runelord. Gameplay is like the elephant graveyard of PbP. With a bunch of really irritating pontificating thrown in.
So yeah, there are some people who hold on too tight. Yeah, there are some people who are writing small novellas even AFTER recruitment (the gall!) and there are for sure some people who seem to need the spotlight to swivel back to them WAY too often. But the whole actual benefit of PbP (one of them anyway) is that it allows for the wussy nerd gamers to actually type coherent interaction that doesn't sound like William Shatner having a micro-stroke. I'm not sure that's always a bad thing. The novellas, yeah, mostly a bad thing, but some good interaction isn't exactly a game killer, especially in PbP.
At the end of the day, this is most people's dirty little secret anyway. It's not like there's even anything happening on the weekends, right? Most people are hiding this from their "real" lives. The holidays arrive and we lose 6 weeks of gaming. I get wanting a more streamlined game flow, but I'll be honest, I think that is better suited for live VTT sessions than telling people in PbP that they role play too much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Didn't take this as a rag on RP, I like RP... a lot. And, I was the fat kid, nerd, etc.
Just helping define and clearly understand the concept folks in the thread, mainly OP were after.
Personally, I like both types of games. For different reasons, obviously.
I do enjoy the tactical game for the converse of what you stated. I created a build that has advantages and disadvantages.
Want to see if we're clever enough to play to our advantages and help each other shine.
Enjoy both types and the rare game that stalled that fence.
Game on!
ps: and yes, if my character is waiting for someone to take a 5' step to a particular space and allow me to unleash 3 precision attacks and possibly end the encounter... but they wax poetically and don't take that step... I'm a bit annoyed.
mechanics are the "housekeeping" but, by all means, embellish as you wish.