|
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.
Yup.
|
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.
Umm no. Not even close. Empirical evidence is observed from an experiment most often using the scientific method while an anecdote is just am unsupported claim from a personal perspective. If you took a poll, for example, you would have empirical evidence. You have done nothing resembling evidence gathering. You have unsupported claims.
Secondly, it is a fact that you have GM'd more in PFS than I. But you have not established the frequency establishes any support to your claim. This is the Argument from Authority. A person can GM a hundred tables and still be a lousy GM or even a lousy person. (Btw not an insult directed at you, just making a point.)
For example I have played twice with Kyle. Once he was a fellow Player and once he was the GM. Both games I had a blast at. He seems to be a great player and judge. However a different 5 star GM and VC (that I will not name) is responsible for the worst table I have ever sat at in my life. To the point where everyone at the table met afterwards to discuss our option for recourse.
BTW, the above story was an anecdote.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Jiggy: You have it right. It may mean someone changes characters (and may make valid complaint of it), or it may mean I don't run a particular table.
And just to be clear (so you don't get erroneously blamed for anything), is this stance at all affected by the fact that it's no longer a "questionable" ruling? That is, were you (before the first post) or are you now aware that the design team went back explicitly endorsed the SLA-based early entry in PrC's as being correct and intended? Or was your stance based on seeing it as a questionable interpretation and your statement was more of a ruling/interpretation?
|
|
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.
Umm no. Not even close. Empirical evidence is observed from an experiment most often using the scientific method while an anecdote is just am unsupported claim from a personal perspective. If you took a poll, for example, you would have empirical evidence. You have done nothing resembling evidence gathering. You have unsupported claims.
Secondly, it is a fact that you have GM'd more in PFS than I. But you have not established the frequency establishes any support to your claim. This is the Argument from Authority. A person can GM a hundred tables and still be a lousy GM or even a lousy person. (Btw not an insult directed at you, just making a point.)
For example I have played twice with Kyle. Once he was a fellow Player and once he was the GM. Both games I had a blast at. He seems to be a great player and judge. However a different 5 star GM and VC (that I will not name) is responsible for the worst table I have ever sat at in my life. To the point where everyone at the table met afterwards to discuss our...
However, tabulating a data set based on observable experience creates empirical evidence.
In other words, if I said that every time I ran into a purchased pet (tiger, bison, whatever), it has caused problems, and I listed the scenario, date, characters (class, power, etc.), and other observable information, it becomes empirical data.
It does not have to specifically be a scientific experiment. You an glean data in thousands of different ways.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jiggy:
** spoiler omitted **
I'm going to go ahead and (as a result of some of the comments by Andy and others in this thread) assume that in most cases, a typical "not at MY table" post is either:
• frustration-venting and not necessarily true;• a belief that the thing in question is not actually rules-valid;
• for some other reason not actually representative of the poster's true stance.
But apparently, in some cases it really is true that yes, a 4-star GM who is fully aware that a concept is legal, intended, and not overpowered/game-breaking (by his own admission in a later post); will still table-ban it regardless of player behavior.
Anyone have any comments on that fact?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you run PFS, you enter into a social contract to abdicate interpretation of the rules to PFS standards and to allow anything deemed legal, regardless of if it makes any sense what so ever.
Which is why many of us aren't particularly interested in playing PFS.
When job one of the GM stops being "Creating the most enjoyable experience for all involved" I lose pretty much all interest in being at that table in any capacity.
I'm glad you all enjoy it. I wish you all well. But this whole line of discussion is exactly why many of us have no interest in PFS.
YMMV.
|
|
Jiggy:
** spoiler omitted **I'm going to go ahead and (as a result of some of the comments by Andy and others in this thread) assume that in most cases, a typical "not at MY table" post is either:
• frustration-venting and not necessarily true;
• a belief that the thing in question is not actually rules-valid;
• for some other reason not actually representative of the poster's true stance.But apparently, in some cases it really is true that yes, a 4-star GM who is fully aware that a concept is legal, intended, and not overpowered/game-breaking (by his own admission in a later post); will still table-ban it regardless of player behavior.
Anyone have any comments on that fact?
That about sums it up. This is just the resurgence of the original synthesis summoner issue that was one of the causes for Mike's "Follow the rules or leave PFS" post. The only difference now is that GM's know it is wrong but just don't care. ::sigh::
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I have never out-right banned a legal concept, but I have counseled players, based on what I knew they were facing, that there's something about the adventure that makes their chosen PC a poor choice. (Sometimes, it will stomp them. Sometimes, vice versa. Sometimes something else.)
|
|
Interesting thread!
It is nice to see what others find stress-full. Usually when I see something like XXYY, I read about it after the game.
So a Bison, handle animal will severely weaken it, of course that is Raw. Unfortunately some players may not know this. GM's may not even know this, that is what allot of this thread I think is about.
As a player if you want to help your GM, have accessible all the rules you want to use for your character. This will prevent stress. The best GM's are good arbitrators, these will be the one that don't get stressed as much. I have learned allot from GM's with less stars than I have.
I have almost left the table as a GM twice. Builds etc. were not the issue at either table.
|
|
Anyone have any comments on that fact?
Two brief ones:
1. I don't vent or otherwise overstate my true position.
2. I would say this is a singular issue for me, but I did think of one other similar rule issue (which you're very familiar with): Darkness. I will not be running any further scenarios with deeper darkness written in them, while the current ruling stands. And before you ask, no, player actions wouldn't be affected (though thankfully I have yet to see a single player cast that spell).
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
2. I would say this is a singular issue for me, but I did think of one other similar rule issue (which you're very familiar with): Darkness. I will not be running any further scenarios with deeper darkness written in them, while the current ruling stands. And before you ask, no, player actions wouldn't be affected (though thankfully I have yet to see a single player cast that spell).
This seems far less troublesome, as presumably you would identify such a scenario before anyone shows up at your table. No nasty surprises for anyone, you know?
But it sounds like (and please, correct me if I've misunderstood you) that a perfectly amiable and well-meaning player could show up to your table with a well-balanced and team-friendly 4th-level aasimar mystic theurge, and you would tell him that you won't run a scenario for that PC because you don't like the rule that makes it legal. Which means that a player who has done nothing wrong now has to choose between either going home, playing a different PC (if available), or effectively sending *everyone* home due to a lack of a GM.
Is that the case? And if so, do you really believe that's the right thing to do?
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
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.
Guess my friends and I aren't even half way competent. :P
Sarcasm and snide aside, I thought EotT was an excellent series. Changing, engaging, and that never felt dull or like a waste of time.
|
|
Andrew: The combination of rulings that, essentially, make deeper darkness always result in darkness undergrounds or inside buildings.
Jiggy:
In the unlikely event I find such a character is intended to be played, I will attempt to locate an alternate GM. Failing that, I will cancel the table ahead of time for lack of a GM. Failing that, I will ask the player to play another character. Failing that, I would not run that table.
It is the right thing to do, for me.
Edit: I don't normally "exit" a thread, but I think I've said all I need to. My original post was in the Rules forum, directed to the designers (with all due respect intended if not expressed). These are the PFS forums, and I agree with pathar that it is not the place to make statements such as mine.
Kyle: Bring it!
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Jiggy:
There are several parts of your hypothetical scenario that I take issue with (amiable, well-meaning, well-balanced, team-friendly), but essentially yes.
To be clear, I didn't mean to imply that anyone bringing such a build would meet those criteria; it's just that those who don't meet those criteria may need intervention anyway regardless of the build, so they're not what this thread is about.
This is about those cases (however rare they may be) when the player has done absolutely nothing wrong (isn't being a jerk, isn't overshadowing others, isn't relying on questionable rules interpretations, etc).
However, like the scenarios, I have every intention of identifying those PCs prior to sitting down at the table with them as well, which should not be hard for me locally.
In the unlikely event I find such a character is intended to be played, I will attempt to locate an alternate GM. Failing that, I will cancel the table ahead of time for lack of a GM. Failing that, I will ask the player to play another character. Failing that, I would not run that table.
It is the right thing to do, for me.
Taking measures in advance seems very responsible. Shuffing players/GMs to mutually-agreeable tables before or during muster is great.
I can even get behind cancelling the table ahead of time, though that has to get awkward when someone asks why, doesn't it?
Where it gets dicey (to me, at least) is when you get down to (probably because of a walk-in or GMing at a Con or whatever) already being at the table with a group of players, asking what everyone has, and then asking that player to play a different character or else the table doesn't happen. That's quite a pickle to put someone in when they've done nothing wrong, isn't it?
|
|
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.
When you (again, general, not specific you) reach your last straw, please stop GMing. Until you've reached that straw, please be fair and don't stereotype. I'm failing to understand why this concept is difficult to follow.
In other words, if you're frustrated to the point that you will stereotype, stop GMing. If you're not, keep GMing as long as you would like, as long as you avoid stereotyping.
And what I'm saying is, you don't necessarily know you are going to stereotype something, until it happens (because that moment is the last straw).
|
Anyone have any comments on that fact?Two brief ones:
1. I don't vent or otherwise overstate my true position.
2. I would say this is a singular issue for me, but I did think of one other similar rule issue (which you're very familiar with): Darkness. I will not be running any further scenarios with deeper darkness written in them, while the current ruling stands. And before you ask, no, player actions wouldn't be affected (though thankfully I have yet to see a single player cast that spell).
So I guess you find the darkness themed spells overpowered as well?
|
|
Andrew: The combination of rulings that, essentially, make deeper darkness always result in darkness undergrounds or inside buildings.
Jiggy: ** spoiler omitted **
Edit: I don't normally "exit" a thread, but I think I've said all I need to. My original post was in the Rules forum, directed to the designers (with all due respect intended if not expressed). These are the PFS forums, and I agree with pathar that it is not the place to make statements such as mine.
Kyle: Bring it!
I primary issue with the way you are approaching this is that if I follow the same logic you do, I will refuse to GM tables for druids. I don't think that's a good policy, do you? I have seen ACs ruin more tables than power builds now that I think about my PFS career. They don't do it as magnificently, but ruin them nonetheless in taking away any real danger of the PCs being in danger in many scenarios.
|
|
Anyone saying anything obnoxius on the forums(or anywhere) such as "I am a DM I decide what is legal at my PFS table." or "I know the funnest way to play D&D and you have to listen to me or you are not having fun"
Gives credibility to other people that want to flex that type of muscle. You are enabling negative behavior.
People will most often(not always) look for opinions that agree with them VS one that disagree.
So anyone saying ignorant things encourages ingnorant behavior.
I understand Majuba's stance and completely disagree with it, but I think people pointing it out as a problem is healthy. Many people in this thread have provided amazing logical arguement as to why it is bad. This is how ignorance is resolved.
|
|
Andrew: The combination of rulings that, essentially, make deeper darkness always result in darkness undergrounds or inside buildings.
Not sure how that's a bad thing. The precedent is that more powerful spells negate less powerful, and equal power spells negate each-other.
With the absence of light, something will need to be done for those without darkvision to see.
It makes sense that a spell could make magic light not work.
It is a staple of adventuring to bring a torch at least, if not a lantern (and oil) and possibly a sunrod. These things would bring up the level of light in an area where a daylight and darkness spell intersect.
|
|
"These things would bring up the level of light in an area where a daylight and darkness spell intersect."
That's subject to GM interpretation. That's a problem. The darkness spells are way overpowered, but I will run them RAW anyway.
It's also rubbish that there is no 2nd level light spell, as well as the fact there is no reciprocal language in light spells stating that "lower level darkness spells can not reduce the light level in the area of effect of this spell".
|
|
Know what I find stressful? Lack of beer and/or chocolate at the table. And cake. There should be more cake in PFS.
Kyle,
Should I consider this an official request to bring cake to Gencon?
[Edit]
Or chocolate? I'm thinking chocolate dice may show up at Gencon (or maybe something else. We'll be in the middle of chocolates and cakes at that time).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And my argument thusfar has been, essentially, that based on responses posted (and then confirmed) on these messageboards, that it is clear that certain GMs have publicly announced that they have reached that breaking point. Those GMs should no longer GM.
It is a fair point.
However, the reason many GM’s are 3, 4, and 5-stars is because there often is nobody else in the area who can or will GM. So that’s what they do. They GM for their community.
For V-O’s, store coordinators and gameday coordinators, it often feels obligatory to GM. As in, I’m coordinating this game day, so I have to GM for it. Lately I have been picking a couple game days here and there and coordinating it as a player, not a GM. It’s a nice break.
So who picks up the slack for them? There have been at least three game days in the last 2 months, that if I hadn’t been there to GM, that table would not have happened. That isn’t to say that the Twin Cities don’t have a healthy GM pool, it’s just that many times they don’t have a particular day available or really need that play credit for Way of the Kirin instead of running The Halls of Dwarven Lore.
So who picks up the slack? If I choose not to GM for a month, who does it for me?
Afterall, there is a reason I’m 4-stars instead of just 2 or 3. I’m one of the willing prolific GM’s. I love GM’ing. So it isn’t a chore for me most of the time. But if I took a break for mental health reasons, who picks up my slack? (I’m not saying I need a break, just using myself to emphasize the point).
In many communities, if the prolific GM takes a break, those tables simply don’t happen. What then?
|
|
And my argument thusfar has been, essentially, that based on responses posted (and then confirmed) on these messageboards, that it is clear that certain GMs have publicly announced that they have reached that breaking point. Those GMs should no longer GM.
It is a fair point.
However, the reason many GM’s are 3, 4, and 5-stars is because there often is nobody else in the area who can or will GM. So that’s what they do. They GM for their community.
For V-O’s, store coordinators and gameday coordinators, it often feels obligatory to GM. As in, I’m coordinating this game day, so I have to GM for it. Lately I have been picking a couple game days here and there and coordinating it as a player, not a GM. It’s a nice break.
So who picks up the slack for them? There have been at least three game days in the last 2 months, that if I hadn’t been there to GM, that table would not have happened. That isn’t to say that the Twin Cities don’t have a healthy GM pool, it’s just that many times they don’t have a particular day available or really need that play credit for Way of the Kirin instead of running The Halls of Dwarven Lore.
So who picks up the slack? If I choose not to GM for a month, who does it for me?
Afterall, there is a reason I’m 4-stars instead of just 2 or 3. I’m one of the willing prolific GM’s. I love GM’ing. So it isn’t a chore for me most of the time. But if I took a break for mental health reasons, who picks up my slack? (I’m not saying I need a break, just using myself to emphasize the point).
In many communities, if the prolific GM takes a break, those tables simply don’t happen. What then?
Maybe one of the power gamers could take a break from scenario-breaking PCs and apply their system mastery to running NPCs in a correct fashion. Watch out, I'm almost making sense here.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DD and Daylight don't have to be so complicated. If they're both cast, normal lighting conditions exist where their radii overlap.
Things to keep in mind:
Range: Touch
In order to actually "dispel" one must either cast the spell and touch the affected object or use their turn to ready a counter-spell. Neither or these are likely to happen.
Also, Spell-like Abilities can't be used to counter-spell, so the bad guys can't ready a deeper darkness SLA to counter the PC's impending daylight.
The way it should normally go: Bad guy uses SLA of deeper darkness on their self somewhere or random object. Good guy casts daylight on their [insert object]. Where these two 60-ft radii overlap reverts back to whatever lighting conditions were there before. As long as the fight stays within this overlap, just forget about it and play on. The PCs have the correct counter-measure and it's not worth crying about (unless there's a second NPC with a high-level dispel magic wand, but seriously, who would ever put that in a scenario...).
|
|
Jiggy:
** spoiler omitted **I'm going to go ahead and (as a result of some of the comments by Andy and others in this thread) assume that in most cases, a typical "not at MY table" post is either:
• frustration-venting and not necessarily true;
• a belief that the thing in question is not actually rules-valid;
• for some other reason not actually representative of the poster's true stance.But apparently, in some cases it really is true that yes, a 4-star GM who is fully aware that a concept is legal, intended, and not overpowered/game-breaking (by his own admission in a later post); will still table-ban it regardless of player behavior.
Anyone have any comments on that fact?
It's nice that we can just go ahead and link the NEXT person who skips the whole thread and asks if there are any examples to these posts?
But yeah, I have a serious problem with this, as you might expect. This isn't acceptable for a PFS GM. I'm curious to see what happens now, because if this trends, it's going to be a huge problem.