I think that up to now you've had to go back and realign rulings and things to make the society as a whole more cohesive and more streamlined. With that streamlining is going to come the dissenters who now have to give up a cool new toy or have to change the way they organize, etc. Those people are going to be the first to complain when they aren't getting their way or you've now made their game life harder for them.
The one thing I think people forget and weren't maybe completely prepared for is a campaign coordinator with a military-esque background. In your former job you had to be somewhat hardnosed depending on the situation and I'm sure that you've fallen back on some of those mannerisms in dealing with all of us whiney ones on the boards. Different campaign organizers are going to have different styles and while I'm not saying that the styles of previous organizers were bad, yours is different and something that we're all going to have to get used to as, so far, you seems to have broken the Gencon curse and you're still hanging around.
My personal opinion is that I would rather see super awesome kewl stuff on chronicles, give me a chance to feel like I've earned the item instead of just giving it to me. Since I judge so much I want to feel that the limited time I get to play has some value at the end other than just another piece of paper.
As far as making annoucements and the streaminglining -- there were (in my opinion) some obvious changes that had to be made and for me knowing that the VOs and M&M discussed it was enough. The VOs and M&M have been charged with nuturing PFS and fostering it up to be the best it can possibly be, that is not going to come without some changes and without some discussion.
While I don't want to see the whole discussion (who needs 600+ count threads), perhaps next time major changes are coming like this open it up for forum discussion for a week like you did when you first started. I think people would feel less like this has been sprung on them and the ones that have super strong feelings and feel like they were allowed to have their say before the decision was final.. if the decision doesn't change then so be it .. but people always want to feel as if their words have meaning and can affect change.
Another factor might be that some characters just don't work in some scenarios. Let's say that your cleric of Sarenrae has a birthmark or a tattoo of her holy symbol on her face. "Among the Living" or "Dalsine Affair" will be very difficult scenarios to play, and I'm surprised that the venture captains would send her on such a mission.
I would stress to the player that having a facial tattoo holy symbol is not the best idea. If they insist, I would warn them that I will not be hand-waiving or overlooking said feature. Do not be surprised when your character is arrested or worse.
And, of course, an explanation that they could use a turban, kerchief, or even a bad haircut to conceal such a tattoo might let them get through
** spoiler omitted ** alive, too.
Sure it would. But how do you cast spells that require a Divine Focus or channel that require you to display your holy symbol, if you are obscuring it?
to me this is a situation that is variable depending on what is going on at the table at the time the spell is cast ... If you're the GM at the time I guess you get to *gasp* make a decision w/out the benefit of the collective.
I have a simple response to the "why don't you heal me" question. I don't heal stupid... for me stupid also includes not helping out with your own healing.
I "get" that you're the frontline fighter and that you're taking all the damage so that others don't have to. My fighter carried a wand and healing potions and anti-toxin etc. I provided my own way to keep me alive.
There is no reason that anyone should expect someone else to provide for them, we cannot assume that others are always going to be there with healing. What happens if the cleric's/healer's wand runs out half way thru the scenario?
Another factor might be that some characters just don't work in some scenarios. Let's say that your cleric of Sarenrae has a birthmark or a tattoo of her holy symbol on her face. "Among the Living" or "Dalsine Affair" will be very difficult scenarios to play, and I'm surprised that the venture captains would send her on such a mission.
I would stress to the player that having a facial tattoo holy symbol is not the best idea. If they insist, I would warn them that I will not be hand-waiving or overlooking said feature. Do not be surprised when your character is arrested or worse.
And, of course, an explanation that they could use a turban, kerchief, or even a bad haircut to conceal such a tattoo might let them get through
** spoiler omitted ** alive, too.
Players are always going to use the excuse that the rules don't specifically state they can't do something -- even if the rules were written before the class -- such as taking cross-blooded sorcerer, using the draconic and X bloodlines and wanting to use dragon disciple.
We can argue the nuances of every little aspect and the players are always going to come up with something different. No matter what we as judges decide, players are always going to be upset and come to the boards to post about it so we can have another huge discussion thread about the little nuances all over again.
As a judge, my job is to make sure that the player understands that I cannot prevent what is going to happen if he does something that is going to conflict with cannon -- such as a religious symbol proudly displayed in Rhadadoum. If I have explained to the player that there could be negative consequences to his actions and he continues those actions, I feel free as the judge to follow cannon.
Now if the player changes his actions; say puts a wrap around his face to hide a tattoo, then I don't see where he's coming into conflict with cannon and the NPCs wouldn't target him for heresy.
My introduction to gaming was many many moons ago while in college. A group of my new friends told me about this interesting game and all I had to do was to show up and oooooo I got pretty sparkly dice.
It was a odd group;
we had the DM who was a philosophy major/religion minor who was baked 99% of the time,
the missionary's daughter, she played a ranger cause she wouldn't get hurt
the religion major (became a youth pastor -- married the missionary's daughter) -- played a kendar cause it was fun
myself - newbie playing the female dwarven fighter -- he let me carry
two double-edged battleaxes and summersault down hills (did I mention
he was a little baked?)
and a varied cast of others that floated in and out -- the married couple, the dating couple, the single ones
Unfortunately there was a break of a few years -- from when 3.0 game out to season 0 of pfs actually
Fast-forward several years and I'm talking with one of the docs at work and he's telling me about this awesome new game that's out and how he's having a housewarming mini-convention and I should come. Made my first character and power-leveled her that weekend and that was my short history.
I never had any opposition to joining a table, I was encouraged to join and was helped with anything (still being helped sometimes).
I have never had the opportunity to sit at a table with all women, mainly the tables are guys, with maybe one other female thrown in. Very very rarely do I see female GMs, that has been mainly at large conventions. I'm currently the only female in my area running pf under society play
I honestly think we're at a new frontier in the gaming world -- not having women gamers, but having women GMs. Although it's rare now, I still get the occasional person looking at me when sitting down at the table and their like -- wait you're the GM? But you're a girl!! People are always surprised when their GM is a female for some reason (at least that's been my experience)
-I think it should be the responsibility of the VCs to judge who is someone that they want to reward for GMing more as opposed to all judges receiving rewards. Some judges are better than others.
I can understand the desire for this, but I think in the end it would create an atmosphere of discontent amongst area judges. What if you had one person that actually was pretty good, players thought they were could and there had never really been any complaints about their judging.
Enter in the person who is supposed to critique them who doesn't get along with the judge on a personality level. That personality level is going to overshadow any critique -- even thought it shouldn't we're all only human. Personality conflicts are a larger part of PFS then they probably should be but they do exist
KestlerGunner wrote:
-When I received Paizo credit for judging (not even that many sessions!) I used the entirety of it buying new scenarios for me to judge more. Without even planning on it that way, all the credit was used for me to judge more.
Have to agree with you on this one... my credit for judging at Gencon, after I bought my shiny new UM, all went for more judging supplies. It's a vicious cycle.
Painlord wrote:
Stuff is stuff. In the end it will just create judges who are judging for stuff rather than judging for the good of the group/community. And when their needs for stuff (either perceived or real) diminishes, so will their judging.
Have to agree with this ... Some people need the incentive of "stuff" to fuel their desire to judge, but once they have everything what incentive do they have then.
I personally like the incentive of the exclusive special and working towards being able to run that. That is something that I'll have available to me new each year -- thought I'll have to beat Todd down with a stick so I can run it.
I think it would be beneficial for those that judge to get tips and tricks of the trade on how writers saw their scenarios run.
This is actually better for a seminar than a members meeting. Got it noted for my gencon seminar meeting next week.
Sounds good ... The only problem I see is judges that want to judge the whole convention having to make that decision, although I suppose that judges that really really want the tips and tricks would be able to give up one slot to go to the seminar
Guys ... Why is this becoming such a huge issue? The official rule states that the shirt has to be worn not how it has to be worn.
Should the player wear the shirt to promote the society and the company -- in an ideal world sure... but we don't live in a perfect world all the time. The world is not just red and blue (black and white to you mundanes) there is a lot of purple (again gray for mundane speak).
Rule number 1 of the society is "don't be a jerk" so why are we starting to nitpick about something as simple as a shirt reroll that is negligible in the grand scheme of things.
Quite honestly, if I sat down at a table with a judge and they made the comment that I had to wear (as intended for clothing to be worn) a shirt that I'd worn previously in order to get the re-roll, I'd probably think about leaving the table. Not because of the shirt wearing/reroll itself, but because I'd be thinking about what kind of experience I was going to have at that table overall if the judge was going to be that big of a jerk about something as simple as the shirt reroll.
I have a couple of questions on the map ... specifically with the area marked A6.. it's listed as the lower corridor. How does this figure in to the area? I'm reading it and it's just not making sense.
I'm guessing (please correct me) that the pcs would walk from A1 to A4 and only hit the lower corridor if they trigger one of the traps. Then if they are traveling the lower corridor... from what I'm reading they have to open the doors from below??
Captan Kristoff (and I know I'm spelling that horribly wrong) has a really really awesome list of what scenarios require what maps.... I can link it when I get home unless someone beats me too it .. my search-fu sucks at work today
Wait .. you got 2 boons? or used one for 2 vanity's?
Yeah ..I spent the pp for Riftwardens and then used the boon for a caravan... and my CN Damphir is going to be lawful with it (shudder) but diplo is better than profession or intimidate lol
Lack of caffiene:
I used it to get the caravan boon which allows you to use diplomacy for your day jobs.
Wait .. you got 2 boons? or used one for 2 vanity's?
Yeah ..I spent the pp for Riftwardens and then used the boon for a caravan... and my CN Damphir is going to be lawful with it (shudder) but diplo is better than profession or intimidate lol
How do we minimise "the degree of variance" we will be bringing to the table as Judges in Organized Play?
Different Judges will rule things differently - but they should at least rule Rules the same. Otherwise we get Judges saying "I don't care what the Rules say - you can't do that at my table!" (please control your knee-jerk response here, I am not attacking you. What if the Judge in question is objecting to you playing a character of a different gender? Male playing a female halfling for example. I've had a judge who objected to this.)
In regards to the variance, I don't think there is going to be a lot that we can do about it. From my understanding, the rule was written and left as is (switching from previous editions to pfrpg) with the intent that it was something left to the judges discretion (oh nos!!!!!).
So the best we can do is if you have a huge issue with always wanting to use it (as Nosig has described) then your best bet is to get to the game early and talk with the judge. Explaining the situation will help them to determine ahead of time what their stance is going to be and the player can decide if they want to sit at that table or not.
For me it comes down to the fact that the player has certain specifications that they want to play under and they are the one that needs to make the decisions about sitting at the table. I don't tell you that you cannot sit at my table if you want to take 10 all the time.
However, I will tell you that you can't take 10 and you have to actually pick up the dice and roll if I feel the conditions are not favorable to being un-distracted.
I think this thread has been good in that it has highlighted how different people have interpreted this (which was kind of the intent no?). But in the end we, as judges, will have to make a decision on the fly when gaming and that's what we do.
I'd have to go home and look at it .. it might say it can be purchased w/out the pre reqs for the vanity, however, I don't remember specifically since I'm at work and the boon is at home.
As a person that judges on a fairly regular basis, I'm going to stick by my answer. Because I Judge OP doesn't mean I have to have a black and white answer, I can have a stance that allows me to be varied in how I rule the use of the playing being allowed to take 10.
Great, how about an example where you would not allow someone to take 10 on a skill but my qualifications would? And an example where you would allow someone to take 10 on a skill but my qualifications would not?
Or is it 'undecided' until the time at the table on whim and 'feel'?
-James
I'm not going to debate my answer with you. We have different perspectives on it and we'll just have to agree to disagree
Heck, Thea, the only person likely to ask will be me, and I liked your answer. We can play with that and have lots of fun. Maybe I'll see you at WinterWar (here's hoping you get the time off)!
Lol .. I have two people that have responded to my plea and are looking at their schedules .. so we'll see
As a person that judges on a fairly regular basis, I'm going to stick by my answer. Because I Judge OP doesn't mean I have to have a black and white answer, I can have a stance that allows me to be varied in how I rule the use of the playing being allowed to take 10.
Great, how about an example where you would not allow someone to take 10 on a skill but my qualifications would? And an example where you would allow someone to take 10 on a skill but my qualifications would not?
Or is it 'undecided' until the time at the table on whim and 'feel'?
-James
I'm not going to debate my answer with you. We have different perspectives on it and we'll just have to agree to disagree
For those that are saying 'I won't be tied to an answer' then take the time to come up with one rather than saying in essence that they wish fiat over printed rules. While such can be fine for a home campaign (to a point, depending on the group) its not fine in organized play where you don't have the time to earn the respect of the players as a judge and they don't have the consistency to adapt to your rulings.
-James
As a person that judges on a fairly regular basis, I'm going to stick by my answer. Because I Judge OP doesn't mean I have to have a black and white answer, I can have a stance that allows me to be varied in how I rule the use of the playing being allowed to take 10.
And for the record, being gray in the area has NEVER been an issue at any of the conventions I've judged at, nor has it ever been an issue at any of the local gamedays.
One thing I did for a scenario I was running multiple times at Gencon was to print out a bunch of information ... I actually printed out the VC opening speech; which came in handy towards the end when it was hard to speak above a whisper.
What would you do as the judge if, after we sit down at the table I ask you (in verbal or written form) what your ruling on the T10 rules was and when could I (and could I not) take it? Are there any skills I can't use T10 on?
** spoiler omitted **
*preface... I have been reading this thread.. and been avoiding comment up to this point...
However, seeing as how Nosig is asking this again... I will give him the answer I would give if he were at my table.
being allowed to take 10 depends on the specifics of the scenario at the time you ask if you can take 10. I would not give a blanket answer at the beginning of the scenario as I wouldn't know what would be going on at the time the question was asked.
For example:
Before the scenario *question asked* and answered with sure you can take 10.. player is disabling a trap in the middle of combat. I'm going to take 10, judge no really you should roll, player, before the scenario you said i could take 10 so i'm going to take 10 and there is nothing you can do about it.
Sometimes answering a quetion with a blanket answer isn't good and honestly at my table I won't give you a blanket answer on some times as there are too many variables.
you actually answered perhaps the best of anyone who has taken the time Thea. Thank you.
I now know that if I ask in the game with you for a judge, I will not be ridiculed, threatened, or accused of "trying to pull something". I ask, normally like this "If I take 10 I have a 26" or "I take ten on perception to check out the room - I've got a 26 from here, -1 for each 10 foot away. Do I think I need to move to any other position to perceive other areas of the room?" I would expect from your answer that you would respond something like "You need to roll this one." or "room cleared - zip other than the discription already given". Fast, easy, simple, mechanics over, and we get on with the improtant part of the game, the Role Playing! whee!
One thing I've observed as being a habit of gamers is the tendancy to overthink and over analyze things trying to find the "why" sometimes you have to just let something "be". In this case, for me and my little world, I view take 10 as more of a sentient part of the game that will creep in from time to time; be dealt with in the moment and then go away until the next time it creeps in.
What would you do as the judge if, after we sit down at the table I ask you (in verbal or written form) what your ruling on the T10 rules was and when could I (and could I not) take it? Are there any skills I can't use T10 on?
** spoiler omitted **
*preface... I have been reading this thread.. and been avoiding comment up to this point...
However, seeing as how Nosig is asking this again... I will give him the answer I would give if he were at my table.
being allowed to take 10 depends on the specifics of the scenario at the time you ask if you can take 10. I would not give a blanket answer at the beginning of the scenario as I wouldn't know what would be going on at the time the question was asked.
For example:
Before the scenario *question asked* and answered with sure you can take 10.. player is disabling a trap in the middle of combat. I'm going to take 10, judge no really you should roll, player, before the scenario you said i could take 10 so i'm going to take 10 and there is nothing you can do about it.
Sometimes answering a quetion with a blanket answer isn't good and honestly at my table I won't give you a blanket answer on some times as there are too many variables.
The quoted conversation TK had with SKR was last night (12/27/11). From what I've been reading in this thread, it doesn't appear that his opinion has changed much if at all in the last 9 years.
holding out hope Thea, that you can make still. If not, we understand
Still waiting to see if anyone will work for me ... not holding out hope tho :(
So, who needs a visit, A talking too, A trip to see the countryside Or just a little whispering too :)
Lol ... I've emailed all my co-workers that could possible cover for me .. hoping one of the people who's holiday day I picked up will be nice and take the sunday for me.. we'll see.
Yep, sounds like fun. And I can see the problem with "only one character at this Tier" - after all, I had 4 characters at 1st level for a long time (I now have active characters level 1,2,3,4,5,6 - but my 6th just made 6th.) And I have 5 more drawn up ready to go. Each are unique - thou I appear to be playing a lot of Rogues (each I think are very different).
I have a bit of a reputation for "only playing low levels" with many of the old hands - they fail to realize that I like to Play, and most anything is fine. I can have just as much fun at sub Tier 1-2 as at 8-9 (though I haven't done PFSOP at that tier yet - I know I will. After all, my 4th is about to level, my 5th is too, and my 6th will eventurally.)
There are currently something like 90 adventures. That's 3 characters of 10th level - or 4 of almost 9th... So I have a hard time understanding the guy with only one character at 2nd and another at 8th. Unless he regularly plays with the same group. (But even then, why play the SAME GUY all the time?) You know, the team of friends where each plays a different tricked out dude. But you know, this game is made for any play style - even mine.
Try it sometime. Make two guys - very different. Try to advance them together. I's much easier if you use judge credits for about half. Which would you rather be able to do, sit at a table where your choice is to play the same 5th level guy two other players are playing, or choose from 2 very different 3rd level guys? The levels could have as easily been be stuck with the one 3rd, or pick one of two 2nd levels.
I get what you're saying and so you understand (hopefully) the mindset I'm coming from; I tend to judge more than I play. Currently I have a slew of lvl 1s, a couple of 2s, a 3, 2 lvl 4s, a level 5 and two level 12s. (the level 5 is pure GM credit save for the one time I have played her.) I have played more than one character at the same time, I didn't see a difference in my play style as I still went into a game knowing what character I was going to play; mainly as I had a series of scenarios I wanted to play specifically with my sorceress so I played my fighter instead.
While there may be 90 scenarios, I have a tendency to not want to play something after I've judged it or at least not right away, and as I also tend to judge things before I have a chance to play it's a never ending cycle.
nosig wrote:
I really don't feel good talking about my difference in play style with Pain - it's too much like gossip and I don't want to sound like I am being critical of him. I do not know him, or rather I only know him from his posts here. Our differences are only in style of set up apparently. When, at first he said he wouldn't tell me anything about any character he would run if he sat at the same table as me - it really bothered me. (more exactly he said I would have to pick my character and then discuss it IC - no input from him to influence my random selection of character) I felt like I was being excluded - given the cold shoulder. Kind of like haveing a team mate that hates being stuck with you. At first I figured I'd just get up and walk away. If he didn't want to play - it's fine with me, "Life's to short for bad games". After a day I figured I'd be ok with just talking to the other players - no need to sweat it, even if I end up playing the Understudy to his star, I can likely make my PC unique in play. But then he posts this story - which seems to be all about being included in the group - in the team - "get found" - play with people, don't hide. Just seems to me to be a disconnect. I do not understand what he is getting at in his story in lue of what he said he would do if I asked before a game what he was playing (sorry for the run on sentence). Anyway - that's why I say I don't understand this.
That's fine that you don't want to talk about differences, I was thinking Pain as more of the general gamer instead of his person game style which (having been at a table with him is totally not the norm).
Dennis said it best in his post, the "get found" analogy needs to be applied in more of a broad approach than to specific situations.
I believe Kreslter Gunner said it best:
KestlerGunner wrote:
I love Get Found! so much.
It's not an order, it's a philosophy.
And that philosophy is that everybody wins at tabletop rpgs. So there is very little point in making a character that is designed to be the strongest, most DPR'ingest, uber hero. You can be excellent at diplomacy, sure, but when you're stretching belief trying to use your build/spell combo/feat combo to overcome every obstacle and/or never fail, you're showing an obvious fear of getting found.
It's fun to fail! Get found!
We all have this habit of needing to succeed at everything, get all our faction points, get all the mission points, save the slaves, kill the BBEG, wax the walls and buff the floor. What we fail to see is that sometimes are greatest games can come from our failures.
Ok... breaking down and using the spoiler thingie
Frost Fur Captives Spoiler:
I was at a convention recently and was running a table of low levels (tier 1-2) through frost fur captives. I add names and personalities to the goblins as it makes it fun for me. There are the best friends Stinky and Boomer (stinky has a perma-cloud of stink around him and boomer tries to light him on fire with his flint and steel {frozen mammoth dung}) and we also have noggin licker (likes to lick knee-pits) and Der Flicker who loves loves loves "fire in bottle" and pooing himself (need i say more?).
But I digress, so anyway. The party walks into the final encounter. The once player that has been herding the goblins (uncle nick), who is also the weezard gets critted and falls. Before the rest of the party can act the goblins run forth "noooooooooooooooooooooo uncle nick nooooooooooooooooo" and cover him to save him.
The cleric heals him and brings him to -1. Now NIck has 4 potions on him. 3 alchemist fire and 1 potion of healing. He gets a d4 roll to determine which potion is pulled, the goblins pulled a alchemist fire, Der Flicker fails his perception to see what is and NIck takes an alchemist fire down the throat, max damage he's at -7. He mentions he has a wand. So now he has a 2 in 4 chance to get healed. D4 roll and the goblins pull the wand *yayyy* 50% chance they are going to know what to do with it (fail) they shove it in the first place they see.. so poor Nick as a tummy full of fire and a want out his backside.
The character survived, but had fun in the all the failing of the rolls as it made for an epic story to tell of how the goblins tried to save him.
.
Thea - I will need to respond in two posts I think, so please bear with me. I need to do the second part first too, sorry.
I said earlier that "I sit at a table and say to the group. "What sub tier are we playing? What's everyone playing"" and I gave my reasons. It is to allow me to:
1)ensure that I do not have a character that will tower over the other guys and
2)ensure that I am playing a unique character - someone with a tool box/skill set that no one else at the table has.
I can not judge your "opto-twins", though I have played with a lot of really tricked out characters. Some are mine (though none of the combat guys, I normally count on someone else killing things). I have almost never been at a table where I am upstaged in ALL things by one or more other players. I HAVE played characters that were very nearly useless in the adventure (a Face in a Dungeon crawl with only one creature that could talk - and that was the madman at the end). This was the fault of the Adventure and my fault for the character I brought into it (My Trapsmith would have been so much better a fit...) So I role played my harlot to the max - and provided a great many laughs and comic releaf during the mod (If you can't be the star - be the clown - it works for me).
Nosig .. not a problem :)
I see your points and can see them being useful when you have more than one character at a given tier; personally not having more than one at a tier (and low playing times with them) I generally don't have that issue. I do in with the character I have for their tier range and that's what I have to play -- I would hazard a guess that that is the majority of most players, though granted not all players.
Making sure that you are playing a character that doesn't tower over others is a nice and rare thing, most players are anxious to play their uber character.
I have a split opinion about it to be honest, if I'm a player I don't want one player to monopolize the game play, I want to have a turn to play my character since I take so few opportunities to play.
As a judge I'm slightly less ambivalent about it, however, will take the time to focus on the players that are not dominating so they have some play time as well, and will I try to work more on the story telling so that those players don't walk away from the table not remember the scenario.
It's the #2 that I (and I think Jiggy) am having problems with "If you, however, ... can do something so well, that there is no way for the GM to overcome it, thematically, you are "hiding."
I do not see #2 at all. Say there are 5 players. each masters in thier field. each can do something so well that they AS A TEAM eaily overcome the challenges the mod puts before them. Why are they hiding? (another thing I object to is the phrase "no way for the GM to overcome" like the Judge is cast against the players - but that is likely not want Bob ment).
For me this comes in when my +12 to attack npc needs a 35 to hit the paladin... only way this person is going to be in any danger is if I crit.. and I have a 1 in 20 change of doing that.. generally in my experience if they have that high of an AC they have tricked out everything else and I'm going to be dead before I've rolled 20 times.
In addition, as judges we cannot change the scenario to fit the party. So, no, the judge cannot do anything to overcome an uber player.
I judged for Pain one time... While I will never ever confess to understanding what goes through his head... perhaps a story from this table will help you understand him a bit better..
This will be as unspecific as possible as I hate the spoiler tab
The part is in a vault. There are four leevers that the party must activate in order for a door to open. Pain is playing Aroden. While the rest of the party runs around the room, works with the leevers and the encounter, Aroden is prostiltizing at the door expounding on all his great works and encourageing the door to open for him
While for some this may seem odd and the first incliniation would be to say that Pain should have had his character helping. However, having learned a bit, from watchig him play not from a character introduction, one would know that this specific charater was all about bringing "aroden" to the masses ... innanimate objects such as leevers and boxes and barrels were of no import, it was the door that was the important part.. because a door holds the future so there for has to be sentient right?
Another story from the same convention, there were a couple of players whom I dubbed the "opto-twins". They spent time completely optomizing their characters to the point where it was basically pointless for the rest of the players to be there. The one played a summoner, the eidolen was completely tricked out ... to the point where all he had to do was not roll a 1 to hit the npc. The ONLY contributing factor my sorceress made was to cast stumble gap to trip the golem, the rest of the time I just floated invisible since by the time it was my initiatve the npc was dead already. The scenario is unmemorable for me, what I remember is the player at the table who dominated the scenario. I would have loved for this player to "get found" so that the rest of the players could have contributed to the scenario and hopefully I would remember it and not have just the chronicle to show that I played it -- and technically it was a replay so I didn't even get a chronicle, I donated my time so that the dominating player and his friend could get chronicles.
MY moral to the "get found" bit is this..if all you have to do for an attack roll is NOT roll a 1 ... perhaps, just perhaps, you should readjust so that you interact a bit more and the party works as a cohesive unit and not you with people tagging along behind so you can get a chronicle.
To be more clear... The mission statement in the scenario for the GM states that the mission needs to be done in secret, but the mission letter to the player does not even hint at that.
That is what I mean by not enforcing that.
When I run into that, I err on the side of what the player is reading as that is what they are acting on. If they don't know that they should be doing something in secret I don't feel that I can hold them to that.
I agree that it should be considered more on a case by case basis. If the mission specifically says "don't let anyone see you" or "don't get caught" then I interpret that to mean that this is a solo (or in group with other faction members) mission and don't allow others to help, but that is the only real exception that I make.
Though there is one problem with that, many times in the Mission note it does not say the mission needs to be secret. I don't enforce that unless the Mission note says it.
I generally don't see a problem with players helping with faction missions, I've seen cases where there are a couple that just do everything they come across or loot or whatever. In one case where a non-faction member looted a faction mission, the faction pc simply asked if he could see it and then just never happened to give it back
I agree that it should be considered more on a case by case basis. If the mission specifically says "don't let anyone see you" or "don't get caught" then I interpret that to mean that this is a solo (or in group with other faction members) mission and don't allow others to help, but that is the only real exception that I make.
I don't think there are many who are arguing from bad faith. Most people who post on this thread have feelings on what makes the game better* to dismiss someone's opinion as 'whining' because the thread is so long is, to me, intellectually lazy.
Especially when you don't comment until page 8.
Though I will appriciate your honesty
Thea wrote:
I'm sorry if you took offense to me saying that the views presented here by people were whining. Yes, there were a lot of valid points made .. in the first couple of pages of the thread. IMO after the first couple pages of any thread a messages looses it's meaning when it's repeated and repeated and repeated and people break down to being spiteful.
In admitting you're being spiteful.
*** spoiler omitted **
I don't think I was admitting I was spiteful.... spiteful is calling someone intellectually lazy (imo). But thank you for making my point.
If it makes you feel better to call me lazy than I hope it worked.
I didn't comment as I didn't have anything to add that hasn't already be said. As for waiting until page 8 to comment .. sorry busy with real life and I don't have time to sit and refresh the forums all day.
This thread was created to gather opinions on a proposed rules change. I suspect I may dislike the rules that emerge, probably even less than I liked the initial proposal but I am satisfied that the opinions expressed here are valid and in many cases expressed by people with decades of GMing experience both in & out of OP environments. As such surely it was a worthwhile exercise?
I don't want to be holier than thou and don't want to get into a pointless row but the line of thought expressed by Thea and Shivok saddens me.
It is depressing if rather tellng when ppl choose to characterise those who express a contrary position as whining. Or if someone does not agree with a proposal they should simply be grateful that they didn't get something worse. How does treating anyone with such scant regard help encourage a constructive environment?
Surely our shared aim is to make a stronger OP campaign. Concluding that opinions which start from a different premise or reach a different conclusion to oneself can just be dismissed as whining or childish is a trait I have seen often amongst gamers. IMHO it is not our noblest characteristic.
W
Heretic,
I'm sorry if you took offense to me saying that the views presented here by people were whining. Yes, there were a lot of valid points made .. in the first couple of pages of the thread. IMO after the first couple pages of any thread a messages looses it's meaning when it's repeated and repeated and repeated and people break down to being spiteful.
In my opinion, Had these proposed rules been the original rules we would not have had this thread. For the simple reason people would have been happy getting the sanctioned modules after having "commented" that they were running out of scenarios. They would have been happy with the ruleset as it was presented.
If you want (what in my opinion) is a perfect example of this, search for the old threads on the replay rule. You'll note that one of the same people that complained that the original replay rule was to harsh and unfair towards judges... later complained that the new ruleset was hurting his store business. That is where part of my comment comes from.
As a society (as a whole not just gaming) can never just be happy with what we are given, we have to find a way to tear down what we are given and then b*##~ and moan about it.
I will always stand by my statement: This is a game, let it be a game.
Like with other things in life, if you don't like the rules set forth don't participate. That may seem harsh, but personally I would rather play with people that are in it to enjoy the game then those that are looking for ways to tear the game apart and nitpick little nuances of it.
heretic wrote:
Surely our shared aim is to make a stronger OP campaign. Concluding that opinions which start from a different premise or reach a different conclusion to oneself can just be dismissed as whining or childish is a trait I have seen often amongst gamers. IMHO it is not our noblest characteristic.
I think we're all here to make a stronger community and expressing differing viewpoints is one way to do that.. but let me ask you this, how does 400+ comment threads where people are bickering and arguing make our community stronger? How does nitpicking threads where one person asks an innocent question that result in all out word wars make our community stronger? How does posting questions on gaming sessions that you've had issues with (instead of going to the judge) make our community stronger.
If I made one person actually think about how they were saying what they said then my post was a success in my opinion.
We have several well spoken people (Thod is the one coming to mind) that can get his point across without slinging mud. Which is a feat considering all the slinging that goes on in some of these threads.
I, for one, appreciate the fact that Mike gives us the opportunity to give our opinions on things, I'd much rather have that then surprises sprung on me about a change. However, how long to we think that's going to last when all his threads about rules changes turn into giant mudslinging parties? We're all entitled to our opinion, I just wish that people would remember that we're all adults and some of our actions are childish.
Looking at the last two posts, this definitely seems like something that could be different depending on how often you play or GM.
For those who are players first, and only GM occasionally, they're likely to know what PC they want to give the credit to each time they GM, because they're more aware of their characters and don't get that many GM credits. But for someone who is the GM 75% of the time, they will probably accumulate more GM credit than they know what to do with.
+1
I generally judge more than I play .. if we want to use numbers I judge probably 98% of the time I'm at a pathfinder event. The last time I played was in September, anything I've done since this was as a Judge.
Thea mentioned that it isn't fair that those of us that donate our time shouldn't be required to bring our character information with us as we have to bring so much other stuff, how hard is it to bring a piece of paper with character numbers on it? Hell, I've had people laugh because of the amount of stuff I bring to a session, whether I'm GMing or not.
I don't generally apply my credit to a character until I'm making a new one to level it up past level 2 (the boring levels) So, no, I don't have that character number because it hasn't been created yet.
I'm sorry if you don't agree with that.
Kudos to you for being slightly more organized that someone who works full time, takes full-time online classes and spends what is left of her free-time prepping scenarios.
(Tier 1) = 5 or 6 I think, gnome inquisitor, gnome sorceress, gnome ninja, elven heavens oracle, and I think a couple more
(Tier 1-5(1-7)) = 2 maybe 3, Oracle of wind and Bear shaman for sure
(Tier 5-9) = 1 my Dhamphir master summoner
(Tier 9-11) = none
(Tier 11+) = I have 2 lvl 12s. My little lightening sorceress is waiting to play the eyes of ten and my fighter is just plain retired lol, she was fun but certainly a one-trick pony
I'm not sure why there is so much nitpicking. I mean, I'm trying for the "Rules Lawyer" forum title, so I know why I'm doing it. What's everyone else's excuse?
Have to be honest, I haven't paid that close of attention to yours -- or a lot of the forum rules lawyers posts in a long time.
My opinion is that after the 2nd page it's just the same information repeated again and again... the horse is dead move on.
