Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

How do you handle one player making poor decisions?


Pathfinder Society GM Discussion

51 to 63 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
*

redward wrote:
That is terrible and kind of funny. The non-caster's False Life.

lol. I bet he's not the 1st one to die in an encounter. :)

That's what you gotta do if other PCs aren't going to share the cost of Raise Dead. You gotta do what you gotta do. :)

Cheliax ***** Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

Punish them, punish them all...

*evil laugh*

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

Pathfinder Poor Decision Theater: Next on Zarta's Coffee Klatch!

Andoran ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Anoka

Alexander_Damocles wrote:
Spellbane wrote:
Alexander_Damocles wrote:
Spellbane wrote:
Alexander_Damocles wrote:
One of my characters handled quite simply: he intimidated the character, and the whole party moved to give the NPCs flanks and said they'd be tossing buff spells to the NPCs. Our disruptive friend quickly quieted down.
I hope you're kidding.
No, I'm not. The fight was entirely uncalled for, and could have cost us the scenario. The player backed off, and the game continued. If we had not, the game would have crashed to a halt, and some players might not have returned to PFS if one disruptive player can choose to cause a TPK.

He can't choose anything for the party. The GM simply steps in and says, if you attack this group, They will kill you. If the player insist on combat, you just attack him with all the NPCs and not the party. Bullying him with intimidate checks and threatening to flank is PVP imo and against the PFS rules.

If this was the way my group handled disputes, I would simply find another game to play. Suddenly I feel even more thankful for the folks I play with each week.
Which becomes bullying by the GM instead. How is that better?

But it isn't bullying by the GM. It is the GM handling the flow of the game and making sure it is fair for all the characters.

Taldor ***

Imagine how I feel! I keep getting stuck in groups without a Rogue. I think Dradle Dreg has it out for me, because I keep having to play trap finder for a bunch of worthless new recruits. "Here, I'll pick the lock" SMASH "Here, I'll disarm the trap" CLICK, SLICE, CRUNCH.

I've been a field agent for three months, and I've got more gray hair than a wight.


Sean H wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

In summary, with 4 new players and 1 veteran, 3 of the newbies were doing excellent RPing in solving the encounters while the veteran had bad judgement and did several things that threatened to unravel the work the rest of the party did. In the interest of making the new...

Retconning the actions of the ranger is a TERRIBLE idea as it shows bad decisions won't have repercussions and actions are only allowed that fit the module / story. Combat should have happened right then and there. The other party members are free to choose who they stand up to be counted with, though any paladin worth their Lawful good alignment probably will not be siding with someone who praises a murderer.

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber

Not knowing more about the exact situation (since I have not played, read, nor run that scenario), there is a reason that characters that skirt the line of evil aren't that prevalent in the Society... and the new players can learn by watching you make an example of the character.

A possibility is to allow the party to keep their high diplomacy "but that guy's gonna have to come with us for *questioning*" at which point he'll have to bail himself out of jail.

Or: "You folks can move along, but this one we'll need to rough up a bit first" or "stay out of this fight, this is between us and him; we don't want to see you fine folks get hurt"

These are some ways of punishing the player at the table and will hopefully shut them up for the rest of the scenario, lest you bring down the wrath and have the next diplomanced encounter that he messes-up focus all their anger on him till death... and then they will listen to the others.


Justin Riddler wrote:

Not knowing more about the exact situation (since I have not played, read, nor run that scenario), there is a reason that characters that skirt the line of evil aren't that prevalent in the Society... and the new players can learn by watching you make an example of the character.

A possibility is to allow the party to keep their high diplomacy "but that guy's gonna have to come with us for *questioning*" at which point he'll have to bail himself out of jail.

Or: "You folks can move along, but this one we'll need to rough up a bit first" or "stay out of this fight, this is between us and him; we don't want to see you fine folks get hurt"

These are some ways of punishing the player at the table and will hopefully shut them up for the rest of the scenario, lest you bring down the wrath and have the next diplomanced encounter that he messes-up focus all their anger on him till death... and then they will listen to the others.

I don't know, my buddies that I played with had a "We ride together, we die together, Bad Boyz 4 LyFe" mentality, except maybe without that spelling. If one of our dumb members gets himself into trouble, we usually all work together to get him out of there.

Of course, there's no telling if those guys would have done that, but who knows.


Sean H wrote:
In summary, with 4 new players and 1 veteran, 3 of the newbies were doing excellent RPing in solving the encounters while the veteran had bad judgement and did several things that threatened to unravel the work the rest of the party did. In the interest of making the new...

An important meta-rule is: "never apply in-game penalties for out-of-game behaviour".

Playing like a dick straddles that line, unfortunately.

So here's another meta-rule: "you have the right to choose who you do and do not wish to play with".

And here's one more important little rule:

"Aside from genuine hard core role players, people play characters the way they like to play".

That is, someone building a character who is a dick usually does so because they are a dick and that's how they like to play.

So:

Level 1: "dude, you are playing like a dick".

If the reply is "well, that's because the character is a dick", then:

Level 2: "ok, well the other pathfinders *in character* do not wish to go on missions with your character, *in character*. And the venture captain *in character* is sick of your character blowing missions. Build a new character who isn't a dick and play it."

And if the player refuses, or the new character turns out to be a dick, too, then:

Level 3: "I do not wish to spend my Thursday nights playing Pathfinder with you".

At the end of the day, it's a people problem, not a game problem. And in reference to this particular character who worships the god of murder or whatever, this is why evil characters aren't allowed. Because evil simply *is* being a dick.

Shadow Lodge **

I can't go PVP and smack another character upside the head.

I can lean on my staff eating popcorn while an encounter designed to challenge the entire group does it for me.

As a dm, its a little versimilitude breaking, but ignoring the peanut gallery and concentrating your interactions with the pcs speaking for most of the party is probably the best way to go.

Grand Lodge *** Venture-Captain, Pennsylvania—Pittsburgh

BigNorseWolf wrote:

I can't go PVP and smack another character upside the head.

I can lean on my staff eating popcorn while an encounter designed to challenge the entire group does it for me.

As a dm, its a little versimilitude breaking, but ignoring the peanut gallery and concentrating your interactions with the pcs speaking for most of the party is probably the best way to go.

You can disable other obnoxious characters; and if they're being a total ass, I'd allow it as a GM.

Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play v4.3 wrote:
The goal of Pathfinder Society Organized Play is to provide an enjoyable experience for as many players as possible. Player-versus-player conflict only sours a session. While killing another character might seem like fun to you, it certainly won’t be for the other character’s player. Even if you feel that killing another PC is in character for your PC at this particular moment, just figure out some other way for your character to express herself. In short, you can never voluntarily use your character to kill another character—ever. Note that this does not apply to situations where your character is mind-controlled by an NPC and is forced by that NPC to attack a fellow Pathfinder.

You can't kill obnoxious characters... but you can harm/fight/disable them.

Persistent Color Spray with Awesome Display works wonders for annoying characters or someone who is about to ruin a mission.

As a GM, if there's a truly disruptive player, I would ask them to leave. If they were only annoying enough to warrant having them avoid my tables, I'd sic the BBEG on them.

Shadow Lodge **

Andrew Hoskins wrote:
You can't kill obnoxious characters... but you can harm/fight/disable them. Persistent Color Spray with Awesome Display works wonders for annoying characters or someone who is about to ruin a mission.

I can't see how that wouldn't violate the no pvp rule. Its no player vs player combat not no player vs player killing. It would be too easy to abuse the loophole and color spray another character unconscious right in front of a hungry monster.

Grand Lodge *** Venture-Captain, Pennsylvania—Pittsburgh

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Andrew Hoskins wrote:
You can't kill obnoxious characters... but you can harm/fight/disable them. Persistent Color Spray with Awesome Display works wonders for annoying characters or someone who is about to ruin a mission.
I can't see how that wouldn't violate the no pvp rule. Its no player vs player combat not no player vs player killing. It would be too easy to abuse the loophole and color spray another character unconscious right in front of a hungry monster.

It would... and if a player pulled that crap to be a jerk, I'd have the monster ignore the now stunned/blind/unconscious player and go after him instead.

My Imagination wrote:

Jerky Color-Sprayer: WTF! He would go for the guy who's helpless!

Me: (If the monster is smart) That guy is no longer a threat, you are.
Me: (If the monster is dumb) Moving prey is more exciting.

If it's because he's about to tell the Chelish Ambassador to go to hell, then I may give the color sprayer a standing ovation.

I don't disagree that "allowing" PvP is a slippery slope... it is. I'm just saying there are plenty of creative ways to get rid of a jerky player.

51 to 63 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Society® / Pathfinder Society GM Discussion / How do you handle one player making poor decisions? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.