|
If I'm in the situation where I need players, but don't want to make it a cattle call for whatever reason, I'll register the game as private. I will use the yahoo groups to advertise for interested players; these advertisements often can be read by anyone, but only replied to by members. Regardless, this is an advertisement seeking interested players, not advertising the game itself.
When people reply with character information, I'll select from the respondents to meet whatever goal I'm looking for. The advertisement is a request for interested individuals to apply. From those applications, I'll make private invitations.
It's possible to advertise for interested parties, make private invitations, and still do so in a way that doesn't ruffle feathers. If I get more applications that I can use, I'll even pass the information on to put them all in touch to help them form a second table at someone else's house.
+1. Great post!
|
Good suggestion Howie.
You could even start taking PFS resumes and screening out those that don't seem like a good fit for the game you're going to run.
Cute, Nick. :)
Can you work out an application covering all relevant gaming experience and perhaps a personality profile? Oh, and how about an aptitude and/or interest profile at the same time. /tongue removed from cheek.
Seriously, this came up in LG, too. And unfortunately, over time, people within groups develop different philosophies or practice of play, and this leads to preferences of whom to play with. It has to be possible. It's also a fundamental concept to do so without rubbing it in the face of those who don't play.
This doesn't come up just with particular classes. It comes up due to personality conflicts. It comes up due to wanting a role play heavy experience and so selecting players who participate in role play. It comes up due to wanting to balance a table. It comes up due to wanting to fine tune APL.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Furthermore, if the ruling is, 'Hey online GM, you have to accept all those synthesist players' the GM can easily just stop publicly offering to GM online. There's not enough people offering to GM online as it is. I know, because I've been waiting to get in on a game.
To this specific point I'd like to ask, if you were restricted from playing a publicly advertised online game (which you indicate you want to get in on) because the GM didn't want to play with a summoner, would that upset you?
Whether online or in meatspace, a game is private if it's not open to the public. Whether that means its at your home and you only let in your friends, in a game store where you and your friends play cause no one has a big enough dining room table, or on the internet where you use a virtual gaming table that only you have access to, if only a select few know about it or have a chance of getting into that game, then it's private.
If, however, you put up a posting on paizo.com, the Pathfinder Society Online Collective, meetup.com, warhorn, or the LFG board at your FLGS, saying, effectively, "we'll be running an official Pathfinder Society game at [insert location]. Contact [insert email] to join" and then you add other restrictions to who can and can't play, that's where Mike and I draw the line. If you want to apply additional restrictions to your game, whether that means you won't GM for a summoner or that you don't like playing with people who wear glasses, you need to either 1) not run that restrictive game as an official Pathfinder Society game or 2) not open it up to the public.
You're right that we can't force anyone—whether online or in meatspace—to do anything (have you ever tried to get even a dozen volunteer gamers to shower before showing up at your con and representing your campaign?). That doesn't mean that publicly offering a game and then imposing your own personal restrictions on it doesn't work against the welcoming and open attitude that best serves the campaign.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Is publicly advertising a game to those willing to play by your restrictions ok?
Can I Post a Public Invite, saying - Hey as long as you are willing to adhere to our restriction you can join our "Private Game".
Howie23's post above outlines a better way of handling it. Calling public games private just to impose additional restrictions on it is deceptive and strongly discouraged. What I don't want to see happen is game stores or conventions claiming they're private games just so GMs can impose personal restrictions on things. Let's use common sense about what is public and what's not, please.
|
Well, Jeepers. I guess that I will have to start writing all of my public postings about private games in strange convoluted ways. To wit: "Hi all, If you are interested in applying to play in our special top secret group that may or may not run a troupe game in which certain PFS classes or character types are not allowed, please write privately to me with your qualifications and I may or may not send you the ultra-secret invitation."
Or I could just give up on jumping this sort of ridiculous hoop, and stop expecting to run normal games through PFS.
All of this because some yahoo can't stand the idea of a GM having a table at which he doesn't want a 300 hit points Synthesist stealing the spotlight from other players.
Is PFS really this broken?
Really, it's pretty stupid to treat a statement on an only semi-public mailing list that "hey, I'm running this -- who is interested?" as a public invitation to a public game. It's like seeing someone write on a mailing list, to someone else, that "we should get together for tea some time" and responding them to make tea for you if you suddenly show up on the doorstep.
If the first rule about private games is that we're not supposed to talk about private games, then how the Hell do we recruit? Dumb, dumb, dumb.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really, it's pretty stupid to treat a statement on an only semi-public mailing list that "hey, I'm running this -- who is interested?" as a public invitation to a public game. It's like seeing someone write on a mailing list, to someone else, that "we should get together for tea some time" and responding them to make tea for you if you suddenly show up on the doorstep.
If the first rule about private games is that we're not supposed to talk about private games, then how the Hell do we recruit? Dumb, dumb, dumb.
As the founder of the Pathfinder Society Online Collective, I can say that the intent of the group was always to be public. It was to allow anyone who wants to play Pathfinder Society to do so without needing to have a local game store or the ability to attend conventions. Just as putting up a sign in a game store advertising a Pathfinder Society game on Friday night would be considered a public posting (even though it's only visible by people who happen to read that board at that one game store), so is posting on a public Google group that you're doing the same thing.
If you're looking to recruit players for a game that will be private, but just needs more players, Howie made a very good suggestion above, which I'll quote to reiterate his point.
If I'm in the situation where I need players, but don't want to make it a cattle call for whatever reason, I'll register the game as private. I will use the yahoo groups to advertise for interested players; these advertisements often can be read by anyone, but only replied to by members. Regardless, this is an advertisement seeking interested players, not advertising the game itself.When people reply with character information, I'll select from the respondents to meet whatever goal I'm looking for. The advertisement is a request for interested individuals to apply. From those applications, I'll make private invitations.
It's possible to advertise for interested parties, make private invitations, and still do so in a way that doesn't ruffle feathers. If I get more applications that I can use, I'll even pass the information on to put them all in touch to help them form a second table at someone else's house.
All this about public and private games is well and good and has cleared up some thing, but isn't something from the original post being overlooked or not answered?
If a session is an officially run and sanctioned Pathfinder Society game, does the GM have the right to ban any content that has been ruled legal for play? I would say no, the GM does not have that right. What he has a right to do is to ban a player, not a character or a build or a spell or a feat, etc. Instead of this being about a GM who posted "Summoners need not apply", what if instead he had said "Characters with the TWF feat chain need not apply"?
|
|
I guess to me it's fairly simple... if there is someone/a character I don't want to play with in my home, I don't invite them to a game in my home. Out in public, I have no say other than bribing my coordinator.
If invites to the game are done via private email, are the people be excluded really aware that they are being excluded? Does it matter? It's my house I can invite in who I want.
The only time the GM doesn't have a real say so is at a public arena; gameday, convention etc.
I know there is the issue of an open exclusive invite (I need a player so I'm going to announce it, but only truly invite who I want).. We're geeks and survived grade school and high school once, why do we need to relive it?
Why are we over-analyzing this?
|
|
All this about public and private games is well and good and has cleared up some thing, but isn't something from the original post being overlooked or not answered?
If a session is an officially run and sanctioned Pathfinder Society game, does the GM have the right to ban any content that has been ruled legal for play? I would say no, the GM does not have that right. What he has a right to do is to ban a player, not a character or a build or a spell or a feat, etc. Instead of this being about a GM who posted "Summoners need not apply", what if instead he had said "Characters with the TWF feat chain need not apply"?
Enevhar, I provided a link early on the first page, and another player provided the text, to the post that was made by Mike Brock yesterday saying that in a private game, the game can be more restrictive if desired. Yes, that could include prohibiting classes, feats, members of given factions, however they want to handle it. Those games would be officially run and sanctioned by PFS.
You and others may have a difference of opinion about how it should work, but as of yesterday, that is clearly the way it does work.
|
|
If, however, you put up a posting on paizo.com, the Pathfinder Society Online Collective, meetup.com, warhorn, or the LFG board at your FLGS, saying, effectively, "we'll be running an official Pathfinder Society game at [insert location].
So, I post at my favorite game store that I need players. The [insert location] is my home. By your ruling, that's a public game and I have to allow anyone to come play.
|
|
So I'm one of those GMs on Pathfinder Collective. I'm new to Pathfinder. I don't have mastery of the rules. Running a game with gunslingers, synthesists, ninjas, and samurai is not something I can or want to do at this time.
So, as I read this, I have 3 options:
1) Tough crap, I'll have to accept those in the game. I'm forced to run a game I won't enjoy and won't run well.
2) Don't set restrictions but ask everybody what they are playing. Reject all of those classes I don't want, but don't tell anybody why. Yeah, that won' ruffle any feathers.
3) Don't GM.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 4
|
If, however, you put up a posting on paizo.com, the Pathfinder Society Online Collective, meetup.com, warhorn, or the LFG board at your FLGS, saying, effectively, "we'll be running an official Pathfinder Society game at [insert location].So, I post at my favorite game store that I need players. The [insert location] is my home. By your ruling, that's a public game and I have to allow anyone to come play.
No, they were pretty clear about that. Your home is your home. Following Mike Brock's really specific example, your home can be a private game.. No Paizo employee has or will tell you what to do in your home. Hell, you can run a public game at your house, if you want, but that power and choice is yours and yours alone.
What you're really asking, and is at the core of all of this, is whether your Internet Maptool server constitutes as part of your 'home', your space, your property, and whether you have the same right to determine who plays on it or not.
(and I'm not going to try to answer that)
I'm not judging you or picking on you when I say that, Todd. I can see you're frustrated. But I think this conversation is grinding on because we're not getting right to the heart of it, so that's why I'm being blunt. No offense intended.
|
Hi
Phew - Hot Topic or what?
My original question only arose when I felt excluded from a game because the GM hated a class I play. Then got put down because I complained about the public exclusion.
The exclusion came shortly after I played a Synthesist in a couple of games. So felt very targetted to me. Apart from this one issue the other GM's/Players have been nothing but friendly and encouraging, which is why I'm still there.
Personally I've always suggested the private email invites, or just asking those with non-core builds to contact GM privately re their builds.
That way we have a positive, 'inclusive' perception to the outside world.
All this about public and private games is well and good and has cleared up some thing, but isn't something from the original post being overlooked or not answered?
If a session is an officially run and sanctioned Pathfinder Society game, does the GM have the right to ban any content that has been ruled legal for play? I would say no, the GM does not have that right. What he has a right to do is to ban a player, not a character or a build or a spell or a feat, etc. Instead of this being about a GM who posted "Summoners need not apply", what if instead he had said "Characters with the TWF feat chain need not apply"?
Enevhar, I provided a link early on the first page, and another player provided the text, to the post that was made by Mike Brock yesterday saying that in a private game, the game can be more restrictive if desired. Yes, that could include prohibiting classes, feats, members of given factions, however they want to handle it. Those games would be officially run and sanctioned by PFS.
You and others may have a difference of opinion about how it should work, but as of yesterday, that is clearly the way it does work.
Until a statement about this is either in the Guide or the FAQ, then a GM does not have the right to ban legal material.
|
|
Hi
The game was advertised publicly, on a public server, asking members of the public to play a game. Those successful in joining games have their aliases publicly listed.
If the GM had just asked for players using non-core builds to contact him then this question wouldn't have arisen.
I've had my question answered officially. Can we please move on....?
Thanks for your views everyone.
Paul H
No, it's an unmodified Intelligence check.
Wisdom. Intelligent folks can certainly lack common sense. Just sayin'.
Though sense, like courtesy, is almost never common...
|
|
And yet again the motto of Pathfinder Society comes to the rescue!
"Don't be a jerk!"
If a GM specifically asks that no summoner characters attain the event, a person insisting on bringing one is being the jerk. And it could be something else than summoners, too! Like paladins, pet classes, halfling cavaliers, powergamers etc.
If a GM denies summoner characters after they have applied, the GM is being the jerk.
The basics of common courtesy. Likewise it's appropriate to question the reasons behind said 'ban', and ask the GM to prove him wrong. With the summoner, the best example would probably be to *not* create a quadruped pouncing killing machine. :)
I myself dislike pet classes a lot, and have been vocal about it. I don't exclude those characters from my games, but encourage them to view their pets as more than some hypnotized murder monsters.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Boy, do I know the PFS community or do I know the PFS community?
Two key points to remember, people:
Don't try to disguise your public game as a private one.
Don't try to pretend that your private game is getting labeled as public so you can complain about restrictive rules.Those are the only two issues I predict arising from this. M&M's statements are sufficiently clear for those without an agenda.
Totally called it.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
How about this:
"A public game is a game in which anyone can walk up to the table (meatspace or virtual), sit down (physically or metaphorically), and expect to play, provided there is space for them in the party. You can't decide a game is going to be private after seeing who shows up."
Or better yet, we could not try to formulate legal verbiage for it and just let people use their knowledge of the english language to differentiate between public and private.
A handful of people deliberately (and predictably) misinterpreting a guideline to look like a straight jacket so they have something to cry about is NOT sufficient reason to try to formalize a pretty obvious directive into a water-tight and unabusable rule.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no reason to define "home" vs. "public" and have different rules for each. A GM will always the right to allow whoever, or whatever, to play at his/her table. Period. And we, as players, have the right to not play at said table. Again period.
By making this a private vs public game issue, we are creating an unnecessary loop hole to justify, in our own minds, when a GM is "allowed" to be a douche. Who cares? We can treat the GM as a douche either way. Just because the game takes place in a private venue, whatever that means, does not suddenly change the circumstances of inclusion. If the players are accepting of the restrictions, they play. If not, they don't. If you force a GM to have to accept the unwanted class, feat, whatever, they will just not GM. We cannot dictate play styles or what players will/won't like about the rules.
I will always support a GM's right to choose who gets to play at their table, regardless of the venue. I also completely support the player's ability to consider the GM a jerk and not play at said table, or the organizer to ban the GM for not being inclusive.
|
|
There is no reason to define "home" vs. "public" and have different rules for each. A GM will always the right to allow whoever, or whatever, to play at his/her table. Period. And we, as players, have the right to not play at said table. Again period.
By making this a private vs public game issue, we are creating an unnecessary loop hole to justify, in our own minds, when a GM is "allowed" to be a douche. Who cares? We can treat the GM as a douche either way. Just because the game takes place in a private venue, whatever that means, does not suddenly change the circumstances of inclusion. If the players are accepting of the restrictions, they play. If not, they don't. If you force a GM to have to accept the unwanted class, feat, whatever, they will just not GM. We cannot dictate play styles or what players will/won't like about the rules.
I will always support a GM's right to choose who gets to play at their table, regardless of the venue. I also completely support the player's ability to consider the GM a jerk and not play at said table, or the organizer to ban the GM for not being inclusive.
You would think so and that was exactly how this was being resolved until now. I understand why Mike and Mark ruled the way they did on this and it would be bizarre to expect them to rule otherwise. They are the heads of an open campaign and all of their rulings need to come down on the side of openness and inclusion. Personally I am not in favor of banning any legal class, build etc. But at the same time I feel like this was presented here with the goal of getting a ruling in order to use it to force someone's way into what until now was essentially a home group. (Not the online collective, the individual GM and his players who didn't want a particular class in their group.) Obviously you can't force a GM to let you be part of his group. If he feels strongly enough about it, he will move to private recruitment by email. So in the end nothing changes except you will no longer see public announcements for his weekly games.