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!

Character Concepts and Playing as a Team


Pathfinder Society® General Discussion

**

Lots of words:
(This is inspired by the recent thread on making an intentionally blind character, but it's something that's been kicking around in my head for a while. I'd like it not to focus on that particular issue, though, as there's already a thread for that).

When we sit down to a PFS table as players, we presumably all have the same goal: to complete the scenario, and if possible, our individual faction missions. The characters, however, all have their own goals--as defined by their players.

I have had more than one scenario nearly fail due to characters arguing with the rest of the party or with key NPCs. To the players of these characters, they're just roleplaying. If his character has a problem with authority, it's only natural that he'd get into a fight with the captain of the guard. To the rest of the party, however, he (the player) is the guy who's dragging the session out and possibly costing them XP, Gold, or even their characters' lives. The only reason we got through it at all is due to incredibly patient GMs.

Obviously, as a player, you have the right to make any character you like within the PFS guidelines.

TL;DR:
Do we have a responsibility to make a character who can (physically, mentally, socially) function and behave as a viable party member? Or should the rest of your table just suck it up and deal with whatever misanthrope shows up?

Follow-up question: What can/should GMs do to deal with characters who are dragging the party down?

Cheliax *

It's a really hard thing to address.

"Being a team player" can easily turn into the "club of consensus" that forces (particularly Good characters) into doing the expedient thing rather than what they consider to be the morally right thing to do.

Where do we draw the line between legitimately playing the character and problematic behaviour at the table? I think, in practice, we usually know the difference when we see it. Writing a set of expectations that have to stand outside the context of the session (beyond the universal "don't be a jerk" rule) seems like it could create more problems than it solves.

**

theshoveller wrote:
Writing a set of expectations that have to stand outside the context of the session (beyond the universal "don't be a jerk" rule) seems like it could create more problems than it solves.

I agree completely. The problem, as I see it, is that some players will make their character be the jerk and then claim that it's beyond their control when their jerk jerks up the group, because "that's what he would do."

Cheliax

redward wrote:
theshoveller wrote:
Writing a set of expectations that have to stand outside the context of the session (beyond the universal "don't be a jerk" rule) seems like it could create more problems than it solves.
I agree completely. The problem, as I see it, is that some players will make their character be the jerk and then claim that it's beyond their control when their jerk jerks up the group, because "that's what he would do."

This is a major failing of the system. It is hard to imagine any credible society running/opperating the way it does. Five to six unique and various minded strangers set out together with no chain of command expected to overcome mercenaries and cults. Creating charecters together might help solve some of this, at lease ensure that a party is balanced.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

To be a Pathfinder, you had to be approved after years of training. If your concept doesn't take that into account, you're breaking canon of the campaign.

Cheliax

Jiggy wrote:
To be a Pathfinder, you had to be approved after years of training. If your concept doesn't take that into account, you're breaking canon of the campaign.

You still need to train with those you are operating with to be a cohesive unit. You also need to have a singular goal, and with so many factions with so many secondary objectives this is rarly the case.

Grand Lodge

redward wrote:
theshoveller wrote:
Writing a set of expectations that have to stand outside the context of the session (beyond the universal "don't be a jerk" rule) seems like it could create more problems than it solves.
I agree completely. The problem, as I see it, is that some players will make their character be the jerk and then claim that it's beyond their control when their jerk jerks up the group, because "that's what he would do."

If you designed your character to create conflict as a character concept, you, sir, are the jerk. Players can choose to design characters that are not jerks. This is foreseeable. Don't be a jerk (it''s in the rules) Also, read Mike Brock's public Facebook page. He had to bounce a player that was violating the "don't be a jerk" rule. Be prepared to be ejected from the table if that is the case.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
"Akeela Valerian, the Wolf wrote:
If you designed your character to create conflict as a character concept, you, sir, are the jerk. Players can choose to design characters that are not jerks.

I agree with this 100%. When a player knows hat they have planned will destroy the game for the others it is the player who ha the issue not the character.

I would also point out that if you did have an idea that you would like to try and you think it might be an issue, you can always bring it up ahead of time. Allow the others to opt into the idea. Make it a group "project". It can allow for quite a bit of fun if all the players are in on the character before it is let loose on the group.

**

1 person marked this as a favorite.
danielc wrote:
I would also point out that if you did have an idea that you would like to try and you think it might be an issue, you can always bring it up ahead of time. Allow the others to opt into the idea. Make it a group "project". It can allow for quite a bit of fun if all the players are in on the character before it is let loose on the group.

The only problem I have with this is that I see it almost every time someone floats the idea of a "trouble" character here on the boards. "I'll ask the table if it's okay and play someone else if anyone has a problem."

The thing is, no one wants to be the one who says no. Everyone wants to be agreeable and let people play who they want to play, and putting the group in the position of having to reject a player is kind of a crappy thing to do.

If you already recognize that it's something you should check with the group beforehand, you probably know it's a bad idea.

** Venture-Lieutenant, Croatia—Zagreb

The "don't be a jerk" assumes everyone. If you don't like someone's character you should speak or say that you don't wish to play with him.

Beyond having the right to speak, what's wrong with that approach? If people know that some person is doing horrible things and bad choices constantly, they will stop playing with him.

Sczarni **** Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Pullman aka Coraith

Jiggy wrote:
To be a Pathfinder, you had to be approved after years of training. If your concept doesn't take that into account, you're breaking canon of the campaign.

There is a way to join the society without going through years of training. The character could show natural aptitude or donate a find to the society of sufficient merit to bypass the years of training required of most pathfinders.

*

Like Jiggy said, you don’t become a Pathfinder overnight and if you can’t work as a team, they wouldn’t accept you in the organization. You might as well mark your PC as dead, because he would have never made it.

It’s OK to have quirks and it’s OK to have non-optimized PCs. Imo it’s ok if a PC wants to be blind, as long as he can somewhat do his job (I didn’t read that thread).

It’s even OK if a PC wants to roleplay and be slightly disruptive. Every PC should have a little face time. If there’s time and the player is amusing, you can even let it go. However, it’s the GMs responsibility to let him have his fun, and but it’s also the GM responsibility to know when to cut it off.

For example, at Gencon a kid started attacking random rogues on rooftops while the rest of us were trying to escort an artifact and were being attacked. The GM let him attack his rogues, his hawk died, and one rogue went down. And we were short handed the entire combat encounter. And when the kid wanted to pursue the 2nd rogue back into his thieves guild, the GM cut it off (because it was going to be too disruptive, having his own solo game and getting killed lol). Point is, it’s the GMs job to allow players to have their fun, and then rein it in if it starts to become disruptive. If the player doesn't understand or like that, he's being a jerk.

Grand Lodge

Coraith wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
To be a Pathfinder, you had to be approved after years of training. If your concept doesn't take that into account, you're breaking canon of the campaign.
There is a way to join the society without going through years of training. The character could show natural aptitude or donate a find to the society of sufficient merit to bypass the years of training required of most pathfinders.

Maybe, but it doesn't make you a member for life if you are a complete jackwagon. PFS wouldn't keep them on any more than any other organization would keep incompetent employees. Unless of course, they schmoozed the boss. Or were related to someone in charge. Or donated money. Or had rich parents who donated money. Ok, I guess it could happen . . .

**

Malag wrote:

The "don't be a jerk" assumes everyone. If you don't like someone's character you should speak or say that you don't wish to play with him.

Beyond having the right to speak, what's wrong with that approach? If people know that some person is doing horrible things and bad choices constantly, they will stop playing with him.

You're right, but in my experience the majority of players are pretty non-confrontational, which does tend to lead to them getting steamrolled by the extroverts at the table. Which isn't to say that anyone's at fault--that's just the dynamic.

But if you know your character is obnoxious and likely to push buttons, it's pretty lame to play him and just shrug away your responsibility for it with an "oh, they'll ask me to stop if it gets too bad." I just think it's a selfish way to play.

(again, not singling you out, as this is really more about character personalities than mechanical stuff).

** Venture-Lieutenant, Croatia—Zagreb

@Redward

You are right, majority are non-confrontational, nobody really wants to tell you that you can't play your character, but same rule applies to them also. That's why we all let each other benefit of the doubt, to play what we want to play. At our tables we always try our best for everyone to enjoy maximum of the game. It should be same at every table.

(I never felt singled out, just missunderstood ;)

Andoran

I'm in favor of letting a player make whatever character he or she chooses. However, if that character does not cooperate with the group, sabotages encounters, or acts insanely, evily or chaotically then my character may not feel obligated to help him complete his faction mission or even survive. I've always believed in the old saying,"what goes around, comes around".

Silver Crusade **

Redward and Malag, I agree with you that the majority of players are non confrontational; that is a growth step every player needs to make. If they believe some one is being a jerk and his character concept is a complete dirt bag you need to call them out. They're not only ruining your fun at the table they're breaking the rules and destroying other's players fun. Their is always a way to be respectful, and call some one on their behavior.

Cheliax *

I always like to say, that if there is one thing 4th Edition got right, it was driving home (and hard) that tabletop RPGs are team games. Part of this means creating a character who can/will contribute (within reason) to the success of the mission and helps the group become more than the sum of it's class features.

I find it fairly frustrating to sit down with character concepts who would never have been made Pathfinders or flagrantly disregard that their PC is supposed to be one. You wouldn't sit down at a home game with a PC whose concept is in direct conflict with the campaign's theme and pretense; it would be a bit rude and the GM would probably ask you to modify the back story/concept. Why would you do it in Organized Play?

I've never had the distinct pleasure of sitting with a concept that was intentionally violating the "don't be a jerk" rule in PFS, but I'm thinking the concept is not in these cases so much as the player. There are a lot of controversial (from a purely role-play perspective) concepts that are perfectly legal; how the player rolls with it makes all the difference. When I have issues with other players' PCs from a role-play perspective, it's often the player's behavior and nothing they are bound to do by their PC from a role-play perspective. End of the day, "it's just my character concept!" is never an excuse to be a jerk, disruptive, or hinder the party's progress intentionally.

If a PC is consistently dragging the party down, hampering their ability to move forward, etc. it may be worth talking with the player after the game. It is perfectly possible to role-play characters with opposing beliefs and opinions without dragging the scenario to a grinding halt; coaching players on ways to do this is the best solution here. Mechanical and player etiquette can be addressed in a similar manner.

Cheliax *** Venture-Lieutenant, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka drayen

redward wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

TL;DR:
Do we have a responsibility to make a character who can (physically, mentally, socially) function and behave as a viable party member? Or should the rest of your table just suck it up and deal with whatever misanthrope shows up?

Follow-up question: What can/should GMs do to deal with characters who are dragging the party down?

The Pathfinder Society has three main tenents:

Explore
Report
COOPERATE

This goes hand in hand with "Don't Be a Jerk". When the players sit down to play, each should announce what they are playing. If a player, or players, have issue playing with another character, that is the time to bring it to the attention of the player and GM. Once everyone has agreed to play with each others characters, "Cooperate" becomes the rule. If during game play a character (read: player) is disruptive to the group's goals, the GM needs to address the issue with the offending player.

The GM has options and operational discretion for dealing with issues; player, scenario, society or even GM made.

1. Be polite - Regardless of the issue, politely address it with the individual or group. If necessary, have those involved step away from the table with you (the GM) and explain the situation and how their actions may be disruptive for others.

2. Remain open-minded - At first glance a character's actions may appear to be disruptive, however; there may be a good reason for it. For example, a faction mission may require a certain approach with an NPC, creature, object or situation. The GM should be cognizant of the motivations of a character and how it applies to the scenario.

3. Maintain tempo and pace - The GM is there to present the story, adjudicate the actions of all involved and maintain the flow of role play and action. Keep the group focused and moving towards the objective. Keep the players engaged in the goings on throughout the scenario. By itself this guideline will eliminate much of the disruption as most players act out because of boredom or disinterest.

4. Point out consequences - If a player announces an action which will result in an alignment infraction, certain death, PvP, cheating, meta-gaming, etc., the GM should explain the consequences of said action to the player beforehand. A player may simply not understand the situation but, with proper guidance and clarification the player can choose to avoid disruptive behavior.

5. Warnings - The GM should warn players about their continued disruptive behavior either at the table or by stepping away from the table with the player to privately address the issue(s).

6. Removal - If a player continues to disrupt play after all of the above has been employed, a GM may ask a player to excuse themselves from the game. Do not take this step lightly but, once the decision is made, be firm and call upon the event organizer, store owner, etc. for assistance if necessary.

Redward, I hope this helps address your concerns.

Cheliax

I think the suggestion of creating characters together is a good start to prevent all this to begin with. Its easy for us to sit here and say "Warn and Remove them", but once it gets to that point you have caused a lot of tension already and people now feel uncomfortable. If you have a clear understanding of what eachother intends befor you even begin, it can help to pre-empt any disagreements.

Communication is the key though, and I too have seen many introverts that come out of their shell just to play this game. Hopefully they can learn some social skills and the extroverts can be approacable and accepting.

Cheliax *

Nimon wrote:


I think the suggestion of creating characters together is a good start to prevent all this to begin with. Its easy for us to sit here and say "Warn and Remove them", but once it gets to that point you have caused a lot of tension already and people now feel uncomfortable. If you have a clear understanding of what eachother intends befor you even begin, it can help to pre-empt any disagreements.

Communication is the key though, and I too have seen many introverts that come out of their shell just to play this game. Hopefully they can learn some social skills and the extroverts can be approacable and accepting.

This is exactly what I ask players to do in home games, even if I'm not a GM. I imagine those smaller groups who play PFS do much of the same. But the nature of organized play means you will constantly play with players you've never met and may never see again.

Lantern Lodge

IMHO, both the players' group AND the GM can handle a PC's "jerk" behaviour.

PFS Organized Play doesn't mean "playing with characters that all perfectly obey to orders". Or at least, not in my vision of things. I've got a player on my table who plays an agressive dwarf, always looking for confrontation with NPCs and PCs, sometimes even close to ruining the whole scenario just because he wanted a beer.

I perfectly do accept those kinds of behaviours from the characters around my tables. Others players (and me as GM) have to deal with that Dwarf.
True, that character is not much appreciated by others members of his team. True, sometimes I wanted to tear the player apart for having almost ruined the whole game-session because he wanted to duel an Ice Troll in Irrisen.

One can argue that such a behaviour is not acceptable for a PFS Agent. That's absolutely true. But roleplay is also about letting some freedom in actions, and accepting the reactions.

Reactions could be various:

- The group could banish the character, asking the Venture-Captain to go on missions without him (basicaly removes the player from the players' group), with or without previous warning.

- A NPC could demand the PC to get sanctionned for his actions, leading to an In Game warning from the PC's Faction Leader.

- The group can find a way to deal with the special behaviour of their comrade. "Five beers if you just shut your mouth and walk straight to our goal and do what you're expected to do".

- etc..etc...

I think there could be a huge variety of PC's types, including disruptive ones. But there also a huge variety of possible reactions or ways to deal with them. I don't want my players to play only nice and obeying dogs, running from a place to another like they are commanded to do. Their behaviour is also a great part of my pleasure as a GM, they bring unexpected elements and force me to deal with things I hadn't planned.

Shadow Lodge **

Jiggy wrote:
To be a Pathfinder, you had to be approved after years of training. If your concept doesn't take that into account, you're breaking canon of the campaign.

There are exceptions to that, such as someone making an exceptional discovery or having in the field experience.

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the point of the original post, is to create discussion towards how do we encourage folks who like to play the fringe and lone wolf concepts, to create cooperative characters.

The answer is, show by example.

And constantly have your character say things like, "wow, you are so not a team player, how did you become a pathfinder again?"

**

I see two reasons for why people play disruptive characters:

The first is that they want the spotlight and find it easier to get the attention by behaving badly. That's a people problem. We can ask them to dial it back or we can disinvite them, but the root of the problem is beyond the scope of hobbyist gamers to solve.

The second is that the characters are either ill-conceived or poorly realized. I can have a character who is greedy. But if I play that greed by pickpocketing every NPC, I am not playing greedy, I am playing a kleptomaniac.

I can have a character who is short-tempered and prone to intimidation. But if instead of letting the group first try Diplomacy he immediately puts a dagger to the throat of the friendly bartender, I am playing a sociopath.

It's the difference between playing a character and a caricature.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules Subscriber

There's a lot of distance between a character who has some anti-social traits (quick temper, disrespects authority, ect.) and one that shows their behavior by attacking whatever sets them off. If you're irritable, you can always yell a bit at the source f irritation then storm off. If you disrespect authority, you can always find non-violent ways of showing that disrespect, like making funny faces behind the guard's back. There's plenty of ways to show that you're a jerk without randomly shiving NPC's.

Conversely, you can be Lawful Good without being obnoxious about it. A lot of times, I've had players and NPC's that take the LG alignment to as much an extreme as certain people playing CN. Paladins and Clerics lecturing on the morality of stealing can be just as disruptive, IMO, as the anti-social character picking fights. Sometimes, playing LG in a group means letting the party have free will to make their choice after you raise an objection or make a point. Don't belabor the point of 'doing the right thing', just let it go.

EXAMPLE AND SPOILER

Spoiler:
I play a LG Sorcerer with a Silver Dragon bloodline in PFS. The first adventure for him was Tide of Morning. After I cast Sleep on the woodsman that was transformed into a fey in the initial Encounter, I argued not to coup de grace him; it wasn't his fault that he was transformed. The discussion in the party lasted maybe 2 or 3 minutes Real Time and they agreed with me, but I was prepared to let the matter drop and just turn my head away as the deed was done.

In the end 'Don't Be A Jerk' applies just as much to Lawful characters as it does to Chaotic characters.

Shadow Lodge **

Yeah, in that situation it applies more to the party than your sorcerer. Just because you're arguing doesn't mean you're the jerk.

Silver Crusade **

runescryer wrote:


Conversely, you can be Lawful Good without being obnoxious about it. A lot of times, I've had players and NPC's that take the LG alignment to as much an extreme as certain people playing CN. Paladins and Clerics lecturing on the morality of stealing can be just as disruptive, IMO, as the anti-social character picking fights. Sometimes, playing LG in a group means letting the party have free will to make their choice after you raise an objection or make a point. Don't belabor the point of 'doing the right thing', just let it go.

EXAMPLE AND SPOILER

** spoiler omitted **

In the end 'Don't Be A Jerk' applies just as much to Lawful characters as it does to Chaotic characters.

I commend your willingness to work with others, and it is true, you should not play a caricature of LG. However, in the situation, arguing for the rightness is not being a Jerk. The alignment of the table doesn't determine weather an action is jerkish. If you're the good guy and everyone else is neutral, then you have the right to speak out and not cooperate if they wish to do a clearly evil action.

Silver Crusade **

Nimon wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
To be a Pathfinder, you had to be approved after years of training. If your concept doesn't take that into account, you're breaking canon of the campaign.
You still need to train with those you are operating with to be a cohesive unit. You also need to have a singular goal, and with so many factions with so many secondary objectives this is rarly the case.

Or the ones who don't play nice with others & threaten to sabotage missions with their behavior, while still Pathfinders, may find themselves no longer called upon for field work involving a team. Solo missions, or even better, desk jockey: next level, Dwarf Barbarian 3 / Bureaucrat 1.

Qadira ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

I had an IM conversation with another GM about this very issue tonight. We have a local player who enjoys causing a commotion, insulting NPCs and wrecking the party's mission. He finds it fun. Maybe he thinks it's a challenge to the GM, to see how we'll keep the adventure from going off the tracks. Maybe he's just not taking thins seriously; when the NPCs react badly, he tries to assert he was just kidding, that his character wouldn't have said such a thing or cast such a spell.

So, what do we do when he shows up for a local game day? So far, the answer is: sitting him at a table of veteran players who don't mind if he gets the party killed, and letting the chips fall where they may.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules Subscriber
Chris Mortika wrote:

I had an IM conversation with another GM about this very issue tonight. We have a local player who enjoys causing a commotion, insulting NPCs and wrecking the party's mission. He finds it fun. Maybe he thinks it's a challenge to the GM, to see how we'll keep the adventure from going off the tracks. Maybe he's just not taking thins seriously; when the NPCs react badly, he tries to assert he was just kidding, that his character wouldn't have said such a thing or cast such a spell.

So, what do we do when he shows up for a local game day? So far, the answer is: sitting him at a table of veteran players who don't mind if he gets the party killed, and letting the chips fall where they may.

I would suggest the local GM's asking him each time he comments if he's saying that in character. If he is, then the NPC's react as the GM sees fit. Also, a '3 strikes rule', where if he seems to be commenting to an NPC but says he's only joking OOC'ly 3 times, then all further comments are to be considered IC for the rest of the session. Again, have NPC's react accordingly.

Also, apply the same thing to him casting spells OOC'ly. Once he starts burning through his prepared spells because he's being a jerk, hopefully he'll get the hint.

Silver Crusade ****

Chris Mortika wrote:

I had an IM conversation with another GM about this very issue tonight. We have a local player who enjoys causing a commotion, insulting NPCs and wrecking the party's mission. He finds it fun. Maybe he thinks it's a challenge to the GM, to see how we'll keep the adventure from going off the tracks. Maybe he's just not taking thins seriously; when the NPCs react badly, he tries to assert he was just kidding, that his character wouldn't have said such a thing or cast such a spell.

So, what do we do when he shows up for a local game day? So far, the answer is: sitting him at a table of veteran players who don't mind if he gets the party killed, and letting the chips fall where they may.

I think that you have to talk to the player. This sounds to me like a very clear violation of the "don't be a jerk" rule. If there was such a player where I was playing I'd refuse to play with him as he's ruining my fun. I'd also tell the organizer.

If I were GM'ing him and it was even vaguely plausible I'd have the NPC react in such a way that it was obvious to the player that he'd gone over the line. In a con event I ran a couple of weekends ago, one character was being a complete jerk (first time I'd ever played with that player so I don't know if its his normal practice) so the NPC that was there to give important information stormed off. If I knew that it was part of the players pattern I'd have had the NPC go to the Venture Captain who'd have then kicked the character off the mission or, at the least, given him a very stern warnnig that his behaviour was unacceptable.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Lieutenant, Australia—Melbourne aka KestlerGunner

Playing a jerk is fine if you're a cooperative jerk. Look at what the collective wants. You can do whatever you like (but not evil) to make that collective aim be accomplished. You can be a jerk to NPCs but remember: PCs are sacred.

It's not that hard but people stumble over it all the time.

Shadow Lodge *

The way I see it is thus: The last of the three tenants states that you've agreed to work with the Pathfinder society, and be given a goal by a Venture-Captain, and that you'll have to deal with other pathfinders that may not follows your ideals. As a Pathfinder, you're required to get along with them and not cause problems. Assuming, of course, that you wish to continue being a Pathfinder.

For the record, I just started PFS play this weekend with a convention in my area, but I've played and GM'd for over 5 years now(moving from 3.5 to PF)But, the three tenants of Pathfinder Society are things I've used in my games for years.

Players can have problems, as long as it doesn't get in the way of the Society's defined rules. And I, for one, Will gladly warn a player that they're stepping over a line, give them a chance to retract the action and reword. If they don't, I'll have to ask them to leave.

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

KestlerGunner wrote:

Playing a jerk is fine if you're a cooperative jerk. Look at what the collective wants. You can do whatever you like (but not evil) to make that collective aim be accomplished. You can be a jerk to NPCs but remember: PCs are sacred.

It's not that hard but people stumble over it all the time.

My V-C Ryan Bolduan is a good example of this. His 12th level Wizard, Ethan, is a AA grade jerk head. But he begrudgingly cooperates with all his inferiors.

Shadow Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, California—San Diego

Chris Mortika wrote:

I had an IM conversation with another GM about this very issue tonight. We have a local player who enjoys causing a commotion, insulting NPCs and wrecking the party's mission. He finds it fun. Maybe he thinks it's a challenge to the GM, to see how we'll keep the adventure from going off the tracks. Maybe he's just not taking thins seriously; when the NPCs react badly, he tries to assert he was just kidding, that his character wouldn't have said such a thing or cast such a spell.

So, what do we do when he shows up for a local game day? So far, the answer is: sitting him at a table of veteran players who don't mind if he gets the party killed, and letting the chips fall where they may.

I have found it useful in situations where a player wants to cause trouble for the table to have their trouble causing actions only cause trouble for their PC. That is you channel the blow back from the event so that only they suffer the consequences. This can escalate up to their no longer being included in the game.

In character actions should have in character consequences.

One of those consequences could be that his or her PC is simply ignored by NPCs.

Lantern Lodge ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There are some basic courtesies involved in being a PFS player, especially if you're going to coventions. In the latter case you have a four hour time slot to complete a module before the table has to break up. You should not as a player having an inordinate amount of table time taken up just to deal with your foilbles, whethery they derive from you or your character.

This includes things like.

1.Doing all your communication in sign language.

2.Taking up 5 minutes to work out each of your castings of summon monster.

3.Setting yourself up with a charaacter concept that's inherently going to lead to problematic calls, especially one that does not subscribe to the inherent principle of cooperation between Pathfinders.

4.Arguing out a succession of corner case rulings.

If you're playing at a home session, what you can or should do is really up to you, and what your group will put up with before they toss you out the door.

*

Sometimes you have to handle disruptiveness out of character, just because it would take too much time to handle it in-character, and it would ruin the scenario. Even with a home game, you only have so much time.

For example, I had a PC who wanted to fight an entire town, including the mayor. Instead of combat, I narrated what happenned, which he didn't like it (and a part of me didn't like), but it saved the session (and the scenario) and didn't get anyone killed.

As a (long time) GM I've almost always had in-character consequences, but it's not always the best thing in PFS (or in campaigns I've found, because PVP can derail an entire campaign. And PVP isn't that hard if everyone is playing in-character).

Qadira ***

The only player whose actions I have total control over is me.
.
Most people are that way.

So the place I can start insuring that we have "Character Concepts" that allow us to "Play as a Team" is with myself.

I'll strive to insure that my PCs are:

1) Fun to play with.

2) As unique as I can make them.

3) Helpful to the other PCs (in little ways and big), for faction missions as well as for the overall adventure goal.

And I hope others do the same thing.

***** Venture-Lieutenant, Illinois—Carbondale aka Disturbed1

runescryer wrote:

I would suggest the local GM's asking him each time he comments if he's saying that in character. If he is, then the NPC's react as the GM sees fit. Also, a '3 strikes rule', where if he seems to be commenting to an NPC but says he's only joking OOC'ly 3 times, then all further comments are to be considered IC for the rest of the session. Again, have NPC's react accordingly.

Also, apply the same thing to him casting spells OOC'ly. Once he starts burning through his prepared spells because he's being a jerk, hopefully he'll get the hint.

I'm considering doing something like this with one of my locals who has a character concept that just doesnt seem to be meshing well. He wants to play it as a guy who hates the PFS and is only there for the money, so his character is constantly disrespectful of the Venture Captains and other PFS members who he interacts with.

If he keeps it up, I'm going to have venture Captains start refusing to give that character missions based on past behavior. Got yourself on Drandle Dreng's bad side? That takes away a whole lot of missions right there that you wont get to go on unless you shape up.

Qadira ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Or else Drang sends him on ... those missions. You know, the ones where the Venture Captains aren't too worried about selling the artifacts you find.

"Please consider this a letter of protest, objecting to the callous disregard for the saftey of agent [name redacted]. Under normal circumstances, I would muster some sort of righteous fury that [redacted] be sent to the Dalsine mansion ... essentially ... to his death. In this case, though, the Shadow Lodge agrees he was a real putz.

Much love,
G. Torch"

Andoran ***

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Seth Gipson wrote:
runescryer wrote:

I would suggest the local GM's asking him each time he comments if he's saying that in character. If he is, then the NPC's react as the GM sees fit. Also, a '3 strikes rule', where if he seems to be commenting to an NPC but says he's only joking OOC'ly 3 times, then all further comments are to be considered IC for the rest of the session. Again, have NPC's react accordingly.

Also, apply the same thing to him casting spells OOC'ly. Once he starts burning through his prepared spells because he's being a jerk, hopefully he'll get the hint.

I'm considering doing something like this with one of my locals who has a character concept that just doesnt seem to be meshing well. He wants to play it as a guy who hates the PFS and is only there for the money, so his character is constantly disrespectful of the Venture Captains and other PFS members who he interacts with.

If he keeps it up, I'm going to have venture Captains start refusing to give that character missions based on past behavior. Got yourself on Drandle Dreng's bad side? That takes away a whole lot of missions right there that you wont get to go on unless you shape up.

And NOT being woken up at 0200, and sent on "emergency" missions that VC Dreng has known about for months, is a punishment?

Nope, forcing him to play the PC at 1st level on slow track should be punishment enough. ;)

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Society® / General Discussion / Character Concepts and Playing as a Team 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.