"Well not at MY table"


Pathfinder Society

301 to 350 of 796 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
5/5

pathar wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
Is there someone in here advocating banning a player based on a certain build or tactic without first discussing it with them first?

YES. YES THERE IS. THAT IS WHAT

THE THREAD

IS ABOUT.

WHY DO I HAVE TO KEEP POINTING THIS OUT TO PEOPLE

Yep, all caps with no link sure helps make your point, especially after the thread reaches 300 posts and people aren't likely to read through them all first.

3/5

nosig wrote:
I have yet to see a judge ban someone from playing at a table because of his PC build or tactics.

I won't mention names or specific cases, but I have definitely seen this behavior displayed at other players at my table. I can recall at least four such instances. One particularly public discussion (not in my original list of four) was about whether an online GM would be allowed to ban summoners from publicly announced tables or not.

This conversation has not only come up before, but it comes up more and more frequently. It is surely a response to frustration by GMs, but that does not make it right.

Furthermore, a number of players think that since the overall scenario difficulty has increased, they need to avail themselves of powerful legal options in order to survive. Whether or not that conclusion by players is true, it muddies the waters about the intent of a particular build option present on a character sheet. No GM should be making a priori judgements about such items on a character sheet.

5/5

Kyle Baird wrote:
Yep, all caps with no link sure helps make your point, especially after the thread reaches 300 posts and people aren't likely to read through them all first.

Five examples are given in the FIRST POST.

The progenitor of one of those examples doubled down on the FIRST PAGE OF THE THREAD.

Nobody here is your secretary. If you want to participate in a discussion thread without reading even the fundamentals, don't be terribly surprised if your question ("Wait, really?") is met with frustration ("YES REALLY WHAT DO YOU THINK WE HAVE 300 POSTS ABOUT").

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Kyle Baird wrote:
pathar wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
Is there someone in here advocating banning a player based on a certain build or tactic without first discussing it with them first?

YES. YES THERE IS. THAT IS WHAT

THE THREAD

IS ABOUT.

WHY DO I HAVE TO KEEP POINTING THIS OUT TO PEOPLE

Yep, all caps with no link sure helps make your point, especially after the thread reaches 300 posts and people aren't likely to read through them all first.

To be fair, you're something like the fourth person in the thread to ask some variation of "Yeah, but are GMs actually doing that?", so the caps probably result from the same thing to which Andy attributes the table-ban proclamations themselves: pent-up frustration from being burned multiple times.

As for the lack of links, he's said that he avoided providing them in the OP so as not to be "naming names". I don't imagine it would have gone down well if he'd listed XYZ people and their posts and told them to stop. But now that you're explicitly requesting it, I'm sure he'd be happy to provide links (I'm guessing).

4/5

Todd Morgan wrote:

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?

1.) It could be someone recently admitted to or graduated from NDSU. School pride is a funny thing, it's why any of my characters who can get away with it are decked out in Orange and Blue, for example.

2.) Mechanically, if you're running a medium cavalier you've only got 30-50ish pounds left over after a saddle and yourself before your mount is encumbered. As mentioned, riding something that can haul 1,000 pounds lets you wear armor in the levels before your mount gets enough strength to carry you, your weapons, your armor, and the universally expected consumables.

3.) A player who had a well balanced, "Lamplighter" style PC in a group of the same, that got murdered horribly by one of those random tough encounters that pops up on occasion and wants to be able to handle it the next time he runs into that. However, he doesn't want to play a one trick pony like an archer fighter or a barbarian, or built he second character as a one trick pony and realized it's not so fun, so he gave his third character a nuclear option to be used in case of emergency.

3.b.) Anyone whose first experience with PFS was First Steps followed by Thornkeep and thinks that's the standard danger level.

4.) You can't see the roleplaying opportunities? I can totally see a gnome cavalier: "Well, to be honest, Pony was always a bit of a city boy. But after that incident with the goblins and ... (he looks over at his mount and shudders,) well, we don't talk about that. But since then he's been downright agoraphobic, he's fine in dungeons, but he starts to get skittish any time he's more than about 20 feet away from a safe place to hide. We're working through it, he's in weekly sessions with the local druid, but it takes time and patience. So until Pony's got his hooves back under him I've got to ride Bessy here whenever we're outside town."

There are non gamebreaking uses. Sure, jerks will probably use the option more often than cool people, but banning it outright will catch the cool people as well. That's a call Mike Brock should make. As long as it's a legal option, the GM at the table should deal with the jerks for being jerks reactively, not blanket ban legal options proactively.

Alchemist Digression:

nosig wrote:


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?

A 9th level alchemist can start with an int 18, +2 for level bumps, +4 for a headband and +4 for cognatogen. That's 28 int, +9 damage. Targeted Bomb Admixture doubles that to +18. Add +1 for Point Blank Shot and +1 for Throw Anything and you get 5d6+20 for 9 rounds a pop. Honestly, I was lowballing with +20, I see level 4 alchemists doing 3d6+14 when they pop Targetted Bomb Admixture and Cognatogen.

5 attacks are Haste, TWF, Rapid Shot, Base attack and Iterative. (I wasn't sure if you could use many shot with bombs, or it would be 6.) (If TWF has been changed to not apply to thrown weapons, I missed that ruling, but I'm pretty sure it's a ninja + shuriken thing.)

BAB is +6, figure +4 for dex (base 14, +4 belt), +1 bless, +1 Haste, +1 Weapon Focus, -2 TWF, -2 Rapid Shot = +9/+9/+9/+9/+4 ranged touch within 30'.

Not great, but since a lot of really nasty bad guys are big, they don't have very good touch AC. Adult dragons are scary CR 10-14 opponents with touch ACs around 8, so you're hitting a season highlight enemy on a 4 even on your iterative attack for an average of 41 damage a pop. The median touch AC for a CR 12 monster is 11, so he's hitting on a 2 against half the possible enemies he can encounter as a BBEG. (Hmm, Deadly Aim might actually be worth taking.) In PFS he'll have 18 bombs a day without spending any extra feats, but will he really need more?

It won't break the scenario every time, but neither will a bison. But when it does break the scenario, it can turn an epic situation into a non-event.

3/5

Andrew Christian wrote:

I get your point, and everyone else's here, that GM's should not be stereotyping.

But what you are not getting, is that the frustration of seeing the same thing over, and over, creates the stereotypes.

I am absolutely getting that. You're trying to explain why stereotypes exist, and how they are created. I'm trying to explain that regardless of their basis in experience (or not), stereotypes are unfair, and acting on them is jerk behavior.

There are a number of real-life social issues that boil down to stereotypes. I won't mention them, but I'm sure that you can see how marginalizing a person is clearly unfair. Judge a person by that person, or don't GM at all. To me, it's black and white.

Andrew Christian wrote:
We aren't talking about banning Witches, because they are boring to GM.

I have had a GM refuse to run for a witch with the slumber hex, on the premise that any player (not just that player) who chooses that hex option is a jerk and ruins the game for everyone else. I've seen similar behavior regarding summoners and zen archers.

The details of the build choice that earns the ban-hammer from a specific GM is not at issue here. The concept of stereotyping is at issue here.

Andrew Christian wrote:

We are talking about EVERY time I see a purchased pet (tiger, bison, whatever) at Tier 1-5 scenarios, the player uses it willy nilly, and it breaks the scenario. So the next time someone brings a Bison or a Tiger to my table, my initial reaction is GOING to be, "NO!"

Now, would that be entirely appropriate? Probably not. Might it actually happen if my frustration level is at a certain point? Maybe. I'm human.

If you temper your initial reaction by talking to the player, then great. If you cannot contain your frustration enough to be fair to another human being, then please don't GM. (This is a general 'you', not a specific one.)

5/5 *****

Kyle Baird wrote:
I invite you to play at my table for Rebel's Ransom, The Heresy of Man series, Eyes of the Ten.

I would take your Eyes of the Ten bet. The first two parts are laughably easy, the second part in particular in just hopeless against any half way competent party of level 12 characters.

5/5

Anyone else here have their eyes glaze over when people start throwing around terms like these?

Makes me laugh every time.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

andreww wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
I invite you to play at my table for Rebel's Ransom, The Heresy of Man series, Eyes of the Ten.
I would take your Eyes of the Ten bet. The first two parts are laughably easy, the second part in particular in just hopeless against any half way competent party of level 12 characters.

If my halfling rogue doesn't make it when I get him there, I'm blaming you.

5/5

andreww wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
I invite you to play at my table for Rebel's Ransom, The Heresy of Man series, Eyes of the Ten.
I would take your Eyes of the Ten bet. The first two parts are laughably easy, the second part in particular in just hopeless against any half way competent party of level 12 characters.

Thanks for your opinion. Our party took over 800 damage in one encounter in Part 1, but we must have been incompetent. We also had to double breath of life someone in Part 2, but again, I'm sure a "normal" party wouldn't have any trouble.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Joko PO wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:


Lets put it another way. If I didn't have fun as a PFS player and PFS GM, I would never have become a V-L. I would have turned it down when offered.

If your estimation is that as a V-L (a volunteer mind you) that I have to just not have fun because its my job, then you do it. You GM 110 tables like I have, and tell me that 10% that aren't fun I should just deal with it because I'm a V-L.

I am sorry I did not realize that I must run a certain number of tables for my opinion to be valid. Your statement is a fallacy called (ironically, or maybe not) Argument from Authority.

Never said you had to have a certain number. But the more you GM, the more experience you have with seeing problem issues.

If only 10% of the tables are problem tables, then I've seen 11, and you've seen a maximum of 5, maybe 6. That means I've roughly seen twice as many problems as you have.

That isn't saying your opinion isn't valid.

Its saying that my empirical evidence is stronger than yours.

5/5

nosig wrote:
I have seen A LOT of people on the boards say they would ban something from their table. Often the people saying ".. not at MY table" are VOs or multi-star judges. I assume these individuals are different in person... I like think the best of the people I play with.

My boards participation is spotty at best. Got some links for me Mr. Ison? I've still never seen a single person actually make a statement like that unless the build/combo/tactic was questionable.

Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Pathar,

You speak in generalities in the first post, without any links. I understand your frustration, there are certain VO's who I could not feel comfortable playing my PCs at their tables, based on what I read.

What Kyle is asking for are the specific links to the comments. The most recurring example I can recall (with no links, sorry) is the "Player X annoys me for build/personality/smell reasons. I therefore declare I'm not running here today, and am making a private game at my place, everyone except player X is invited."

MAybe I'm less diplomatic, but I would rather say "No, you've been an aft at my table, I'm not GMing for you. Problems? here's the address for the VC," then engage in passive aggressive "That table's closed, everyone except him come to my new shiny table!"

5/5

Okay, maybe I should have just opened with links. Here are the two statements from Friday that prompted me to start this thread.

4-Star GM, regarding the new SLA FAQs: "I have no intention of allowing this at any table I run, at home, or in PFS. Simply Ludicrous."

VL, regarding pet bison: "As a GM I would have explained to the player that while rules legal, I would only allow characters that had animal companions as a class ability have their animal contribute in combat."

In both cases, the bolding is mine.

Would people like me to go digging for some older examples to demonstrate that this is an ongoing trend, or are the modern examples sufficient to satisfy the folks who are having trouble believing me?

5/5

Jiggy wrote:

To be fair, you're something like the fourth person in the thread to ask some variation of "Yeah, but are GMs actually doing that?", so the caps probably result from the same thing to which Andy attributes the table-ban proclamations themselves: pent-up frustration from being burned multiple times.

As for the lack of links, he's said that he avoided providing them in the OP so as not to be "naming names". I don't imagine it would have gone down well if he'd listed XYZ people and their posts and told them to stop. But now that you're explicitly requesting it, I'm sure he'd be happy to provide links (I'm guessing).

So it's still just someone saying they've seen or heard people saying "this legal [thing] won't be allowed at my table?" I've been to a couple of conventions, played and run a few PFS tables, and read the boards from time to time and still never heard of such a thing. It would be of great interest to see such a thing.

5/5

pathar wrote:
Would people like me to go digging for some older examples to demonstrate that this is an ongoing trend, or are the modern examples sufficient to satisfy the folks who are having trouble believing me?

Why would any trust anyone's word on the internet (I am a french model after all). I don't expect anyone to take anything I say as the truth if I'm not willing to back it up with evidence. Anything else is simply opinion (which can be valuable as well, especially when based off extensive experience).

5/5

Kyle Baird wrote:

Anyone else here have their eyes glaze over when people start throwing around terms like these?

Makes me laugh every time.

Only when applied incorrectly, which is frequently the case here on the boards. :P

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Rubia wrote:


Andrew Christian wrote:

We are talking about EVERY time I see a purchased pet (tiger, bison, whatever) at Tier 1-5 scenarios, the player uses it willy nilly, and it breaks the scenario. So the next time someone brings a Bison or a Tiger to my table, my initial reaction is GOING to be, "NO!"

Now, would that be entirely appropriate? Probably not. Might it actually happen if my frustration level is at a certain point? Maybe. I'm human.

If you temper your initial reaction by talking to the player, then great. If you cannot contain your frustration enough to be fair to another human being, then please don't GM. (This is a general 'you', not a specific one.)

Again, I'm human. Every human has a breaking point: a last straw.

And many times, those human beings don't know when that breaking point will happen, or when the last straw will kick their behind.

As such, human beings often will snap or lash out when the breaking point hits.

And often that point is while they are in the middle of GM'ing a table.

The problem is not GM's being human beings.

The problem is a certain subset of players thinking they are entitled to be selfish to the point of ruining the play experience for other players, and the community as a whole allowing it to happen.

My proof that the community allows it, is that threads like "Battle Cattle" and this one keep popping up.

5/5

Kyle Baird wrote:
pathar wrote:
Would people like me to go digging for some older examples to demonstrate that this is an ongoing trend, or are the modern examples sufficient to satisfy the folks who are having trouble believing me?
Why would any trust anyone's word on the internet (I am a french model after all). I don't expect anyone to take anything I say as the truth if I'm not willing to back it up with evidence. Anything else is simply opinion (which can be valuable as well, especially when based off extensive experience).

You didn't mention the links provided in the post to which you responded, so I don't know if you're saying I didn't give enough evidence, or just that I didn't give evidence soon enough.

If you want me to go digging, I can, but the examples from Friday are pretty explicit.

Also, I'm sorry for yelling earlier. I like you[r online persona], and I don't (and didn't) think you were trying to be obtuse, but this thread has involved a lot of people refusing to understand what I'm talking about and it's very frustrating.

5/5

pathar wrote:

Okay, maybe I should have just opened with links. Here are the two statements from Friday that prompted me to start this thread.

4-Star GM, regarding the new SLA FAQs: "I have no intention of allowing this at any table I run, at home, or in PFS. Simply Ludicrous."

VL, regarding pet bison: "As a GM I would have explained to the player that while rules legal, I would only allow characters that had animal companions as a class ability have their animal contribute in combat."

In both cases, the bolding is mine.

Would people like me to go digging for some older examples to demonstrate that this is an ongoing trend, or are the modern examples sufficient to satisfy the folks who are having trouble believing me?

Thanks for the links! Interesting read...

Lantern Lodge 4/5

Kyle Baird wrote:

Anyone else here have their eyes glaze over when people start throwing around terms like these?

Makes me laugh every time.

Poor Straw Man. I see that term throw around so much that I don't think I can recognize an argument that actually fits those parameters anymore.

Spoiler:
On the other hand he's taken Hitler's place as the guy most likely to be mentioned in an internet argument.

4/5

andreww wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
I invite you to play at my table for Rebel's Ransom, The Heresy of Man series, Eyes of the Ten.
I would take your Eyes of the Ten bet. The first two parts are laughably easy, the second part in particular in just hopeless against any half way competent party of level 12 characters.

Having recently played Eyes of the Ten with Kyle as my GM, I can assure you that our party, which was exactly halfway competent, was more than sufficiently challenged.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

pathar wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
pathar wrote:
Would people like me to go digging for some older examples to demonstrate that this is an ongoing trend, or are the modern examples sufficient to satisfy the folks who are having trouble believing me?
Why would any trust anyone's word on the internet (I am a french model after all). I don't expect anyone to take anything I say as the truth if I'm not willing to back it up with evidence. Anything else is simply opinion (which can be valuable as well, especially when based off extensive experience).

You didn't mention the links provided in the post to which you responded, so I don't know if you're saying I didn't give enough evidence, or just that I didn't give evidence soon enough.

If you want me to go digging, I can, but the examples from Friday are pretty explicit.

Also, I'm sorry for yelling earlier. I like you[r online persona], and I don't (and didn't) think you were trying to be obtuse, but this thread has involved a lot of people refusing to understand what I'm talking about and it's very frustrating.

I fully understand what you are talking about.

But creating this thread adds to the frustration level of those who make those snap statements.

They make those kinds of statements because they are frustrated.

Instead of calling them out in an antagonistic way, how about a little compassion for that frustration, which is evident, very real, and very justified.

5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:
The problem is not GM's being human beings.

Doug Miles is a robot.

5/5 *****

TOZ wrote:
If my halfling rogue doesn't make it when I get him there, I'm blaming you.

You chose to play a rogue, that's playing PFS on hard mode...:)

5/5 *****

redward wrote:
Having recently played Eyes of the Ten with Kyle as my GM, I can assure you that our party, which was exactly halfway competent, was more than sufficiently challenged.

Part 1 has about one dangerous creature in the entire thing. Part 2 lacks anything which looks like a credible threat for a high level party. Anyway, this is rather diverging from the main topic of b**$$ing at each other about over entitled players versus a%&++@& GM's. If you want to discuss EoT I would be happy to do so over in the GM forum.

Also there's no snark intended in my post I am just really not impressed with EoT as a series. They really don't seem to account very well for what you might expect a high level group to be capable of.

Liberty's Edge 1/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Different people like different things in their games. PFS is not a monolithic entity where everything is the same. The issue in this thread is a conflict between the perceived rights of the player and the perceived rights of the GM, and in particular, how respected individuals contribute to that discussion.

Most people who have played for any period of time develop preferences for who they play with, and possibly the exclusion of some players. This is part and parcel of being part of a diverse group of people.

Some people are more vocal, explicit, or aggressive in how they might communicate about these issues on the forums than they might be in a face-to-face interaction. The same person who states, "Not at my table," in the forums might well communicate on the same issue face-to-face with, "I would prefer it if you avoid overshadowing the other characters by avoiding the use of this resource that, while legal to use, is clearly overpowered for the challenge level of this tier. We all want to have a good time. Some things are amusing to consider in theory, but can destroy the fun for others if actually used." This communication requires both maturity as a person and as a gamer to both state and to hear.

The fact of the matter is that no one is required to play with any other player. Such decisions have consequences. Making such a decision and how it is communicated can have social ramifications. When dealing with conflict resolution, look for the common ground, build upon that common ground, and use techniques such as compromise and persuasion rather than being aggressive. Aggressive behavior, by definitition, not only stands up for one's own rights, but ignores or takes away from someone else's.

5/5

So I've read Majuba's post and the following posts (including the poor response by SKR). Knowing Majuba (and his tasty goblin brains) and having had him play at my table, the best I can take away is that it was a gut reaction to the destruction of a sacred cow (one that I share). This often happens when a major change to the game is officially announced.

This is also a far cry from "I've ACTUALLY banned a build/tactic/combo/thingy from my PFS table."

On to the next link...

The Exchange 5/5

Rubia wrote:
nosig wrote:
I have yet to see a judge ban someone from playing at a table because of his PC build or tactics.

I won't mention names or specific cases, but I have definitely seen this behavior displayed at other players at my table. I can recall at least four such instances. One particularly public discussion (not in my original list of four) was about whether an online GM would be allowed to ban summoners from publicly announced tables or not.

This conversation has not only come up before, but it comes up more and more frequently. It is surely a response to frustration by GMs, but that does not make it right.

Furthermore, a number of players think that since the overall scenario difficulty has increased, they need to avail themselves of powerful legal options in order to survive. Whether or not that conclusion by players is true, it muddies the waters about the intent of a particular build option present on a character sheet. No GM should be making a priori judgements about such items on a character sheet.

I have seen a lot of people on the boards SAY they will ban one thing or another. I have even been on the receiveing end of that (backed up with PMs to that effect). But I have never seen it at a table I have seen. I have never even seen someone post saying something like "I sat at the table with my XXX and the judge told me I had to leave."

Has anyone?

Scarab Sages 3/5

Andrew Christian wrote:


Its saying that my empirical evidence is stronger than yours.

Phrase it however you like. You are claiming that you are better than others, me included, and you should be allowed to throw the rules aside and ban whatever you want whenever you want.

And for the record, you have an opinion and anecdotes not empirical evidence.

Linkage. So Kyle can laugh and his eyes glaze over some more.

5/5

So reading Andrei's posts (someone I don't know), this is my takeaway:

His first post could have been because he's unaware how combat trained, purchased animals are handled. Reading his follow-up posts, I bet he wouldn't have any issue with a Bison at his table if:

1) The player lets his GM know that he purchased a bison.
2) Explains that he has to use HA and a move action to try to push his Bison to do most things, thus severally limiting his own character.
3) Explains that he isn't looking to dominate the attention at the table and just wants to play with a Bison because he thinks it's cool.

5/5

Joko PO wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Its saying that my empirical evidence is stronger than yours.

Phrase it however you like. You are claiming that you are better than others, me included, and you should be allowed to throw the rules aside and ban whatever you want whenever you want.

And for the record, you have an opinion and anecdotes not empirical evidence.

Linkage. So Kyle can laugh and his eyes glaze over some more.

Better link next time please. ;-) I'm an engineer and I always hate other engineers who feel the need to use highly technical terms (for whatever their reason), when a more common explanation would work and be better understood by the majority of the audience.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

nosig wrote:
I have even been on the receiveing end of that (backed up with PMs to that effect).

Wait, you mean people have PM'd you just to tell you that you wouldn't be allowed to do X at their table? Am I understanding that correctly?

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Kyle, I'm not talking about the actual implementation. I'm talking about people in positions of authority making statements like "I will not allow this legal thing at my table." Because that sort of thing builds upon itself and it becomes a problem later.

Also:

Mike Brock wrote:
This post is directed at any person who wants to encourage cheating and breaking the rules. If you don't want to follow the rules we have established for Organized Play, then don't play our campaign. I have seen posts and advice that continuously encourage people to break the rules and this will stop. Are there some rules that can change to make the campaign better? Of course and we are working to fix those. Should people blatantly break the rules because they don't like them? Absolutely not. If you feel this is what you need to do, then leave the campaign.

Whether either of these people plans to follow through with their ban is irrelevant. They have publicly declared their intention to engage in unacceptable behavior, and having done so from a position of authority (be it from experience or rank), they are encouraging others to do the same.

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think this thread can really be boiled down to:

  • Players don't want to feel like there are GM's who are going to tell them to leave their table for playing a "perfectly legal" character or using a similar tactic.
  • Every player needs to understand that they're only entitled 16-25% of a GM's attention. If what they're doing requires more than that, they're being a jerk.
  • It's the GM's job to ensure the majority of people at the table are having fun. If what your doing tips the balance toward the majority of people at the table not having fun, expect the GM to step in.
  • People have reacted to odd, but legal, PFS situations by saying "no way," but there has yet to be evidence presented that this has actually happened at a table.

5/5

pathar wrote:
Whether either of these people plans to follow through with their ban is irrelevant. They have publicly declared their intention to engage in unacceptable behavior, and having done so from a position of authority (be it from experience or rank), they are encouraging others to do the same.

To be fair, Majuba did not make his post from a position of authority and in fact posted in a forum where stars aren't even shown.

5/5

Kyle Baird wrote:
pathar wrote:
Whether either of these people plans to follow through with their ban is irrelevant. They have publicly declared their intention to engage in unacceptable behavior, and having done so from a position of authority (be it from experience or rank), they are encouraging others to do the same.
To be fair, Majuba did not make his post from a position of authority and in fact posted in a forum where stars aren't even shown.

Any statement made by a 4 or 5 Star GM on the topic of PFS counts as being made from the authority of experience. That's not the same thing as the authority of rank, but it is still a kind of authority, and it seems naive to claim it doesn't affect the way people interpret the statement.

Liberty's Edge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
andreww wrote:
TOZ wrote:
If my halfling rogue doesn't make it when I get him there, I'm blaming you.
You chose to play a rogue, that's playing PFS on hard mode...:)

Brother, you ain't kidding!

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
pathar wrote:
Any statement made by a 4 or 5 Star GM on the topic of PFS counts as being made from the authority of experience.

Oh come on. They can't even speak on it?

5/5

pathar wrote:
Any statement made by a 4 or 5 Star GM on the topic of PFS counts as being made from the authority of experience. That's not the same thing as the authority of rank, but it is still a kind of authority, and it seems naive to claim it doesn't affect the way people interpret the statement.

But on a non-PFS board? And why is it naive to believe that people can think for themselves? Just because Doug Miles has run nearly 500 tables, doesn't mean his view on a given subject is any more correct than TOZ and his wimpy 3 stars. Both people have a unique set of experiences, one is just larger in quantity than the other. There is need not be an assumption made on the quality of those experiences.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Joko PO wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:


Its saying that my empirical evidence is stronger than yours.

Phrase it however you like. You are claiming that you are better than others, me included, and you should be allowed to throw the rules aside and ban whatever you want whenever you want.

And for the record, you have an opinion and anecdotes not empirical evidence.

Linkage. So Kyle can laugh and his eyes glaze over some more.

You can read it however you like. I am not claiming to be superior to you.

I'm claiming I have more experience as a PFS GM than you. That is fact.

And actually, I do have more Empirical evidence than you.

Having more observable experience and seeing more data sets is the very definition of empirical evidence. Having more Anecdotes IS the very definition of empirical evidence.

Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

TriOmegaZero wrote:
pathar wrote:
Any statement made by a 4 or 5 Star GM on the topic of PFS counts as being made from the authority of experience.
Oh come on. They can't even speak on it?

Depends. My 'titles' as it were have been inferred as me being more than a shulb that got lucky twice. I'm the first to point out I don't have any more insight than anyone else.

At the same time... When you have accounts of multi-star GMs, VO's etc. saying that because of the tables ran etc that their experience gives their words more weight, you can't have it both ways.*

And when a GM specifically calls out that he wouldn't allow a legal combo at his PFS table, that is a problem. It's the same reason I'd be wary about playing my witch at tables with GMs who are on record hating the slumber hex.

*

Spoiler:
To my recollection, Majuba has never said that GM stars = greater accountability.

Edit: Amazingly the post above mine hasn't appeared yet.

5/5

Slumber hex. LOL.

I had a guy play Rats 1 & 2 with a Witch. At the beginning of part 1 he said he had it, but wouldn't use it much because he thinks it's overpowered. I laughed at him and said USE IT! It's your class ability. Use it when you think it's appropriate.

He played both scenarios and never once chose to use it. Most of the time he either had no line of sight or had better options. He said that's the first time he's ever not used it and was really happy for it. :-)

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Kyle Baird wrote:
pathar wrote:
Any statement made by a 4 or 5 Star GM on the topic of PFS counts as being made from the authority of experience. That's not the same thing as the authority of rank, but it is still a kind of authority, and it seems naive to claim it doesn't affect the way people interpret the statement.

But on a non-PFS board? And why is it naive to believe that people can think for themselves? Just because Doug Miles has run nearly 500 tables, doesn't mean his view on a given subject is any more correct than TOZ and his wimpy 3 stars. Both people have a unique set of experiences, one is just larger in quantity than the other. There is need not be an assumption made on the quality of those experiences.

And to this point... there are those who feel that anytime someone mentions how many stars they have, that they are automatically being a narcissistic egomaniacal jerk-head. I feel this type of poster far outweighs those who actually put any weight behind what someone with stars or a title says.

But apparently I'm telling everyone how superior I am by just mentioning the fact that I have a larger data set to gather evidence and information from.

Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Kyle Baird wrote:

Slumber hex. LOL.

I had a guy play Rats 1 & 2 with a Witch. At the beginning of part 1 he said he had it, but wouldn't use it much because he thinks it's overpowered. I laughed at him and said USE IT! It's your class ability. Use it when you think it's appropriate.

He played both scenarios and never once chose to use it. Most of the time he either had no line of sight or had better options. He said that's the first time he's ever not used it and was really happy for it. :-)

I've become so paranoid, honestly, that when I took down the BBEG (cleric no less!) Saturday, I thanked the GM for not giving into the temptation to just 'shrug it off'

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kyle Baird wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

To be fair, you're something like the fourth person in the thread to ask some variation of "Yeah, but are GMs actually doing that?", so the caps probably result from the same thing to which Andy attributes the table-ban proclamations themselves: pent-up frustration from being burned multiple times.

As for the lack of links, he's said that he avoided providing them in the OP so as not to be "naming names". I don't imagine it would have gone down well if he'd listed XYZ people and their posts and told them to stop. But now that you're explicitly requesting it, I'm sure he'd be happy to provide links (I'm guessing).

So it's still just someone saying they've seen or heard people saying "this legal [thing] won't be allowed at my table?" I've been to a couple of conventions, played and run a few PFS tables, and read the boards from time to time and still never heard of such a thing. It would be of great interest to see such a thing.

isn't that the point of this thread?

That someone stated on the boards ""well not at MY table" - even though in person, at the table, they might not. (In fact, I have never seen anyone banned, though some other posters here seem to have different exp. than me). And that that someone is a "Voice of Authority", a person deserving respect. Acting in what appears to be a very childish fashion.

Someone who is new to these boards, coming upon a comment from a multi-star judge, or from a VO, that says: ""well not at MY table" is going to get an entirely different picture from what seems to be happening at the gaming table.

5/5

Got to end of page 1, and realized it was up to page 7 - commenting now.

As one of the posters referred to by the OP, I want to say two things:

First, no matter how much I may dislike some options (Gunslingers, Summoners, Zen Archers, non-core races), most players will get at most a frown out of me if they're playing one. Ragequit and rejection of players are not in my nature.

Second, that said, I completely stand by my original post. Perhaps I should also have said that I would accept any consequences of that decision, but I wasn't in a particularly good mood at that moment. I could get into why I find that particular build/ruling so reprehensible, but it really doesn't matter. I know I can't change the Society through any act or post, but I felt it important to share with the leadership and designers my position.

Thanks to many who have offered suggestions on how to handle what should prove a very difficult situation, if it ever comes up.

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:

And to this point... there are those who feel that anytime someone mentions how many stars they have, that they are automatically being a narcissistic egomaniacal jerk-head. I feel this type of poster far outweighs those who actually put any weight behind what someone with stars or a title says.

But apparently I'm telling everyone how superior I am by just mentioning the fact that I have a larger data set to gather evidence and information from.

Yep, those who have run more tables have a bigger data set, but at the same time, that data is questionable depending on if it's highly localized or not. If you're always running for the same pool of players, your data is less meaningful.

I choose to just look at stars and think "thanks for your contribution to the campaign" and respect their opinion based on that.

5/5

Majuba wrote:
*stuff*

Shut up you and mail me some goblin brains.

301 to 350 of 796 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / "Well not at MY table" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.