The Fox wrote:
We have a Chuck at our local lodge. I won't sit at a table that he is at. The VL knows he is a problem. Many people have complained. Still, he's there every week, and I need to plan my registration around his. We use warhorn to sign up, and on more than one occasion now have I had to withdraw from a table and try to find another one because Chuck signed up for the same table after I did.Email me please. email@example.com
You confront him directly in a private setting, tell him the comments are not friendly or welcoming, and ask him to please refrain, because he is driving away players.
If that doesn't work or you are uncomfortable with it, talk to your local VC or VL, or to the location manager where the game is hosted. Store owners and the like don't like potential customers driven away because of a jerk.
Finally, if none of that works, email me and we will talk about further resolutions and options.
Mention that to the 11.2 rogue that was disintegrated in a scenario I GMed a year or so ago.
If there is a problem as has been described by Roysier, then no one has emailed me about it. If there is indeed a problem, please email and let me know.
As for this thread, it's started to get out of hand with all the posts that have had to be removed and I am locking it.
PFS does not condone a GM vs player mentality. It's a community game built on volunteers willing to give up their time so others can enjoy a relatively free experience. However, Slinging mud because of a bad experience or two isn't going to happen here.
Why didn't you use a level 7 pregen, instead of your own character, if you knew there was no reward and you didn't want to spend any resources from your character. A level 7 pregen still allows you to make the table legal.
John and I chatted about this topic yesterday in our weekly meeting. We've decided that the extra paperwork it would take to implement a system where alignment shifts truly work and are consistent from table to table simply isn't worth the harm it could do to the campaign overall. In my home games, and I'm sure in John's, we both take character alignments and shifts very seriously. However, it is just something that can't be done very well in an organized play setting because some people here hit the nail on the head. If you track evil, you also have to track good, lawful and chaotic. The extra paperwork and added stress on a GM simply isn't worth it.
The system we have in place is pretty good now, and implementing any additional changes at this time wouldn't make it better. We don't want to make global, campaign sweeping changes for no gain, and possible greater loss.
We trust our GMs to adjudicate the rules fairly and intelligently, especially when an alignment shift could drastically affect a character, such as a paladin. If a GM makes a mistake, we expect them to talk with the player(s) to come up with an fair resolution.
Thanks for all the feedback in this thread. It does help John and I to evaluate the environment of the campaign on tough topics to keep it the best organized play out there.
Is Destroying a Fellow Player's Raised Dead / Commanded Undead an action that Constitutes PVP in Society Play?
Something else already added to my discussion list. Interesting the trickle down effects that occur when a can of worms is opened.
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
Yep, already something on my list of notes for John and I to discuss.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Let's not forget to include dhampir racial class option in the list. They are, after all, a creature affiliated with negative energy.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
I agree and I have tried to intentionally keep it grey so that GMs can use their best judgements and adjudicate the actions of borderline PCs. But people want to keep pushing for clear black and white rulings and I can do that also. It's much easier to live by black and white clarifications. I don't think it is what is best for the campaign, and sometimes having grey areas is healthy for organized play, but people can't leave well enough alone and keep pushing the issue and want it clearly defined as a black and white subject. So, let's explore it yet again.
**As a disclaimer, I state the above in a completely matter-of-fact tone and do not inject any emotion into it whatsoever since people always seem to read tone into my responses.**
How many times casting, sessions, or whatever constitute a "long-term pattern"?
Currently, the Aug. 6 clarification still applies. However, John and I are going to discuss further when I am back in the office. I am aware of the rules team advising that any casting of an evil descriptor spell is considered an evil act.
Any change of spells with the "evil" descriptor being an evil act when cast would only be changed in the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play, and probably not until the beginning of a new season, though that is not set in concrete since we usually update the Guide in January or February.
What I would like is to hear a civil discussion on the topic. If it will "ruin" your character, then discuss it with civility and like an adult. I can almost guarantee any rants will be ignored.
Thanks for the clarification, Chris. I have to be honest that I haven't read much of the play test feedback yet as I've been at JimCon in Winnipeg and Ucon in Detroit, and have been on the road for 12 days.
If something drastically changes about a class, such as a primary stat changing from INT to CHA or some such, then we will certainly address it. Additionally, almost every situation can be covered under the current guidelines. However, giving a carte Blanche and allowing full rebuilds after the play test is completed would do more harm than good. If someone buys a wand and has used 34 charges, do you allow a full refund since they wouldn't be able to use the wand due to changes to the class? There are a good many problems I can foresee arising by just allowing a free, full rebuild.
When I am back in the office next week, I will be able to sit down and chat with some folks at work to get a better idea of what changes are forecasted or what might be coming down the pipe. However, I've got to be honest and let the player base know that I am leaning to letting this play test follow the same course as the previous play tests. People forecasted doom and gloom then and the system worked relatively well.
You can request right here. What would you like reconsidered? Also, since you have no PFS sessions recorded, are you asking for an adjustment to a PFS FAQ or the overall game itself? If asking for PFS, I would respectfully request you have some reported experience in participating in PFS before requesting a change be made that would affect the 60,000+ players with at least one recorded session in PFS organized play.
Fair enough. We don't want one small thing like that to ruin your entire gaming experience for the foreseeable years to come, so I concur you shouldn't participate in the play test in the organized play environment. Hopefully you have better luck in a home game.
You sell it back for half price and continue playing the game we all love.
My post was referring to full rebuilds. Part of the classes that change will be allowed to be changed as has always been the policy. However, you don't get to play a arcanist, for example, and decide you don't like it then completely rebuild into a paladin. Full, complete, free rebuilds are not being offered.
Chris Mortika wrote:
John and I are both 5 star GMs and you didn't choose either of us. You are fired for 24 hours, Christopher! ;-)
Michael Eshleman wrote:
And the submission of a con support request 4-6 weeks before the event, as well as the agreement to send in a post con report within a week of the event finishing.
Submit a REALLY cool story submission and sell us on making it a reality ;-)
Jeffrey Fox wrote: