RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
That's actually not a terrible idea. And used it that manner, it might save my cleric a scroll of breath of life. But using it as the alpha strike to every combat is just uncalled for.
I agree. And I suspect pathar (who started this thread) agrees. The issue is when a GM assumes that it will always be used in the latter form rather than the former - before it ever shows up at a table - and announces their intent to preemptively table-ban it.
As I understand it, that's what this thread was supposed to be about. Unfortunately, it looks like some folks are reading that as "you shouldn't deal with disruptive players" and are protesting against that instead of replying to the concern about banning things before a player even has a chance to show that they can behave themselves.
|
In a way, this is why I actually think "as needed" audits are the way to go. That way, at least with people who don't know each other, no one gets off on the wrong foot.
But even in the case where something is obvious, its important to not be a jerk GM. I don't like druids, but I would never make s!*! up or bend rules to "teach them a lesson". That's just lame.
Venture-Agent, Colorado—Colorado Springs
|
However, if I turn up to play a game with something written on my character sheet which someone else has intentionally and repeatedly employed in a way which was disrupted, the GM has no right to assume I will do the same and is wrong to treat me as if I already had.I think that's exactly what this thread's about.
I think so too, but... muddled a bit.
So far I can't find anyone who actually says that if I show up with something someone else disrupted the game with then my something would be banned from play at their table. I've found a number who said something that can be interpreted that way, but unless I've missed something no one's actually confirmed they'd ban me or my character's something unless I'd personally and previously demonstrated a willingness to disrupt the game.
|
And what sparked this thread was purchased Bison, which there is rarely a reason to have it in the game at very low levels if not to dominate the scenario.To be fair, someone might want it just as a back-pocket option in case things went south.
For instance, there's been discussion of a pair of Fiend Sight tieflings who sideline the other players by using deeper darkness when they're the only ones who can see through it. Meanwhile, I've considered the idea of possibly making a Fiend Sight tiefling ninja who carries oils of darkness (both deeper and regular), but would use it only as a "trump card" if things were going south (or, if I happened to be at an all-darkvision table, then party time!).
So if someone mentions on the boards that they're making a tiefling with 2x Fiend Sight and carrying oils of deeper darkness, no one knows whether they intend to use it disruptively like was described upthread, or as a panic button with the party's approval.
Thats a fair statement. So if i ask the bison guy if hes planning to use it willy nilly and he says yes, what then? I have done him the courtesy of asking first and he proves my assumption correct. Now what?
|
|
These people need to get a grip. 75% of the time the GMs job is to get stomped in PFS. Period. That's just the way it is. The GMs don't write these scenarios, so why take it personally? I prefer to judge my GMing on flow of the scenario and *lack of adjudication mistakes*. I can't help if the authors put in fights that can't stand up to even one or two power gamers.How do these GMs discover the build before the game starts? Seriously?Here on the messageboards: someone mentions seeing someone using X build/item/tactic, or posts their build to ask for advice, or asks whether an option from a new book has any special rules in PFS, or whatever; and every once in a while, a GM (and as the key part of pathar's complaint, sometimes a 4+ star GM and/or a VO) announces that if anyone "brings crap like that to MY table" they can expect XYZ (whether that's threatening to walk, booting the player, "interpreting" a rule in a way that nullifies part or all of the build, or whatever).
They haven't encountered a disruptive player, they've encountered an idea on the messageboards, and have declared in advance how they'd respond to its presence at one of their tables.
No our job is to provide a fun time, adjudicate the rules, and ultimately lose. Getting stomped by ridiculousness is not part of it. And it isnt losing i take personally, but rather rude people wasting my time for 4 or 5 hours.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Thats a fair statement. So if i ask the bison guy if hes planning to use it willy nilly and he says yes, what then? I have done him the courtesy of asking first and he proves my assumption correct. Now what?
If it's determined that he intends to use it disruptively, then you tell him not to (explaining why, of course). If, with full knowledge that it would ruin the fun of the rest of the table, he still sticks with his intent to use it disruptively, you boot him from the table.
Basically, you handle it just like everyone's been saying, just after determining disruptive intent. I really think that's all this thread is meant to be about: making sure those measures aren't taken prematurely.
|
|
Let's not toss insults. Please.
It's not an insult. I legitimately couldn't tell if you were not understanding what I was saying, or trying to bait me into explaining myself over and over.
I still can't, actually, so I suppose I'm a sucker for playing along.
However, if I turn up to play a game with something written on my character sheet which someone else has intentionally and repeatedly employed in a way which was disrupted, the GM has no right to assume I will do the same and is wrong to treat me as if I already had.
Yes. YES. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING. That's why, when I started the thread, I said "someone is bound to declare that whatever legal ruling is being discussed will not be allowed at THEIR table ... I recognize that people like to make sweeping statements here on the Interwebs, but this is where we gather to discuss the rules, and making statements like 'rules be damned, I won't stand for it' is both counterproductive to good conversation and frightening to newcomers."
I am not talking about dealing with disruptive players. I am talking about people on the boards declaring that they won't allow newly legal things at their PFS tables, which is what I said in the first place.
So far I can't find anyone who actually says that if I show up with something someone else disrupted the game with then my something would be banned from play at their table. I've found a number who said something that can be interpreted that way, but unless I've missed something no one's actually confirmed they'd ban me or my character's something unless I'd personally and previously demonstrated a willingness to disrupt the game.
I provided five separate instances in which people said exactly that in the first post. I did not provide links because I did not want to be seen as naming names and/or being accusatory to individuals, but I made sure there was enough information for people to find these examples if they needed to. Some pretty basic searching will turn them up.
And, even if you absolutely refuse to consider searching for some of these examples using the information I provided, one of them came on this thread to defend his statement, confirming that, how did you put it, "they'd ban you or your character's something" regardless of whether or not they had ever seen you at their table, but based rather on whether they considered your entirely legal "something" appropriate or not.
...
But there's surely no way you couldn't know that all at this point.
You really are just screwing with me, aren't you?
Sir, I commend you.
|
|
So Pathar if ive been burnt most times out of several, running into an issue, do i continue to give the benefit of the doubt?
Can you see that constant frustration at things like this can lead to a human being making an emotional statement filled with passion?
Can you see see that frustration leading to emotional snap decisions at the table?
Im not saying it is completely correct, but i guarantee that 90% of these decisions are born of frustration. And if the GM feels impotent to solve their frustration and they keep getting burnt, are you willing to allow the consequences of that?
The GM is likely to burn out and/or quit losing our community a rare and valuable resource. I have seen it happen many times and nearly is about to with a former V-C who is almost 5 stars.
Sometimes these vast sweeping statements is a vent of that frustration with no weight of actual intent behind it.
These threads and arguments just exacerbates that frustration.
I know not your intent, yet thats the consequence of your crusade here.
Thats a fair statement. So if i ask the bison guy if hes planning to use it willy nilly and he says yes, what then? I have done him the courtesy of asking first and he proves my assumption correct. Now what?And what sparked this thread was purchased Bison, which there is rarely a reason to have it in the game at very low levels if not to dominate the scenario.To be fair, someone might want it just as a back-pocket option in case things went south.
For instance, there's been discussion of a pair of Fiend Sight tieflings who sideline the other players by using deeper darkness when they're the only ones who can see through it. Meanwhile, I've considered the idea of possibly making a Fiend Sight tiefling ninja who carries oils of darkness (both deeper and regular), but would use it only as a "trump card" if things were going south (or, if I happened to be at an all-darkvision table, then party time!).
So if someone mentions on the boards that they're making a tiefling with 2x Fiend Sight and carrying oils of deeper darkness, no one knows whether they intend to use it disruptively like was described upthread, or as a panic button with the party's approval.
If it's determined that he intends to use it disruptively, then you tell him not to (explaining why, of course). If, with full knowledge that it would ruin the fun of the rest of the table, he still sticks with his intent to use it disruptively, you boot him from the table.
Basically, you handle it just like everyone's been saying, just after determining disruptive intent. I really think that's all this thread is meant to be about: making sure those measures aren't taken prematurely.
I agree with Jiggy here. You deal with the disruptive player, not the build, AC or perceived abusive potential.
Reading the other thread, I immediately wanted to have a PC with a bison - not to have the bison trample everything in sight, but because it will be faster when my platemail wearing PC is on top of his barded bison than if his mount had been a horse. Light load for a horse is 258 lbs vs 1038 lbs for a bison.
Of course the bison mount can also be used as a safety feature, to charge/trample the opponents on the way out, with the unconscious bodies of several of the party draped over it.
From reading the other posts in both this thread and the Battle Cattle thread, I have formed the opinion that both sides are closer than they appear, neither wanting disruptive players from ruining the game for the other players or the GMs.
I do think that the VOs and high star GMs need to be somewhat diplomatic on how they respond to rulings, whether they like them or not. As their standing, deliberate or not, can influence many others in negative ways if handled badly.
In this case, I think a better response would have been:
"Some builds, equipment, pets, and/or options lend themselves to abuse more easily than others. For those items, I keep a closer watch on the PCs/players, will ask them to tone down their activities to ensure that everyone is having fun, and if need be, will ask a disruptive player to leave if they continue to be disruptive."
Isn't that a main goal of PFS, that everyone have fun?
So Pathar if ive been burnt most times out of several, running into an issue, do i continue to give the benefit of the doubt?
Out of curiosity Andrew, is it the same players doing the burning?
Yes, actually I do think that you need to continue to give the benefit of the doubt if you haven't GMed for the person who may be inadvertently stepping into an issue/problem that has caused you problems in the past.
Now, if you have GMed for this player before, and they always are abusive/disruptive, then I feel that the "don't be a jerk" rule should be enforced.
This is a different issue and not relevant to this topic.
GMs in PFS should not be doing that. Period.
If players are engaging in an arms race becauseof this, thats an entirely different and solvable situation.
Dont play with that GM. As a coordinator, if they continue after being told to stop repeatedly, then i dont let them GM for me. This is an easy fix for a community.
The root cause we are specifically discussing is the player who decides to engage in jerk behavior that in this specific case is them hiding behind RAW, to ruin the fun of everyone but themselves (and potentially a cohort or two).
This happens more than theoretically in the PFS community as a whole.
This isnt just some wonky build, spring loaded wrist sheaths, dual-double barreled pistol builds or bison. This is what the player(s) choose to do with those things. I try not to judge a build or purchase choice before i see it in play.
But if a player ruins the experience for the rest of the table, then something has to be done, or the health of your local community, the whole PFS community, general player retention, and more importantly GM retention is in danger.
If you argue that allowing any player, regardless of whether they make enjoyment ruining choices, to play any legal grouping of options, thexn that attitude actually adds to the problem.
Whether you feel it is peer pressure or ostracizing, it is the community`s responsibility to police rudeness, not coddle it.
Dont get me wrong. I dont put up with bullying or snootiness either.
But shame on you for arguing that just because a group of legal build choices is legal, that a GM and other players just have to grin and bear rudeness.
As our collective community grows, this problem is becoming very prevalent. And GMs are increasingly getting burnt by it. So dont blame the GM or V-O for trying to be proactive with the constantly recurring issues.
You do have to grin and bear it or not run the module. I am not saying the player are right, but you are wrong also if you break a PFS rule. Just like a player would have to do with a disruptive GM, you follow your chain of command. By you breaking the rules as a VO or GM, then you are setting an example for others to break the rules.
Now this is underhanded, and not much better than breaking the rules, but playing a module high enough so they can't participate, and then starting the "actual" module once they leave is an option. It also does not break any rules that I know of. I know some wont like that idea, but it was suggested on these boards a long time ago..
Im arguing that a GM has every right to ensure the fun at there table for the majority and if that means banning a choice that 95% of their experience leads to rudeness, they have my blessing.
The issue i think those arguing against me and others who at least partially agree with me have is rooted in fear. Where does a GM draw the line? Thats a valid concern. But we cant have that discussion until the vocal minority community here can come to some sort of consensus that GMs do have some level of authority to police rude build and purchase choices.
You have the right to ensure fun.
You don't have the right to make up your own rules.<---FACT.
|
|
I don't see how this affects the GM as much as the other players. GMs are there to narrate a scenario designed by a party not at the table. If the war cow kills all the NPCs trivially, that ruins it for the other players, not the GM, since those NPCs were going to die anyway by design. Why GMs take this stuff personally I have no idea. Maybe I'm just used to running a lot of season 0 and 1 content, but I'm used to getting my face beat as the GM. I've had BBEG's not land a single point of damage. This, to me, is a failing of the authors, not my ability to GM.
Sometimes these vast sweeping statements is a vent of that frustration with no weight of actual intent behind it.
These threads and arguments just exacerbates that frustration.
Then saying so instead of arguing the point is all that needs to be done.
With all of my argument aside I think GM's need more power. I don't think arbitrarily disallowing rules is the answer, but kicking players from the table should be one.
In order to make sure this is not based on personal reasons the GM should report his actions and why*. Yeah the argument will be made that it is more work for the GM, but I don't think that many people are jerks, so it should not be an issue.
*I understand a person may lie, but having to write statements may make the person think twice about kicking someone from a table for personal reasons.
If the problem is the rule in question such as allowing bison at level 2, then making suggestions to Mike Brock should be an option.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And what if the root cause is a jack ass GM who fudges the HP and AC of his guys
Step 1: Review scenario
Step 2: Discuss situation with GM. Ask why the AC's you are reading don't match the AC you remember.Step 3: If still unhappy, report GM to Game Day or Convention Coordinator
Step 3.5: Report GM to Venture Officer
Step 4: Email Mike.Brock@paizo.com with GM's name, PFS # (it's on your chronicle), and a brief description of what happened and how you've handled it so far.
Step 5: Profit!
|
|
Don't you think that 1200 GP/fight is a bit steep to participate in the fight?
And most parties don't have access to heightened light anyway.
Can people just leave hyperbole out of the discussion? Deeper Darkness doesn't happen every fight. It doesn't happen every scenario. Spending 1200 gp for an insurance against one of the most devastating effects in the game? Priceless.
Of course you could go cheaper and just buy an oil of daylight so your normal lighting conditions are restored around you in a 60-ft radius.
|
I have made the pilgrimage to PaizoCon, and supped on the blood of the PC. I am ready.I promise to kill your PC fairly.Ah, well spoken my young padawan.
It is most unfortunate that I could not be present for this step in your path, but stay strong and follow our beliefs, and some day you will complete your journey.
|
For the record, if *MY* BBEG(irl) died in one hit at my table, I'd punch that player in their face, light their character sheet on fire and report them as dead (both the character to Paizo and the player to the Police). /s*Your* BBEG didn't die in one hit at my table, it took two. I made sure to knock out his teeth for you while yelling, "That's for Kyle Baird!"
In all fairness, it was two critical hits in a row; one from an archer and my Hellknight using Vital Strike (and I barely dropped the sucker). The ranger may have been a power build, but I don't think anyone would call out my Hellknight for being overly powerful.
I still think this was karma for your horrible rolling with the earlier encounter. When Tim hit it with slow. I almost felt bad for you. And then I killed it. I got better.
|
|
Don't you think that 1200 GP/fight is a bit steep to participate in the fight?
And most parties don't have access to heightened light anyway.
Can people just leave hyperbole out of the discussion? Deeper Darkness doesn't happen every fight. It doesn't happen every scenario. Spending 1200 gp for an insurance against one of the most devastating effects in the game? Priceless.
Of course you could go cheaper and just buy an oil of daylight so your normal lighting conditions are restored around you in a 60-ft radius.
It happens every fight when your own group is the one doing it.
|
|
I don't see how this affects the GM as much as the other players. GMs are there to narrate a scenario designed by a party not at the table. If the war cow kills all the NPCs trivially, that ruins it for the other players, not the GM, since those NPCs were going to die anyway by design. Why GMs take this stuff personally I have no idea. Maybe I'm just used to running a lot of season 0 and 1 content, but I'm used to getting my face beat as the GM. I've had BBEG's not land a single point of damage. This, to me, is a failing of the authors, not my ability to GM.
I enjoy GMing... moreso when the players at the table obviously are having fun too.
If the majority of players arent having fun, then neither do i.
Additionally, it isnt about winning as a GM or an adversarial attitude. I would wager that most players I GM for would agree that i am not adversarial.
That being said, i also love being a story teller. And most of the telling points get lost if a Bison solos the encounters.
|
|
Additionally, it isnt about winning as a GM or an adversarial attitude. I would wager that most players I GM for would agree that I am not adversarial.
That is true. I honestly believe that you would have felt bad if the BBEG would have been able to CDG me yesterday, had I not rolled that nat-20 on my Will save to get out of the Hold Person.
And I am pretty sure you're still feeling bad about engineering the death of Juju! Just because your out is that it was Valeros that killed her, not your NPC, doesn't mean it was any less your fault!
EDIT: Just teasing, Andy! I really enjoy playing in games you run!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a question, that may or may not be valid in light of the amount of alcohol in my system:
What type of player brings a herd of bison to the table? Is it the type of player that cooperates with his teammates or one that usually tries to 'break the game' and solo encounters? In my experience, those that try to 'break the game' by running such options have been jerks, and I do not like to play with them or run them at a table. An argument could be made that the majority of players who build encounter-breaking builds are typically those you don't want to play/GM with.
There comes a point where a GM has been burned too many times by a single build/option that they 'know' no matter who the player is, it won't be fun for anyone to play with them. At that point they generally have two options:
1) Work with Mike B to try and get that option banned (Musket Master with Double Hackbut anyone?)
2) Choose not to GM a table with that option present (Anyone here a Bison Herder?)
The last option of 'Grin and Bear It' isn't valid because it WILL lead to GM burnout. If you GM too much (without playing) or run players who play legally "broken builds" everytime you WILL want to stop GMing.
Andrew Christian has been very vocal against builds that may encounter 'Table Variation'. It isn't because he wants to be right, or he wants to ruin someone's fun. Far from it. It's because he (like myself) doesn't want players to get in a situation where the character they've been playing becomes unplayable due to such variation.
The same logic applies to these 'encounter-breaking' characters. If you don't want to burn out your GM or your fellow players, don't play these types of builds. It may be legal, it may be fun for you, but this is a TEAM game, with the GM being a part of that team. Please, think of more than your own enjoyment when you sit at a table.
|
|
"Please, think of more than your own enjoyment when you sit at a table."
I think this really needs an engineering solution, not a people solution, because I know this type of gamer well. They will not voluntarily stop. Ever. Like the Terminator. They don't think they are being jerks, therefore, the "don't be a jerk rule" doesn't apply. Just ask them.
|
...snipping to what caught my eye....
... Alchemist throwing 5 bombs at 5d6+20 a round ....
snipping other stuff.....wait... what?
I've got a 10th level Alchemist that can do 5d6+10, maybe 5d6 +11 with Point Blank Shot. so this causes me to ask two questions...1) How does he get +20? Mind Chemist maybe?
2) 5 bombs? My guy has Rapid Shot and Rapid Bomb and a BAB of > +6 so he get's 3. Maybe 4 with a Haste. How is he getting 5 bombs?
Also throwing 5 bombs a round means he is going to run out fairly quickly.
I am also having a hard time seeing 5d6+10 or 20 being really very impressive at level 10. In fact I would consider that sort of damage output pretty terrible. A sorcerer or wizard throwing a simple non metamagicked Fireball is doing the same sort of average damage and that's probably one of the worst options available to them.
realizing that it's 5d6+10 more than once in a round... so for example my PC throws 3 bombs for a total of 15d6+30. The splash radius is 10 feet (explosive bomb) and does 15 HP x3 (3 reflex saves for half). As he also has Sticky Bomb, it does 15 HP x3 to the target the next round... or 15d6+30 pluse 45 HP the next round. (Thats an average of 82.5 the first round if he hits all three touch attacks, plus 45 on the second round).
And you're right, he burns thru his bombs pretty fast if he's doing this...
|
|
Actually, it came up in discussion as someone mentioning a couple of players he's had the... misfortune of playing with that played tieflings with the feats necessary to see in deeper darkness (presumably Fiend Sight, taken twice), who then cast deeper darkness themselves in every combat encounter, so that the enemy couldn't see.
In this case, the Elixir of Darksight (and the Elixir of Darkvision) came up as something to ask those players to provide the rest of the party, so that they could participate in the encounter. Essentially, if you're going to do something that will render us useless, then it'd be polite for you to give us the means to get around that.
So in this case, it wasn't hyperbole; two players were essentially forcing their party to actually need to pay for those consumables to be able to do anything, at all.
Once again, carry oils of daylight. Use it on yourself and walk into their deeper darkness.
|
|
I'd never exclude someone because of their annoying tactics... what I WOULD do is alter the scenario a bit if what they are doing is outlandish and ruining the fun of everyone else at the table... "OK, you broke the scenario, but I don't think you're gonna like how you broke it"
Their Bison would probably attract the attention of some nefarious cattle thieves, or a bovine hating breed of goblins with animal bane arrows...
In fact, Most PFS scenarios have completion goals that a marauding Cow of death may ruin, and I'd warn the player about this after the first encounter... continued abuse of it might just fail the whole mission... Can you imagine this happening in The Disappeared? Blakros Matrimony? Fortress of the Nail?
But this won't happen in our lodge, I'm very lucky to have players who for the most part act reasonably, and self-police Munchkins in their ranks... My condolences to those who have players in their lodge who have not been schooled in the ways of teamwork and RPGing for grownups, Maybe a heart to heart with them is in order instead of throwing up your hands or booting them.
Also, ask the player to GM and then trounce the heck out of his monsters with your own Munchkin, you'll feel better...
|
|
This SHOULD work, depending on the judge.
It wouldn't (need to) work at my table...
Me: "Anyone have any extra weird tactics or abilities I should be aware of before we start?"
DD Twins: "Me and my brah like to cast DD and use our fiendsight to stab the crap out of the enemies."
Me: "Awesome! DD is a 60-ft radius, right? So what happens to the rest of your party?"
Then depending on their answer it can go one of two ways:
1) Awesome, thanks for considering the rest of your party.
2) GTFO [insert followup discussion on you can't tell me I can't play in PFS if my character is legal where I tell you you're wrong and STFU]
|
|
In fact, Most PFS scenarios have completion goals that a marauding Cow of death may ruin, and I'd warn the player about this after the first encounter... continued abuse of it might just fail the whole mission... Can you imagine this happening in The Disappeared? Blakros Matrimony? Fortress of the Nail?
King of Zog attend Disappeared party! No problems!