|
Absolutely not. Under any circumstances.
As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right andresponsibility to make whatever calls you feel are necessary at your table to ensure that everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in ... a published Pathfinder Roleplaying Game source."
(Emphasis mine.)
That is enormously clear. A GM can do things to ensure that the game is run smoothly and to make sure everyone's having a good time, and if a rule needs clarification - intrepret it.But, under no cirsumstances -ever- does the GM have the right to break or change the rules. If it's legal for PFS play, it's legal, period.
My personal opinion ... if the group is concerned about losing GMs, unless these GMS are exceptionally good friends of yours and/or are willing to follow the rules and admit that they were doing something they aren't supposed to, then there's a very serious likelihood that they aren't a GM that you should play with in the first place.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The organizer of a private PFS game such as one in a private residence may ban whatever classes he wants to. It's a private game. If you are invited there as a guest then you can be uninvited. Things are different in public play, but the GM of a private game can set whatever conditions he or she wants to within the confines of the organized play rules. As far as I know, the organized play rules do not say that I have to invite players to my home who do not respect my requests.
GM: "Hey guys, I would like to host a PFS game at my house this Saturday. Would any of you like to play?"
Players #1 through #6: "Sure!"
GM: "Cool! Hey, there's one thing though. I really hate the Summoner class. I think it's kinda cheesy. Can we agree that no one brings one to my game?"
Players #1 through #5: "Sounds fair to us!"
Player #6: "Hey, I want to bring my Summoner and the rules say that it's a Campaign-legal class. I'm going to play a Summoner anyway."
GM: "Hey Player #6, good luck finding another game."
Player #6: "... But the rules say I can play a Summoner."
GM: "But the law says you can't enter my house unless I invite you. I think we all understand who has jurisdiction here."
|
That’s kinda toting a gray area there, don’t you think?
You aren’t allowed to ban PFS legal material. Period.
If what you are saying is, as a GM who is inviting others to his house, and one person insists on playing a summoner, you can disinvite them… sure you can. Kinda makes you a Jerk, but sure.
You don’t have the right, regardless of venue, to change the rules of PFS to suit your own desires.
|
|
The organizer of a private PFS game such as one in a private residence may ban whatever classes he wants to. ...
One would assume that the original post is referring to a PFS game played at home. Otherwise, he would not be asking for an "official" statement in the PFS forums, nor posting in the PFS forums to begin with, as opposed to the Pathfinder Rules forums. Regardless of whether a PFS game is played amongst friends at a player's home, at a Con, or a local gameday at a FLGS, they do not have the right or authority to ban a class in any way. Sure, it's your house, and you don't have to have anyone there you don't want. But, that doesn't give you the right to change the rules of the game.
If, on the other hand, the original post refers to a "home game" that is not a PFS-OP game, but rather a private game at home, that plays by no other rules structure other than GM fiat, then you are absolutely right ... any GM can do whatever they want. But, I don't believe that's what he's asking.
|
|
The organizer of a private PFS game such as one in a private residence may ban whatever classes he wants to. ...One would assume that the original post is referring to a PFS game played at home. Otherwise, he would not be asking for an "official" statement in the PFS forums, nor posting in the PFS forums to begin with, as opposed to the Pathfinder Rules forums. Regardless of whether a PFS game is played amongst friends at a player's home, at a Con, or a local gameday at a FLGS, they do not have the right or authority to ban a class in any way. Sure, it's your house, and you don't have to have anyone there you don't want. But, that doesn't give you the right to change the rules of the game.
If, on the other hand, the original post refers to a "home game" that is not a PFS-OP game, but rather a private game at home, that plays by no other rules structure other than GM fiat, then you are absolutely right ... any GM can do whatever they want. But, I don't believe that's what he's asking.
It's very simple. No one can force me to GM if I don't want to. No GM, no game. So as long as I am within the rules of PFS Organized Play, which privately hosted game is, I can invite whoever I want. This is essentially an extension of this thread in the GM Discussion section. If you don't want to abide by my request that no one plays a particular class, uses a particular spell or feat, etc then you are welcome to find a different GM. This is the advantage of playing PFS at a private table vs at a convention or public gameday.
|
|
... and one player said, covertly of course, that he might report it. ...
Well, you know, I tend to be something of a Don Quixote when it comes to things like this. I'll tilt at that windmill every time. It should be reported. You don't hav eto get in the GMs face about it, get ugly, or have a confrontation. It's possible to give information to the person, and ask them politely and nicely if they will consider playing by the PFS-OP rules. If not, then there's no doubt in my mind that they should be reported.
I've rarely met people in my life that would be that adamant sbout it. There's a long-term possibility that if it were investigated by a PFS organizer, and they adamantly refused, they could be removed from the campaign. I know that Paizo in general has and uses measures to revoke someone's priviledge of buying and downloading PFS modules. I'm not sure whether they would use it for something like this, is up in the air, but, if a group of GMs are banning a class, I would like to think that they'd do something about it.|
|
It's very simple. No one can force me to GM if I don't want to. No GM, no game. So as long as I am within the rules of PFS Organized Play, which privately hosted game is, I can invite whoever I want.
No one is saying that you have to run anything. No one is saying that you have to invite anyone in particular. All that is being said is that you have to play by the rules. Whether you want to play with a particular person or not, that's your choice. But, if you download, run and report PFS games, then you are required to play by the rules.
And if, rather than following the PFS-OP rules and allowing legal classes, a GM decides to refuse to run a game - that is his priviledge as a gamer, and as a person.
But, forcing players to submit to your will by manipulating their desire for a game (as in the narrative conversation added and edited in your example above) breaks not only the rules of the game, but also the intent of the spirit of gaming. Seriously? You're going to force players to submit to your banning of a class or have no game whatsoever? That just seems not unly unkind and unjust, but also against the purpose of PFS-OP to bring players together to have fun.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I look at it a different way. The GM is asking players to voluntarily not use a class. If the players are willing to cooperate, the GM will run the game. If the players refuse, the GM does not have to run the game. A game played by people who have volunteered not to use a class is still PFS-legal. It is also PFS-legal to cancel a game. This sort of arrangement should only be done when the conditions may be agreed to by all parties in advance.
|
|
That's the problem ... there is no GM, ever in any circumstance, that should be asking PFS-OP players to "willingily" not play a class. Asking them to "cooperate" in that way is not cooperation at all. That would imply that there was something being given by both sides on the issue. Nor is it volunteering. If they came to you and offered beforehand without anything else being said that they didn't want to play a summoner, *that* would be volunteering. Not playing a class they didn't intend to play to begin with, isn't. Or playing another character because the GM is violating the rules, isn't.
This sort of arrangement should never be done, at all. Not even if the players are willing to submit to tacit tyranny.
|
|
But, forcing players to submit to your will by manipulating their desire for a game (as in the narrative conversation added and edited in your example above) breaks not only the rules of the game, but also the intent of the spirit of gaming. Seriously? You're going to force players to submit to your banning of a class or have no game whatsoever? That just seems not unly unkind and unjust, but also against the purpose of PFS-OP to bring players together to have fun.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
Beggars can't be choosers. I live in an area where there are a lot of players and a lot of GMs. There are many opportunities to play if you are looking to game. If I want to have an exclusive game with like-minded players then no one is really missing out. I can understand the mood being different if you come from an area that is trying to grow and games are scarce.
The only time I have set conditions on my games is when I am trying to keep the table size small so the players have more action. But I would support the organizer's right to say no to anyone for any reason when it involves inviting people into their home.
|
|
I look at it a different way. The GM is asking players to voluntarily not use a class. If the players are willing to cooperate, the GM will run the game. If the players refuse, the GM does not have to run the game. A game played by people who have volunteered not to use a class is still PFS-legal. It is also PFS-legal to cancel a game. This sort of arrangement should only be done when the conditions may be agreed to by all parties in advance.
But as soon as someone steps in that doesn’t agree to said stipulations, then what? As a GM are you going to hold the game hostage over that stipulation?
What if it is not at the GM’s house, and the GM is not the organizer?
These are exactly the types of decisions that I believe Mike does not want in this campaign. GM’s do not have the right to arbitrarily decide what is and is not legal at his PFS-OP table. Period.
|
|
I look at it a different way. The GM is asking players to voluntarily not use a class. If the players are willing to cooperate, the GM will run the game. If the players refuse, the GM does not have to run the game. A game played by people who have volunteered not to use a class is still PFS-legal. It is also PFS-legal to cancel a game. This sort of arrangement should only be done when the conditions may be agreed to by all parties in advance.
Regardless of venue, when you choose as an organizer or GM, to run a PFS-OP game, then you, by default, are agreeing to abide by the rules of PFS-OP.
If you choose to be devious and not invite folks you know will play classes you don’t like, then that is something you will have to live with yourself, and it is completely unenforceable to make you stop thinking and clandestinely devising in that fashion.
However, any open agreement, whether the players “volunteer” or not, is certainly a form of cheating, and should not be allowed under any circumstances.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now if you are just using the scenarios as home game material and not receiving chronicles / reporting - do whatever you want, its a home game and the GM is final law.
However, since this is in the PFS section I am going to assume this is a legal game with chronicle sheets, etc. If you are playing a legal pathfinder society game, whether at home or in public, and distributing chronicles to those players you must follow the rules.
Doug - Are you really saying that you can do what ever you want in a legal Pathfinder Society game as long as you do it in your home? Especially after all the cheating threads that have come up asking GM and judges to be responsible and follow all the rules.
|
|
We'll have to agree to disagree. Beggars can't be choosers.
No, we won't. I'm not sitting ar your table. I'm not in your house. "We" don't have to do anything of the kind. I am perfectly capable of reporting the issue, even if your players aren't able to, by dint of the threat to ruin games for a large number of people.
Again ... no one is requiring you to invite any one person into your home. But, in agreeing to play in the PFS-OP, you're agreeing to play by the rules. And deciding that your interests are more important than the interests of the players is simply not kosher. We are an inclusive group, and even if other players like aspects of the game that I don't find entertaining, that does not give me the right to demand that they not be allowed to game.
Andrew was right when he said that this is the type of thing that Mike wants to avoid in our game. The idea that someone wanting to play in a a game is a "begger" who is subject to the whim of a GM is abhorrent to the intent of PFS-OP. The GM is not doign us a favor by running games. We are supposed to be playing together, with no one participant lording their importance or involvement over any other.
|
I would have to side with Mr. Miles. If a GM runs a game, at their home, they are perfectly free to ask people to not play certain classes. It is a private event, not a public one. At a public event, sure, the GM runs whatever classes are brought to the table. But a PFS game at home, for a select list of players? As long as what is on the scenario is run, I see no problem with asking players to limit themselves.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would have to side with Mr. Miles. If a GM runs a game, at their home, they are perfectly free to ask people to not play certain classes. It is a private event, not a public one. At a public event, sure, the GM runs whatever classes are brought to the table. But a PFS game at home, for a select list of players? As long as what is on the scenario is run, I see no problem with asking players to limit themselves.
I completely disagree. It is not aggressively cheating, but even passive aggressive cheating is still cheating.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A few of the posts in this thread have been flagged for moderator review. Flagging a post is sufficient; specifically calling out who you flagged and why just instigates the problems flagging is supposed to curtail. I've removed a post that did just that.
We like it when folks flag posts, but announcing it is counterproductive to the goal of community moderation.
Thanks!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This argument is in the same vein as Painlord's decision to ask his players to pay for Raise Dead costs in modules even though death did not carry the same consequences as scenario play. The campaign staff remained mute on the issue then (and later on the campaign rules were brought into alignment with Pain's views). I suspect the campaign isn't interested in ruling on who can come to my house to play PFS. I disagree with Andrew & Mr. Nolen, but if it's really an issue I'm sure Mike will step in.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anytime you choose to play at home and not in a public arena you have already made the choice to include/exclude people. Whether its 'My friends' or 'All Paladins'
A private game is just that. Everyone at the private game can agree to follow another set of more restrictive rules as set by whomever. If you do not wish to follow them, you don't have to play there. They do not have to make you welcome in their home.
And you can't force them to.
|
Most GMs I know have certain house rules. Those rules are usually there to help speed up play, share combat with PCs (instead of 1 uberfighter doing all the work), or to make things more 'fun'. I'd be fine if a GM told me that they preferred I play a different class. I want this to be fun for the GM too. It's not just the GM's responsibility to ensure we are having a good time, its all of our responsibility.
|
|
Public Venue (Game Shop or Convention): You get what the world throws at you. No choices, just run with who shows up. Some games you will enjoy running, others you will not.
Private Venue (Home): I see no problem with a GM telling me that a certain class turns his or the group's stomach and adjusting accordingly. It is typically their home. It is still only a game.
For the record, I have never been invited to play at Doug's home.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Would the situation be different the person making the table not happen was a player instead of the GM? If you've only got the minimum four people (3 players, 1 GM) and one of the players says there's no game unless condition X is met, does the acceptability of the situation change?
|
|
I want everyone in this thread who's using the word "FORCE" to pay attention here.
No one is trying to "force" anyone to invite someone in their home. No one is trying to "force" anything on anyone. You can do what you want in your own home. It's a right granted by the laws of our country, and no one is precluding that. Do what you want.
But, just as you are insisting that a private group has the right to choose its actions and its participants, the PFS has the right to do just that. And it clearly states that if you are goign to play this game, you do not have the right to change the rules. Whenther you can manipulate other players to "follow another set of more restrictive rules" or not. Follow whatever other rules up like. If your players agree to roll initiative more often than once per combat, fine. Whatever, I don't care. But when you make your own rules that violate the rules as they're written by PFS, then you are choosing to exclude yourself from our group.
You're right - we can't force you to play by the rules, and we can't force you to GM. But, by threatening the Society with harming its players by denying them the ability to play is strongly against the whole stated purpose, intent and general consensus of the PFS.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, is the official ruling DM's can't do that, and Paizo can come shut them down from running games or playing? It seems like the DM's can't do it, and yes Paizo can and possibly will come shut everyone off, but I'm seeing a lot of action from both sides. I just want to figure this out so I can let the community know and hopefully we can come to a consensus before something horrible does happen.
There's nothing official about a bunch of guys posting on the the message boards while they are at work--unless those guys work at Paizo and their names are Michael Brock and Mark Moreland.
|
|
Would the situation be different the person making the table not happen was a player instead of the GM? If you've only got the minimum four people (3 players, 1 GM) and one of the players says there's no game unless condition X is met, does the acceptability of the situation change?
There is no change. Basically the person organizing the private home game, whether as a player or GM gets to say who can be in their house and why. As long as they aren't saying you can do things expressly forbidden by rules (like archetypes not allowed, feat not allowed, etc) they can make whatever call they want. Now, that same group can all tell him to take a flying leap and move to someone else's house and play whatever they want.
To play or not playing is an option/privelige. Not a gaurantee. We may not like how these people choose to play the game, but we can't make them accept how we feel they should play.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Would the situation be different the person making the table not happen was a player instead of the GM? If you've only got the minimum four people (3 players, 1 GM) and one of the players says there's no game unless condition X is met, does the acceptability of the situation change?There is no change. Basically the person organizing the private home game, whether as a player or GM gets to say who can be in their house and why.
Next idea: What if the GM is hosting, but it's Necessary Player #3 who's saying "Do X or there's no game"?
|
|
You're right - we can't force you to play by the rules, and we can't force you to GM. But, by threatening the Society with harming its players by denying them the ability to play is strongly against the whole stated purpose, intent and general consensus of the PFS.
Kristoph, it's very simple. Show me the rule that says people can't do this and you'll get most of us in your camp. Noone is breaking any rules here. Show me the rule that says I have to play at home in your way when I'm not breaking any rules. We aren't talking about home games, but home play. The initiative example is an extraneous example as noone is breaking basic rules of the game.
You can pickup your dice and leave regardless of where you play. It's a choice. And it's a bigger choice to make when it comes to home play of PFS. How is this any different than just not inviting a player, cause that what it turns into on the next step. The player would not be welcome in the home playing of PFS. And, hey look, noone is playing a Summoner (or Magus).
I'd certainly rather the OPs situation didn't happen. But if it's a home play situation neither you or I have any recourse.
|
|
I find so of the views in this thread quite amusing.
Telling a player at your house that they can't play a certain PFS legal character of theirs because you find it annoying is not the same as rolling initiative more than once a round or changing any other *actual* rule.
Even at a public event.. heck, let's go big. Even at GENCON, the holiest of holy events, it is not "against the PFS rules" to tell a player you're not willing to GM for them because you don't like their character build or don't like them as a person.
Is it uncool? Absolutely. Would it create a scene and a headache for the musterers? Yep. But it's not against the rules.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think anyone here can make an official ruling (except Mark).
Mark and I both can make official rulings. We discuss everything on the boards so we each already know where the other stands.
If you are GMing in a private setting, such as your own home or apartment, you have the discretion to invite whom ever you want to participate in that game; we can not tell you anymore who to invite into your home than we can tell you what to watch on tv. With that said, if you plan to report that session or distribute Chronicle sheets as an official PFS session, you are required to follow the rules as outlined in the Organized Play Guide.
In a private game, because of the tacit agreement between the GMs and players to participate at all in the private environment, you may place whatever additional restrictions you want on the game because everyone who is present at the private event is understood to have agreed to those restrictions. To clarify, if a player wishes to impose additional penalties or restrictions on his or her character, that is the players prerogative.
This DOES NOT mean you can run an official PFS game with fewer restrictions than are outlined in the Organized Play Guide or other campaign documentation. For example, you can not run an evil character, you can not use Words of Power or Hero Points, or any other specific rules that are not permitted in the campaign.