Ascetical vs Juridical Approaches to PFS Culture


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 98 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder Society is an organized international community with unifying goals. One primary goal is promoting the existence of pathfinder gaming sessions outside of closed home group gaming, with the ability to progress the same characters in many different real life settings. In order for an voluntary organized community to exist, there must be a mutually understood language, at least a begrudging commitment of its members, and common practices. This post is primarily aimed at discussing how we best maintain our common practices.

The juridical approach is one of creating rules and enforcing them often enough to at least scare most of the members of the community into abiding by enough of them to keep things working. It is the approach used by most governments. Indeed, communities that aren't strictly voluntary are somewhat forced into this approach. The members of these communities are often part of it by chance, and don't always have the practical ability to leave.

In a way, the juridical path is actually the easier one for members as well as leaders. It facilitates the members' considerations to be things like: "What am I required to do?" or "How far can I push it before I hit enforcement?" or "How can I avoid getting caught?". It makes it easier to for someone whose natural inclination would be absolve themselves of responsibility to follow up on that temptation.

It makes it easy to see one's personal conflict as being against the system of rules and enforcement itself. The result of this conflict is that the people creating the rules start to adjust them to be more stringent than what they actually desire, aiming at the point at which member's willingness to push against the rules will land them at the desired action. (For instance, see the many jurisdictions that set their speed limits to 5 mph under the average speed the road was designed to carry traffic at.) Equilibrium comes, but at the price of some people feeling arbitrarily singled out for following the common practice on the occasions that the letter of the law is strictly enforced.

On the messageboard and in the guide, PFS feels like a very juridical culture. It is felt most the very rules lawyering threads, discussions of possible loopholes, but also in the posts of people seeking advice on how and when to enforce the rules. This messageboard section of PFS's culture seems to have forced Mike Brock and the rest of the leadership into strict language and endless clarifications, sometimes with great cost to common sense rulings.

With little to no enforcement powers, however, PFS on the ground is generally not run in a juridical manner. Making bad notes on chronicle sheets can be instantly "rectified" by throwing the chronicle in the trash bin, a practice that would never be found out by the next GM unless the perpetrator tried to replay it. The most permanent effect a GM can have is to ban a player from their table, something that doesn't change their life at their next venue at all.

In reality, the approach that is keeping practices common from one region and group to another isn't juridical at all, it is ascetical. The community is kept functional by thousands of individuals putting aside their personal preferences in order to stay in step with the campaign as a whole. As with any ascetical community, which sacrifices hurt the most varies from member to member, but it is those sacrifices being made by all that makes PFS exist. The success of the society as a whole is advanced by the integrity and willing rigor of its members to police themselves.

Some of these choices are made just by electing to participate in PFS at all. Compared to a home game situation, we instantly give up any palpable feeling of affecting the game world's future. We put aside character building options from unapproved sources, as well as the ability to build a character who is immediately going to be able to play with our friends' favorite characters. We relinquish the ability to replay an adventure with rewards, no matter how badly it was run or how little of it we saw the first time. We surrender the full roleplaying of our characters, limiting them to fit within the rules of the campaign (no evil actions, no being a jerk, no direct confrontation) and the constraints of the scenario.

There are a lot of less automatic sacrifices, and this is really where self-discipline comes into it. To support the campaign financially, we need to spend more money on Paizo materials than pure pragmatism requires. To maintain our interoperability and accountability, we need to keep clear and accurate documentation. To keep the community healthy and growing, we need to make choices as we play with the fun of all the other players in mind. We also need to be willing to teach new players in a winsome manner. Instead of cheating the details that would seem to make the session less fun, we should play them honestly and then report the problem so it can be fixed for everyone. We need to do whatever is in our ability to keep our GMs from burning out, whether that be taking our turn or buying them tasty snacks. Ultimately, we should make decisions with more than ourselves in mind, considering the impact on our gaming group, our local gaming store, our GMs, and the campaign as a whole.

Intentional asceticism is a very different throught process than just following the rules. Instead of saying, "What am I required to do?" we ask ourselves "How could I/we be doing better?", and that is a huge difference. We look at our personal situation and abilities and then see how we can best contribute and align ourselves to the society's ways.

A huge swath of PFS is already in practice run this way, or it wouldn't be functioning at all. My challenge to us all is to encourage this part of PFS culture. If you're still here, PFS must have some value to you, something worth working for. If we all stepped up our self-enforcement, if we encouraged those around us to be responsible society players, there would be a strong social pressure in that direction. Instead of wielding the rules as weapons in debate, our rules debates could center on what would work best for the society as a whole, not how to evade the current rule. In the end, it could make much more room for common sense and dispensations for those who need them.

On the leadership side, this is greatly aided whenever you guys let us know what the spirit of the law really is. Those times when you post about where you want to go with the campaign are fantastic, especially when you seek feedback. I think those sorts of things really add morale to those trying to follow the rules as best as they can, which is at least a plurality of PFS members.

3/5

Good post, Greasitty. The Pathfinder Society campaign is reliant on self-policing and individual willingness to create a good experience for the community.

The problem a PFS community can run into, and this problem is on full display on these boards, is that the perception of The Rules as supreme is actually preventing good community development and management. In Greasitty's words, the perception of a juridical approach is getting in the way of the self-policing ascetic approach.

Case in point: "Rule of Thumb for Inappropriate Behavior," a thread which went up just this morning. Let's examine:

Rarednaw wrote:

Player engages in liberal swearing/cursing rants (not in character), bullying and metagaming. He continually talks over everyone else (including the GM) orders everyone else to go by real name and not character name.

For me, kind of ruined the entire gaming session. In fact games like that are what me leave gaming entirely a while back. I play and run for fun. And that isn't.

Here, the community-driven, self-policing approach has a very clear answer to this problem: do not invite this player back. Remove him from the community he is actively hurting. It is the responsibility of a healthy community to uninvite him.

Unfortunately, Rarednaw's community appears to be unable or unwilling to do that. The community-driven, self-policing approach requires that every participant work to create a positive experience for everyone else. This implies that people who actively hurt the community need to be removed.

Rarednaw wrote:
Now if it was a home game he'd never be allowed back. But this isn't, this is Society Play and I want to make sure I get this right.

Herein lies the problem. Both home games and PFS are community-driven; they do not differ here. Unfortunately, Rarednaw is perceiving PFS as something different, as something governed by The Rules. He appears to believe that The Rules dictate how and when to remove someone from local gamedays. But that's the thing, The Rules don't have much to say. So, instead of letting The Rules, or lack thereof, prevent a community from removing a negative influence, it is on the community to take action where The Rules are silent.

In other words, it's on the community, not The Rules, to keep the community healthy.

An even bigger problem occurs when The Rules are used as a shield to excuse bad behavior. Let's examine a couple of posts from another thread, "So I Think They Got Me":

Zach W. wrote:
...when we are in games with this Oracle [of Heavens who uses Color Spray], its basically just watching him run around and take control of everything. We dont really get to do much. Its not so much cheesy in the overpowered sense as it is cheesy in the fact that everyone simply runs around as his groupies. After the third module of him just sleeping the boss, it had gotten very boring.
Elvis Aron Manypockets wrote:
I've experienced the same thing with a witch using slumber. And that can be used on every single enemy in every single encounter. Minions go down in one round, BBEG gets softened up with the evil eye first, then sleep & cdg by a martial the next round. 4 hour scenario turns into less than 2 hours of game time with little roll or role play for others.

Here, we have a similar behavior to the first community situation. Here, we have instances of a player's actions making the experience of PFS less enjoyable for others. In the community-driven environment, everyone needs to show restraint in their character-building and in-game actions in order to promote a positive experience for the table. Also, it is very easy to hide behind The Rules as an excuse for this behavior: "It's legal, so I can use it."

Walter Sheppard hits the nail right on the head, by the way:

Walter Sheppard wrote:
There is no difference between dropping someone with an SOS spell and charge/pounce-kitty killing them in my mind. Both are people playing a game with themselves, instead of with the other people at the table. By all means, build what you want, cast what you want, just be responsible with how you do both.

A healthy community needs to ask players who are using too-powerful options to restrain themselves. The legality of the option(s) does not absolve players from their responsibilities to the group.

It's not very difficult. A couple of weeks ago, I was GMing for a player who had just started a new Witch PC. After the session was over, I took him aside and explained the problems with Slumber Hex, and how it tends to hurt enjoyment. As this player is a solid person who is on-board with the community-driven approach, he listened to what I had to say, understood the perspective, and removed Slumber Hex from his sheet. Nothing in The Rules enabled me or prevented me from asking him to not take Slumber Hex. It was my responsibility to the community which drove me to help out.

To add on to Greasitty's challenge to think of ways to improve your communities, my challenge is to work to solve these two issues in your communities. Remove negative players from your communities by uninviting them, because they are actively hurting your communities, and ask players with overpowered, fun-hurting characters to not take or use abilities which hurt the fun of others.

Pathfinder Society requires us to maintain healthy communities. Above are two ways you can do that, instead of looking to The Rules, because relying on The Rules will not maintain the community for you.

-Matt

Silver Crusade 2/5

Many people are not going to be willing to remove slumber hex from their witch build. That's the problem with this approach. I don't have solution really, but just be aware that this is not a one-size-fits-all solution. For many optimizers, optimization IS the game, which is not a community based game.

There is also the argument that optizmers are necessary to balance out people who bring poor builds to the table.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Story spoiler'd for length:
I had a very interesting PFS experience recently. It involved a couple of players I'd never met before, playing characters of about 3rd-4th level.

One guy was happily describing his character, feeling very satisfied with his damage output and AC. However, it turns out he had his Finesse rogue wearing full plate and simultaneously using a bastard sword (one-handed) and a tower shield. Had no idea the kind of penalties all that would incur. He just reasoned that metal was good to have between you and your opponent and that a big sword is better than a small one, so there you go. Didn't bother to learn how his equipment worked or ensure that he was playing a character capable of properly utilizing said gear for its intended purpose. He just sort of... had it... and thought that was all there was to it.

While I and others tried to educate him and get him sorted, another player started saying the strangest things. He was playing a monk, so he wasn't using any weapons or armor. He started talking about how equipment (weapons and armor) were vastly over-emphasized by lots of people. He talked about how ineffective characters become when they "rely on" weapons and armor, citing the first misguided player's rogue as an example of what's wrong with such equipment. Citing his own monk as an example, he declared that a character is best served using their own abilities to fight effectively rather than getting bogged down with armor and weapons. He didn't seem to grasp that different classes have different proficiencies, and that all those penalties on the rogue were the result of trying to use things without knowing how they work; he firmly believed that it was all inherent to the nature of armor and weapons. He had no shortage of examples; when people tried to point out that a vanilla fighter (for instance) wants full plate, he pointed to the ACP and showed that he could get the same (or better!) AC without all those penalties.

He saw a character trying to use things he wasn't proficient with, and took it as indicative of the nature of the equipment, and didn't seem to realize that for someone capable of wielding that gear properly, in the way it was intended, it could actually be supremely effective. Not only did he not see the value of weapons and armor in the hands of those who could wield it properly, but he seemed to take any suggestion of that possibility as a slight against his monk, as though descriptions of the effectiveness of a fighter's gear somehow equated to calling his monk's class abilities worthless. He seemed to think there was this dichotomy, that either a martial PC needed to rely on class abilities (like his monk) or else tried to rely on weapons/armor (which he affirmed would always turn out like it did for that poor rogue). And if you challenged the latter, he took it as a challenge against the viability of the former.

The whole situation was kind of... surreal.

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

I'd also call the slumber hex situationally optimized in combat.

1) It's useless against a lot of things (Ksenia actually carries a wand of disrupt undead because I had so many frakking undead at low level)

2) That 30' range sucks, especially with multiple opponents.

3) It is one target only, and if the target saves, it's immune.

4) Anything that wakes the target up puts him back in action.

I've ran into all four problems with Ksenia. Is it powerful? Yes. Is it as broken as people complain? Not in my experience.

Mattastrophic, do you take the falcata users aside? After all, that 19-20 X3 can 'hurt enjoyment'. How about the shocking grasp magus?

Silver Crusade 2/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If I were at that table, I'd want an optimizer or two in the group with me. As Seasons 4 and 5 have turned into more meatgrinders, I'm becoming more empathetic to the optimizers. In season 0-3, with six people, if one or two didn't contribute much it worked out. Seasons 4-5, you are looking at some bodybags, if not TPKs.

3/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Before this thread quickly derails, let me make a clarification...

Good community maintenance requires all participants to show restraint in their character-building and in-game actions in order to promote a positive experience for the table. If you can use Slumber Hex or a falcata or a Summoner or whatever and provide a positive experience for the table, that's great. However...

David Bowles wrote:
For many optimizers, optimization IS the game, which is not a community based game.

It is the responsibility of every participant to provide a positive experience for the community. For good community maintenance, the behavior of hurting the enjoyment of others needs to be prevented, though both self-examination and through asking others to not hurt enjoyment. The Pathfinder Society community requires us all to be responsible gamers, because PFS is a community-based game.

-Matt

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Mattastrophic wrote:

Before this thread quickly derails, let me make a clarification...

Good community maintenance requires all participants to show restraint in their character-building and in-game actions in order to promote a positive experience for the table. If you can use Slumber Hex or a falcata or a Summoner or whatever and provide a positive experience for the table, that's great.

It is the responsibility of every participant to provide a positive experience. For good community maintenance, the behavior of hurting the enjoyment of others needs to be prevented, though both self-examination and through asking others to not hurt enjoyment. The Pathfinder Society community requires us all to be responsible gamers.

-Matt

+1, applying to both players and GMs.

Silver Crusade 2/5

But "enjoyment" is a very subjective thing. What if someone's "enjoyment" is making PCs that crush these scenarios? Both from my GMing experience and playing experience, there are many who will NOT show restraint. Is it worth throwing them off your table? And then what if the party subsequently TPKs from *lack* of optimization?

I don't power game per se, but I've saved groups of newer people by having the right consumables that no one else had. What if I *were* a super power gamer? Would they have been better off without me or with me?

1/5

Mattastrophic wrote:

Before this thread quickly derails, let me make a clarification...

Good community maintenance requires all participants to show restraint in their character-building and in-game actions in order to promote a positive experience for the table. If you can use Slumber Hex or a falcata or a Summoner or whatever and provide a positive experience for the table, that's great. However...

David Bowles wrote:
For many optimizers, optimization IS the game, which is not a community based game.

It is the responsibility of every participant to provide a positive experience for the community. For good community maintenance, the behavior of hurting the enjoyment of others needs to be prevented, though both self-examination and through asking others to not hurt enjoyment. The Pathfinder Society community requires us all to be responsible gamers, because PFS is a community-based game.

-Matt

This.

As long as this is kept in mind by players, there will not be any problems.

Silver Crusade 2/5

And when it's not? GMs have to resort to throwing them off the table?

Let the shocking grasp magi of the world weep in Season 5, as demons are immune to electricity.

To further expound, animal companions reduce my enjoyment of the game. Yet , they are something I am learning to deal with because there is no reasonable or fair mechanism for addressing what reduces my enjoyment. So where do we draw the line on this?

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, but you assume that the entire community *shares* a common aesthetic.

The pure aesthetic approach is impossible in a diverse community with diverse aesthetics. In such a community you require a mechanic to mediate conflicting aesthetics.

Silver Crusade 2/5

What FLite said.

Also, PFS NPCs hurling SoS spells all the time. Why shouldn't PCs hurl them back? Granted, my SoS of choice is slow, so the melees still get their jollies, but you get the idea.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

FLite wrote:

Yes, but you assume that the entire community *shares* a common ascetic.

The pure ascetic approach is impossible in a diverse community with diverse ascetics. In such a community you require a mechanic to mediate conflicting ascetics.

Which is exactly what rules are for.

3/5 RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

FLite wrote:

Yes, but you assume that the entire community *shares* a common ascetic.

The pure ascetic approach is impossible in a diverse community with diverse ascetics. In such a community you require a mechanic to mediate conflicting ascetics.

All this talk of ascetics, but I don't think I've ever seen a monk in PFS who took one of the vows.

...Oh, wait, do you mean aesthetic?

In that case, I agree.

Sovereign Court 1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You guys are really off topic. There is a whole thread talking about the SoS spells. I am far more interested in hearing ideas about how a self-policing campaign would or wouldn't work. Or why a very strict conservative rules based campaign is or isn't what is needed to make society play work.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Not really. These are examples in need of resolution for a self-policing campaign to work. Basically it comes down to how much table variance you are willing to deal with. I really despise table variation in society play, but others feel differently.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

RainyDayNinja wrote:
FLite wrote:

Yes, but you assume that the entire community *shares* a common ascetic.

The pure ascetic approach is impossible in a diverse community with diverse ascetics. In such a community you require a mechanic to mediate conflicting ascetics.

All this talk of ascetics, but I don't think I've ever seen a monk in PFS who took one of the vows.

...Oh, wait, do you mean aesthetic?

In that case, I agree.

Ironically, I knew that I always get the spelling of the two mixed up. So I went back up and checked the OP's spelling to get mine right. So I blame him. :)

(I origionally spelled it aescetic. I *knew* that was wrong.)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
FLite wrote:

Yes, but you assume that the entire community *shares* a common aesthetic.

The pure aesthetic approach is impossible in a diverse community with diverse aesthetics. In such a community you require a mechanic to mediate conflicting aesthetics.

It's also incorrect to assume that every Society gamer HAS an aesthetic. A fair number of folks are just at the table to play... and they could care less about the character, or world setting, they just want to "win" the challenge, or have fun, or just goof off within allowed contexts.

Dark Archive

I meant "ascetic", actually, it wasn't a mistake. I didn't use actual monks as an example only because I assume this board has one of those boilerplate "no talking about real life religions" clauses.

Dark Archive

FLite wrote:

Yes, but you assume that the entire community *shares* a common aesthetic.

The pure aesthetic approach is impossible in a diverse community with diverse aesthetics. In such a community you require a mechanic to mediate conflicting aesthetics.

Actually, what I am assuming is that we are already on some level sharing ascetical practices: the rules of the campaign.

Imagine a home group that has PFS sessions. They take up all the limitations of PFS, then fill out all of the paperwork. They don't do these things out of preference, there are certainly parts of them they don't like. They don't do them out of fear, no one will ever see whether that guy really earned his second prestige point or not. They do these things out of a desire to be apart of PFS as a community and in order to attain the goals these rules are meant to facilitate.

The rules work best when we see them not as something to fight against or about, but rather when we realize that they are part of what unifies our scattered gaming groups, gamedays at stores, and convention slots into a community. The structure is supposed to be a support, not an obstacle to climb or the point of the exercise.

Anyhow, I'm not sure I would have shared these thoughts with the world if I hadn't been adjust to a new pain medicine, that was probably a failed wisdom check on my point. But that's what I was trying to get at.


Mattastrophic wrote:
It is the responsibility of every participant to provide a positive experience for the community. For good community maintenance, the behavior of hurting the enjoyment of others needs to be prevented, though both self-examination and through asking others to not hurt enjoyment.

As FLite and David Bowles noted, it makes little sense to talk about "a positive experience for the community" in cases where two segments of that community have definitions of "positive experience" that are mutually exclusive.

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
hogarth wrote:
As FLite and David Bowles noted, it makes little sense to talk about "a positive experience for the community" in cases where two segments of that community have definitions of "positive experience" that are mutually exclusive.

Again, it is the responsibility of every participant to provide a positive experience for the community. Not exclusively him- or herself. As Greasitty notes, we all make the choice to be a part a part of a community, which means that we all accept a level of responsibility to our communities to provide a positive experience.

David Bowles wrote:
What if someone's "enjoyment" is making PCs that crush these scenarios? Both from my GMing experience and playing experience, there are many who will NOT show restraint. Is it worth throwing them off your table?

This sort of person is, quite obviously, not providing a positive experience for the community. This sort of player needs to not do that, and it is the responsibility of the community to ensure that this player doesn't do that.

In other words, good community management requires not only self-examination, but the community can't just sit back and hope the problem fixes itself. The Rules won't solve this problem.

David Bowles wrote:
And then what if the party subsequently TPKs from *lack* of optimization?

"What if" is not an excuse to provide a negative experience for others.

David Bowles wrote:
Also, PFS NPCs hurling SoS spells all the time. Why shouldn't PCs hurl them back?

NPCs using these sorts of tactics is not an excuse to provide a negative experience for others.

The difference between people who are providing a positive experience solely for themselves, such as by building PCs which curbstomp scenarios, and who are providing a positive experience for the table, is often quite clear. These two people could be running identical PCs, yet one person creates a happy table and the other creates a sad table. Good community management requires the community to encourage the behaviors which create happy tables and prevent the behaviors which create sad tables.

Again, the Pathfinder Society community requires us all to be responsible gamers, because PFS is a community-based game. It's also on the community to enforce those responsibilities.

-Matt

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Mattastrophic wrote:
Good community management requires the community to encourage the behaviors which create happy tables and prevent the behaviors which create sad tables.

What if those are the same behavior, at different tables? Do we encourage or prevent the behavior?

3/5

Jiggy wrote:
What if those are the same behavior, at different tables? Do we encourage or prevent the behavior?

Perhaps the community can ensure that Player X is seated only with GM Y and Tablemates Z. Or perhaps the community can ask Player X to act in the best interests of whichever table he is at.

A healthy community can figure out what's best for itself. That is essentially the answer to all the "what ifs."

It's really on Player X to be responsible, and the community to enforce that responsibility.

-Matt

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Mattastrophic wrote:
A healthy community can figure out what's best for itself. That is essentially the answer to all the "what ifs."

No, a small community can figure out what's best for itself.

"We'll figure it out" is a perfectly valid response to a "what if" scenario, when the "what if" is a corner case that's only going to come up once in a while, in an otherwise pretty established community.

But when you step outside that bubble and into a larger world, where the "what if" situations are the weekly norm, "figure it out" becomes laughably useless.

3/5

Jiggy wrote:

"We'll figure it out" is a perfectly valid response to a "what if" scenario, when the "what if" is a corner case that's only going to come up once in a while, in an otherwise pretty established community.

But when you step outside that bubble and into a larger world, where the "what if" situations are the weekly norm, "figure it out" becomes laughably irrelevant.

This size problem could very well be what is creating the issues which we see on these boards all the time. The overall PFS community may have grown too large to enforce the responsibilities required of every participant.

But that overall community, it is made up of smaller ones. Those smaller communities need to be able to enforce the responsibilities of its members, without feeling trapped by this perception that The Rules prevent them from doing so.

If a smaller community is still too large, then good community management requires strong leadership. Good coordinators will step in and enforce the responsibilities of its members when there are too many members to do so.

What's important is the fact that the communities are empowered to deal with issues of players who create a negative experience, instead of buying into a perception that The Rules are what create that empowerment, because The Rules are entirely inadequate and unable to replace good community management.

In other words, The Rules won't tell you how to deal with bad behavior in your PFS community. It's on you to put a stop to it, no matter the size of your community.

-Matt

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

The "subdivide the community until each sub-community is small enough to have a single preferred ascetic, then have each of them maintain their ascetic" works great until those sub-communities meet each other at conventions or get shuffled around due to people traveling, etc.

The Exchange 5/5

I guess I am a community of one... wow.

wait, I am of two minds on this issue...

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

I'd point out that my entertainment might just be "throw SoS spells." It's not my obligation to not be entertained because the first time I throw out a slumber hex, someone throws up their arms in exacerbation. Nor is it my obligation to have my character injured or killed because the fighter is entertained by hitting it again.

5/5 5/55/55/5

re, the Crushinator

If you have a table of them, they have fun seeing how far the decapitated head of an orc can go on 11nty billion hitpoints of damage, and they don't mind a table of crushinators, how is it not providing fun for the people there?

Silver Crusade 2/5

Mattastrophic wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

"We'll figure it out" is a perfectly valid response to a "what if" scenario, when the "what if" is a corner case that's only going to come up once in a while, in an otherwise pretty established community.

But when you step outside that bubble and into a larger world, where the "what if" situations are the weekly norm, "figure it out" becomes laughably irrelevant.

This size problem could very well be what is creating the issues which we see on these boards all the time. The overall PFS community may have grown too large to enforce the responsibilities required of every participant.

But that overall community, it is made up of smaller ones. Those smaller communities need to be able to enforce the responsibilities of its members, without feeling trapped by this perception that The Rules prevent them from doing so.

If a smaller community is still too large, then good community management requires strong leadership. Good coordinators will step in and enforce the responsibilities of its members when there are too many members to do so.

What's important is the fact that the communities are empowered to deal with issues of players who create a negative experience, instead of buying into a perception that The Rules are what create that empowerment, because The Rules are entirely inadequate and unable to replace good community management.

In other words, The Rules won't tell you how to deal with bad behavior in your PFS community. It's on you to put a stop to it, no matter the size of your community.

-Matt

Without an enforceable mechanism, ie a rule, there is nothing stopping power builds from sitting at a table. I guess there's always the "GM can throw off any player for any reason" thing.

"NPCs using these sorts of tactics is not an excuse to provide a negative experience for others."

Sorry, as long as animal companions are legal, I'm not giving up slow.

""What if" is not an excuse to provide a negative experience for others."

Given some of the GM mistakes I've seen playing this game, I can't completely blame people for wanting overkill.

Dark Archive 4/5 5/5 ****

Matthew Morris wrote:
I'd point out that my entertainment might just be "throw SoS spells." It's not my obligation to not be entertained because the first time I throw out a slumber hex, someone throws up their arms in exacerbation. Nor is it my obligation to have my character injured or killed because the fighter is entertained by hitting it again.

However, it is your choice to pick your timing.

I say this, having had a character who played a witch with the Slumber hex at a table I recently ran. He held off using it at every opportunity, instead relying on other abilities (allowing others to shine as well), but when it was apparent that the BBEG was going to be gaining the upper hand on them, he chose to use it then. And soon after, to put certain PCs to sleep that were in the process of beating each other to a pulp due to a Confusion spell.

I'd agree that there is a time and a place for SoS spells. I've used them myself in PFS play. Just like there is a place for the 2HW barbarian who deals 1d12+75 (or whatever).

However, it is important to look around the table at times. Are you dominating play... causing others to become disinterested in what is going on? Or is everyone leaning forward, at the edge of their seats, waiting for the next event to happen.

I know that the best times I have had while GMing or playing were those times when players were scrambling though their character sheets (myself included) trying to find anything that they can do to take down [REDACTED MONSTER]. Are you facing Alchemists with explosive bombs (do they ever NOT have explosive bombs)? Maybe use of Create Water is in order!

I could go on (and often have). Sometimes it is good to end a battle quickly (it is 12:30, you've been playing the scenario now for 6 hours, and everyone is exhausted. Now is the time for the Witch to drop the BBEG with her Slumber Hex!)

1/5

First off, let me say that this is a great topic. I actually enjoy discussions on the psychology behind games more than the games. I fear I may burn many hours of my life in this thread.

Second, I like that Greasitty is trying to improve the situation, rather than just throwing something out as an academic observation. However, the key to problem solving is identifying the problem correctly. Misidentify the problem and the solution may exacerbate the situation. With that in mind, I had some observations...

Greasitty wrote:
The juridical approach is one of creating rules and enforcing them often enough to at least scare most of the members of the community into abiding by enough of them to keep things working. It is the approach used by most governments.

I think there is a bit of conflating of concepts. The game on which PFS exist has rules by definition. All games have rules. If one is going to play the Pathfinder RPG, then one has to follow the rules of the game. That part isn't a choice or a decision. If you don't follow the rules, then you aren't playing PFRPG, you're playing something else. PFS-OP benefits from the same objective reality:

If you are going to play PFS-OP, then, by definition, you are adhering to the rules of PFS-OP

Using house rules or ignoring rules from either PF or PFS, means you aren't playing PFS-OP, it means you're playing something else. The problem occurs when GMs present their game as a PFS-OP game when its not. This can happen unintentionally (ignorance or ambiguity in the rules) or intentionally (cheating, fraud).

Quote:
Indeed, communities that aren't strictly voluntary are somewhat forced into this approach. The members of these communities are often part of it by chance, and don't always have the practical ability to leave.

I don't agree with this sentiment. Nobody is "forced" to play PFS-OP. Nobody (ignoring illegal activity). Every single person who sits down to a game does so voluntarily. That is true for GMs and players alike. What is true is that some subset of people who play PFS-OP do not conform.

Quote:
In a way, the juridical path is actually the easier one for members as well as leaders...

So at this point, I am under the impression you are really addressing conformity in the community. You are examining ways in which an Organized Play community achieves conformity by its members. You have simplified the process into rules based conformity (juridical) and an ethos based conformity (ascetical).

Quote:
The result of this conflict is that the people creating the rules start to adjust them to be more stringent than what they actually desire, aiming at the point at which member's willingness to push against the rules will land them at the desired action.

I am going to disagree with this. I think you are led to this conclusion because of the earlier conflation of concepts and idea. My understanding of game developers and authors is that they are creating a game which they think will be fun. But it's important to understand the paradigm under which that game development takes place: the home game. I do not see that PF rules are directed at community based conformity. Nor do I believe they are writing in an effort to control or modify community based behavior. They are written in the context of a home game where the GM can house rule and introduce any mechanic/plot device to create the desired outcome. This is in contrast to PFS.

PFS is concerned with community behavior. In fact, the value-add of PFS is to create the community in which PFRPG can be played. So I am going to assume your observation about the rules is really direct at PFS (the community creators), and not Paizo (the game creators).

If I understand you correctly, you posit that the PFS-OP rules (distinct from the PFRPG rules) are written conservatively with an expectation by the authors(PFS)that the end result will be an average behavior in the sweet spot. You use an example of posted speed limits. While I think your analogy is a bit confusing, I think I understand the gist. However, I think there are some problems.

Good rule writing must be accurate. It must accurately reflect what the author believes is in the best interest of the game. Creating rules that are designed to dupe the player or rules that are based on a perception about behavior, is self-defeating. Authors and lawmakers do not write rules/statutes based on half the population violating the rules. While I would agree that some speed limits are "traps" created by law makers to generate revenue. The majority of speed limits are based on the belief (even if that belief is based on bad data) that the posted speed provides the best compromise between safety and economic efficiency.

PFS is no different. I would submit that PFS is writing rules that they expect to be followed and as such, produce the best result for the community. Trying to second guess player behavior is not a viable way to make a game because it will ultimately lead to mistrust between the community and the developers. I can't agree that PFS is asking for one thing, but expecting another. The fact that many of the PFS-OP rules are a result of an iterative process with the community lends credibility to the sincerity of the PFS authors.

Quote:
On the messageboard and in the guide, PFS feels like a very juridical culture.

It has to be. It is an absolute necessity that we all play with the same set of rules. "Organized Play" has no meaning if we don't. Formalism with regards to the rules is what preserves the promise of Organized Play. It is a matter of community self-preservation. If we all start advocating the use of House Rules, then we no longer have a OP environment and PFS-OP becomes meaningless. The community itself, is based on one set of rules. That's really what binds us.

Quote:
With little to no enforcement powers, however, PFS on the ground is generally not run in a juridical manner.

So here is where I think you make a wrong turn and the discussion becomes confusing. PFS-OP does have enforcement powers: the GM, the VLs, and the VCs. They enforce community bases rules in every single game where PvP doesn't happen but might have. They enforce PFS-OP rules when they sign the chronicle sheet and everyone got the same gold, or spend the same number of gold for a Raise Dead.

The fact that people can cheat doesn't invalidate enforcement any more than a shoplifter never getting caught or someone escaping from prison. No enforcement system catches 100% of its violators. Even if PFS-OP only caught 1% of the cheaters, its still enforcement. More to the point, I think this line of reason is not the ideal perspective. PFS-OP relies on an honor system.

However, what it seems like you are talking about something different. Let me see if I can zero in on that...

Quote:
In reality, the approach that is keeping practices common from one region and group to another isn't juridical at all, it is ascetical. The community is kept functional by thousands of individuals putting aside their personal preferences in order to stay in step with the campaign as a whole. *** Compared to a home game situation, we instantly give up any palpable feeling of affecting the game world's future.

So I'm a little confused here. I think a better word for what you describe is compromise. In my mind, you are talking about compromise, not self-denial. We all make the same compromise to play PFS-OP vs Home Games. True, players will place a different value on the importance of any particular change, but I don't see that as a "sacrifice" because players aren't entitled or owed anything. PFS-OP is what PFS-OP is. A person either agree to play this game or he plays another game. An individual may feel like they are sacrificing something important to play PFS, but that is misguided. You can't sacrifice something you don't have. For example, no one calls playing Monopoly a sacrifice because it isn't Risk or backgammon.

Quote:
If we all stepped up our self-enforcement, if we encouraged those around us to be responsible society players, there would be a strong social pressure in that direction. Instead of wielding the rules as weapons in debate, our rules debates could center on what would work best for the society as a whole, not how to evade the current rule. In the end, it could make much more room for common sense and dispensations for those who need them.

Emphasis mine.

Ah. So now I see where this is leading. I must emphatically disagree with the emphasized section. I fundamentally and categorically disagree with the community putting social pressure on people when it comes to playing a game. My main concern and and issue has been alluded to by others.

There is no right way to have fun.

While I agree that nobody should be allowed to actively undermine another persons fun, telling players what is "reasonable" is fraught with peril. We are not all going to agree. We do not all think alike. The game can and should support many play-styles so long as none of them are based on intentionally ruining the game for others.

1/5

Mattastrophic wrote:
The problem a PFS community can run into, and this problem is on full display on these boards, is that the perception of The Rules as supreme is actually preventing good community development and management. In Greasitty's words, the perception of a juridical approach is getting in the way of the self-policing ascetic approach.

I couldn't disagree more. The rules are essential to prevent misguided (but well intentioned) GMs from ruining people's experience. What I think is overlooked here, is that the rules behind PF and PFS-OPS represent the work of professional game designers. I am going to repeat that again:

Professional game designers.

Most GMs who would impose their version of rules on the game are just not on that level of competency. In fact, the emergence of the "GM as Written" rule is testament to the inability of scores of GMs to manage the game appropriately. I've personally experienced 3.5 and PF GMs trying to "fix" one rule and inadvertently breaking four or five others they were completely unaware of and really have no metric for evaluating.

Paizo has put untold hours into creating the PFRPG set and who knows how many hours went into creating the 3.5 set. I don't believe that any random GM is competent enough to unilaterally "fix" it or evaluate the robustness of said fix. GMs should referee the game, they should not be re-writing the rules.

Quote:
Here, we have a similar behavior to the first community situation. Here, we have instances of a player's actions making the experience of PFS less enjoyable for others. In the community-driven environment, everyone needs to show restraint in their character-building and in-game actions in order to promote a positive experience for the table. Also, it is very easy to hide behind The Rules as an excuse for this behavior: "It's legal, so I can use it."

Here you are conflating two unrelated issues. You talk about inappropriate behavior and have decided to some how include character build options under the same rubric.

Quote:
A healthy community needs to ask players who are using too-powerful options to restrain themselves. The legality of the option(s) does not absolve players from their responsibilities to the group.

This approach or expectation is fundamentally problematic. While I openly acknowledge that when you have a disparate level of PC efficacy, the dominant PC can diminish the game for others, any game that expects players to self-nerf to enjoy the game is fundamentally flawed.

It is not my job to make sure as many as six other players have fun. That is absurd. It is my responsibility to not actively undermine their fun. But PFS-OP cannot expect players to walk on egg-shells in the fear that some other player might complain. It is unreasonable to expect players to cater to every other player's idiosyncratic issue. What you're proposing will encourage player who get overshadowed to play the victim card. "GM, she keeps one-shoting NPCS with Rage and Power Attack, please tell her to stop because my bard isn't getting a chance to do any damage."

Players should be expected to follow the rules and not be a jerk. If the rules allow players to unwittingly ruin the game for others, fix the rules. Don't try to put "social" pressure on players. Don't let GMs kick players for being effective. Let people play to the game to the best of their ability. Do not demonize people for trying to be the best they can at what they do.

Dark Archive

Thanks for your response, NN959. While I think you misunderstood me quite a bit I'll take full responsibility for communicating unclearly. I really wasn't in the best mental shape when I posted.

I never meant that PFS was in any way an involuntary community, it is 100% voluntary. There was supposed to be a contrast there between communities that are forced to use a heavily juridical approach (like countries) and those that don't have to (hobby organizations). There is much more room for other approaches in fully voluntary organizations. The very fact that people have volunteered to be a part suggests that they think at least most of the existing rules and structure contribute to something they want to see happen.

There are of course a wide variety of gaming preferences in PFS, but we do have something of a shared community goal: to be able to play in a global Pathfinder campaign, a campaign not tethered to a particular venue or GM. Whether you prefer roleplay or combat, long fights or short ones, this playstyle or that, this core mission I think we can agree on.

In a voluntary community with a common mission, rules are used to build structure and demarcate boundaries. I agree with you that they have a defining function as well. They help us align our pockets of attempted PFS into a succesful whole. They can be used to prevent harmful practices from becoming the norm and damaging the society as a whole.

This rules-positive approach that is possible within a voluntary community is what makes the honor system work. We apparently disagree about what level of putting aside one's own preferences for the group or mission is a "sacrifice", so I won't use that language. The operation of an honor system is based on the participants choosing to limit what they do to what they are supposed to do. Conformity is achieved by free choice rather than duress.

With that in view, I wasn't suggesting socially pressuring people, but rather I envisioned something more akin to inspiration and offering help. People doing things they really believe in enthusiastically make doing the same more attractive to others.

Similarly, I see the rules at the best when they too inspire and help people to measure up more to PFS's expectations, and weakest when they try to enforce things without much to back it up. Both kinds are sometimes necessary, but I think the former is more productive.

On a personal level, I found a lot of the discussions and clarifications and such about the 5.0 guide rather demoralizing. In contrast, putting those rules into practice amidst engaged people at Gencon was invigorating. So think of this as my naive wish that our conversational tone regarding such things and even the process of making the rules itself could be as winsome as the reality of playing PFS.

Dark Archive 4/5

Greasitty wrote:
On the messageboard and in the guide, PFS feels like a very juridical culture. It is felt most the very rules lawyering threads, discussions of possible loopholes, but also in the posts of people seeking advice on how and when to enforce the rules. This messageboard section of PFS's culture seems to have forced Mike Brock and the rest of the leadership into strict language and endless clarifications, sometimes with great cost to common sense rulings.

Hit the nail on the head, IMHO.

1/5

Greasitty wrote:
Thanks for your response, NN959. While I think you misunderstood me quite a bit I'll take full responsibility for communicating unclearly. I really wasn't in the best mental shape when I posted.

No problem. This is a complicated topic. It's easy to get sidetracked or focused on something tangential, so please let me know if I misinterpret things or fail to recognize the forest for the trees.

Quote:
I never meant that PFS was in any way an involuntary community, it is 100% voluntary.

Noted.

Quote:
There was supposed to be a contrast there between communities that are forced to use a heavily juridical approach...

Part of what may make me sound confused is that there is a fair amount of ambiguity (from my perspective) as to what you are specifically referring to. PFS consists of two sets of rules:

1. The Pathfinder rules - the actual game mechanics;

2. The Society rules - the organized play mechanics;

and there seems to be reference to a third concept -

3. The Organized Play rules - unwritten gaming etiquette.

So it's not clear to me if you when you use the term juridical, whether you are talking about PF rules PFS rules, or OP rules.

IMO, the absolute cornerstone of Organized Play is fairness. Without fairness in the rules, nothing else is possible. Fairness falls under the domain of PFS rules. PFS has to create an environment that is fair (not necessarily equal) to all players. Part of that fairness is makings sure the same rules are enforced everywhere.

Quote:
There are of course a wide variety of gaming preferences in PFS, but we do have something of a shared community goal: to be able to play in a global Pathfinder campaign, a campaign not tethered to a particular venue or GM. Whether you prefer roleplay or combat, long fights or short ones, this playstyle or that, this core mission I think we can agree on.

Yes and no. I think PFS appeals to people because it scratches some itch they have with regards to gaming. I would submit that everyone who plays appreciates being able to progress a character from game to game. Beyond that, I'm reluctant to generalize (but don't hold me to that :)). I do agree that PFS can support a wide variety of play-styles.

Unlike many, I do not agree that optimizers are orthogonal to RP'ers. I think RP'ers have taken a holier-than-thou-attitude and insist on a divisive attitude towards people who don't share their values.

In a voluntary community with a common mission, rules are used to build structure and demarcate boundaries. I agree with you that they have a defining function as well. They help us align our pockets of attempted PFS into a successful whole. They can be used to prevent harmful practices from becoming the norm and damaging the society as a whole.

Quote:
This rules-positive approach that is possible within a voluntary community is what makes the honor system work.

Once gain, I'm not sure what rules you are referring to. Based on other things in this post, I'm getting the impression you are referring to Society rules and not necessarily PF rules. Regardless, I'm not sure I understand the connection to the "honor system" with a "rules-positive approach."

As I posited above the rules are what makes the game fair. If the community isn't enthusiastic about understanding the rules

Quote:
We apparently disagree about what level of putting aside one's own preferences for the group or mission is a "sacrifice"

Yeah, probably not crucial to the discussion.

Quote:
The operation of an honor system is based on the participants choosing to limit what they do to what they are supposed to do.

So here again, you'll need to connect the dotes for me on discussing an honor system in the context of your overall point.

Quote:
I wasn't suggesting socially pressuring people, but rather I envisioned something more akin to inspiration and offering help.

Well, I certainly can't disagree with this in theory. I think the question is what is the curriculum? What are we educating people on? If the goal is to prove the base level of play, count me in. If the goal is educate players on how to play better, build characters that can contribute in and out of combat, and the fundamentals of teamwork and tactics. Amen.

However, if the goal is to indoctrinate players into underachieving or conforming to the lowest common denominator, then I would oppose such an approach.

Quote:
Similarly, I see the rules at the best when they too inspire and help people to measure up more to PFS's expectations, and weakest when they try to enforce things without much to back it up.

Kind of vague.

Quote:
On a personal level, I found a lot of the discussions and clarifications and such about the 5.0 guide rather demoralizing.

Not sure I understand why? While I personally don't feel compelled to participate, there are rules that I would like clarified. Ambiguity and uncertainty causes stress. So I appreciate that there are people that are willing to do the heavy lifting to iron things out.

Silver Crusade 2/5

The problem is that common sense is not that common. And not consistent at all. The nature of a society is that we need rulings to help with table consistency. I've had GM "rulings" almost lead to TPKs.

I've played several strategy wargames where these kinds of rulings were not necessary, because the authors intentionally used unambiguous language. It is possible, the authors just need to think like a gamer :)

The Exchange

As long as this reply is, I promise I get to the thread subject by the end, it just takes a while.

N N 959 wrote:
IMO, the absolute cornerstone of Organized Play is fairness. Without fairness in the rules, nothing else is possible. Fairness falls under the domain of PFS rules. PFS has to create an environment that is fair (not necessarily equal) to all players. Part of that fairness is makings sure the same rules are enforced everywhere.

Your wording here is very interesting. Specifically how you're weighing fairness vs. balance.

Thanks to google: fair (adj.) in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate.

It is the responsibility of the GMs to maintain fairness, i.e. enforce the same rules in each situation.

However, I feel it is the domain of PFS rules to assist with balance, which we agree is not the same as fair. In all multiplayer RP games the designers have to take care that any path has equal opportunity to contribute within the boundaries of the rules. This ensures the largest number of players and thus the greatest profit. As they discover possible imbalances, they adjust.

The third member of the society, the players, are then given free reign in the restraints of fairness and balance to design a character.

Quote:
Unlike many, I do not agree that optimizers are orthogonal to RP'ers. I think RP'ers have taken a holier-than-thou-attitude and insist on a divisive attitude towards people who don't share their values.

I think they are two separate axes (not weapons, x,y coordinates). For example, a person who is a heavy RP'er and heavy optimizer could easily create a character concept that wanted to optimize.

My only comment regarding those who wish to only optimize and not RP at all is that I feel there are much better systems to do that, many of which I love playing (miniature games, many board games, etc.).

My gaming group (which I should point out Greasitty is the usual GM) covers almost all four corners of the RP vs. optimize plot. We still get together and all have fun almost every week. The 'juridical' rules don't say that all players must have the same amount of fun, but our 'ascetical' willingness to "share the spotlight" means that every player has a good time.

Silver Crusade 2/5

It's great that your group gets along so well. Many others do not. I think the setup for season 5 is helping with the railroady nature of earlier PFS seasons that actually discouraged roleplay in my opinion. And no more Osirions asking to search every room for their bit of fungus taking up table time.

Dark Archive

As long as there is an agreed upon standard (in this case Pathfinder RAW with messageboard clarifications), any system of rules for tabletop can work as long as it is well communicated. The vast majority of people playing it might think a given rule for initiative is silly, but as long as they are expecting it they can make intelligent decisions based on it. For organized play, GM rulings are indeed not enough and reducing table variation is a good goal. So no, these aren't the kinds of rules I meant.

In your terms, NN959 I am speaking entirely of Society rules, the organized play mechanics. The unwritten etiquette sometimes derives from them as a reaction to the society rules, but that is a different topic.

As a bit of a case study, let's look at the introduction of Inventory Tracking Sheets.

In the prototype Guide 5.0 and then the immediate words of the campaign leadership, they were described in a very juridical manner. They were presented as a new requirement for purchasing items for your character, eventually those of 25 gp or more, and went so far as to say that if you were using a different sheet to track your inventory you could finish that off and then should have a GM sign it. At that point you were directed to use this new sheet.

The threads that followed largely became inflamed by a lot of arguments that centered on the responsibility of GM's to sign off on things, whether buying items had to be done at the table, and then a slew of debates on the how and why of audits. I myself even contributed to this legalistic approach by pointing out that this added a new requirement to PFS participation, access to a printer. All this took a lot of Mike Brock's time before Gencon to address, and posing our questions in these terms led to necessarily inefficient communication.

Then a few people saw the forest instead of the trees, and focused their questions on how they could best conform to the intention of the new inventory tracking rules. They were primarily people worried about using a lot of consumables, people for whom the "wands" corner of the sheet was highly insufficient. Some of them took the time to make their own version of the ITS and present it. This led to a much more fruitful conversation, and one that led us to the place we are now in regards to inventory tracking.

Ultimately, it turned out most people who were arguing really had nothing against tracking their inventory in a more clear and standard way. They had concerns with the specifics of how that requirement would be implemented, but not the intention of it. There were some real questions, even some very real legal questions that needed to be answered, but when viewed in that light those were wrapped up fairly quickly. There was a willingness to conform to a standard of inventory tracking, to come to a common compromise.

The ruling that came together out of all that doesn't sound nearly so legalistic. Every character, as part of their documentation, needs a sheet detailing their purchases of 25 gp and above since mid-August. It needs to conform to a fairly standard format so that GM's can read it, and include certain bits of information: the name of the item, it's cost, on which chronicle it was acquired, on which chronicle you sold or expended it.

It's actually a great tool that lowered overall paperwork by uniting cramped little chronicle purchase boxes and character inventory areas into an easier to use whole, all while giving us a standard to see if our own paperwork measures up. It makes PFS both more organized and it's paperwork more streamlined in one stroke.

So when I say "rules-positive" I mean not looking at a rule and concentrating on what it says I must do, then doing whatever the minimum required is. We are in a position to look at the rules as meant to support our PFS hobby, then concentrate on stepping up to fulfill that intention as best we can, even if that means going beyond what the rules require. If that became the more dominant part of the culture, it would free the campaign leadership to be more open in their communication, which in turn would give us more input into structure they are building for us.

Obviously, none of us can make other people see things this way. This is something that grows as individuals make the intentional choice to look at it this way, to respond in this manner. Cultural drift happens one person at a time, whether positive or negative. The more of us live the spirit of the law, the more generous the letter of law can become. The more we as individuals live the spirit of the law, the more common those practices become by default.

This is why I categorized the approach as ascetical. This doesn't make a policy you can put on other people, it is a personal self discipline and rigor. It may inspire other people, but the only person you spend time judging is yourself.

And that's the last reply I'll be able to give for a while. The ogre shadowknight in my home game has decided that the party needs to finish trying to take over an island of goblinoids before we can get back the part of the world I have prepped, so I have a bit of gaming homework to do. ;)

1/5

Quaseymoto wrote:

Your wording here is very interesting. Specifically how you're weighing fairness vs. balance.

Thanks to google: fair (adj.) in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate.

***However, I feel it is the domain of PFS rules to assist with balance, which we agree is not the same as fair.

You've touched on one of the biggest misnomers in RPGs: balance.

Let's look at some applicable definitions for balance:

Quote:
a condition in which different elements are equal or in the correct proportions.
Quote:
offset or compare the value of (one thing) with another.

It is one of the biggest perpetuated fallacies of modern RPG game developers that things can be balanced. In order for things to be "equal" we have to have some metric to compare them. For objects we use mass. For business ventures, we can use return on investment or cash flow. What is that metric for an RPG? Guess what? It doesn't exist. Developers and players talk about balance out the yin-yang, but none of us have any objective way to know that anything is balanced. Is Power Attack balanced with Point Blank Shot? Is Dodge balanced with [i]Nimble Moves? That question is nonsensical because there is no objective way to compare them. It's tantamount to asking if blue is balanced with red or sugar is balanced with salt. Let me state something for which I have no fear of contradiction:

The game cannot be balanced.

It's impossible to balance context-dependent mechanics. An archer cannot be balanced with a meleer because each one's effectiveness is totally dependent on the circumstances under which they fight. Those circumstances are highly variable and dependent upon the GM and a host of other factors that cannot be boiled down to a number or set of equations. Ergo, you cannot "balance" this game.

In old school D&D, hardly anyone cared about balance. What mattered was purpose. Did the class or spell or ability serve some non-trivial purpose? With the evolution of the 3.5 rule set, the developers lost sight of purpose. Instead, they chased the white rabbit of balance and this resulted in players being able to make characters that could not adequately fill one of the roles that the game is still based on: striking, tanking, healing/buffing, skills, and casting (which is really the wild card).

So the 3.5 build process which is seen as a huge plus over 1e D&D creates a huge problem for Organized Play because it results in characters who can be at opposite extremes of effectiveness. In 1e, all Paladins had the same abilities and met a minimum attribute requirement. The Paladin's role in the group was never usurped because nobody could "dip" into the class or take any of the classes abilities. Authors in 1e knew what classes could do what and could write scenarios with more certainty as to the rogues ability to pick locks or climb walls. In 1e, players differentiated themselves through the RP, not their build choices.

Why hasn't this problem come to the forefront sooner? Because the great Houdini act is that in home games, the GM automatically adjusts. So despite the philosophical problem with the 3.5 rule set, GMs were able to compensate and mask this systemic failure resulting from attempts to balance build choices. PFS does not have this built in Heisenberg Compensater (mixing genres, I know, a faux pas). The GM cannot lower the treasure chest's DC to match the level 7 rogue who's put one point in Disable Device back at 1st level and hasn't put another since. Since day one, some people have been complaining about scenarios being too easy and others complain that making them too hard forces them to play uninteresting characters.

How do we solve this problem? As I said, the cornerstone of OP is fairness. Fairness means I face the same DC's that you do. It means I face the same BBEG, the same traps, and the same missions goals that you do. If you let GMs alter the scenario to suit the players, then you'll undermine the entire foundation of PFS. You'll have a large percentage of GMs who are basically just handing out the chronicles and that will devalue the game and everybody ultimately loses.

Quote:
In all multiplayer RP games the designers have to take care that any path has equal opportunity to contribute within the boundaries of the rules.

In 1e D&D, this was not true and D&D is considered the grandfather of all RPG's. In 1e D&D, Magic Users sucked at low levels and Fighters dominated. At high levels, the roles were reversed. While I agree that there is more short term pay-off if the Magic User feels that he is as valuable as the Fighter from Day 1. I'll argue that the feeling of accomplishment of a person who played a Magic User and made it past 5th level was more rewarding than it is now. But yes, I am not going to say that Wizards of the Coast was misguided or got it wrong. I think they were motivated by the desire to grow the market as much as, if not more than a concern about "improving" the game. Ideally, those two goals are the same. I think PFS subscribes to that philosophy.

Quote:
This ensures the largest number of players and thus the greatest profit. As they discover possible imbalances, they adjust.

IME/O, the 3.5 rule set is a LOT easier on the GM and much harder on the player. One of the obvious design goals was to allow players to build the character that the player wanted. We can see a steady progression of build paths/trees in the various iterations of D&D. WotC undoubtedly got this concept from other games, especially video games which exploited this model. The problem is that the more choice you give someone, the more likely it is they are going to make a choice that is contrary to the paradigm under which the writers were designing the game. Some people may think they are clever or cute playing a 6 hit point Fighter with an 8 STR, "ooh look at me and my zany notions of how to build characters, aren't I interesting to play with?" But the scenario author is expecting you to actually be able to kill kobolds without TPKing half the time.

Organized Play cannot mask or pander to incompetence/inability, intentional or unintentional. If PFSOP tries to cater to the lowest common denominator, it's going to kill itself. Games like PF, which are rules intensive, are not sustained by the girlfriend who's GM boyfriend built her character. PFS and ultimately PF is sustained by the dedicated players. The people who buy all the books and know what cool gear to get and know how to make effective characters because they've invested the time. If you don't challenge those players and reward them for that time investment, you'll lose them and the revenue they bring. The players who just want to RP are less likely to buy that new rule book because their enjoyment is not dependent upon knowing the rules. They don't need Elves of Golarion because they are not looking for a combat advantage. Grant it, some my buy books for the lore, but I'm guessing the books with mechanics are far more profitable than straight lore books. Someone let me know if I'm wrong.

Quote:
My only comment regarding those who wish to only optimize and not RP at all is that I feel there are much better systems to do that, many of which I love playing (miniature games, many board games, etc.)

But that is irrelevant to the individual. What matters is they want to play PFS and their play-sytle is 100% legal. You can't punish people for following the rules. You can't punish people for not subscribing to your values i.e. making the design choices you make. If a particular build violates the spirit of the rules or negatively impacts the game, change the rules. Don't try to impose values on people.

Quote:
The 'juridical' rules don't say that all players must have the same amount of fun, but our 'ascetical' willingness to "share the spotlight" means that every player has a good time.

I have no problem with people advocating that some restraint might be good. I enjoy playing Kyra from time to time so that I can enable other players. The problem arises when GMs talk of banning players for legal play and for simply succeeding with the tools they have been given.

We have all this talk about introducing young players to the game. Well, I believe we should encourage young people to excel at things. To be the best they can within the confines of the rules and the spirt of the game. It is the effort and the struggle of achieving excellence that creates character and teaches life's lessons. Being the best party healer/buffer, the best skills monkey, the best blaster, or best damage dealer that you can, is fundamental to humanity. Not to get too over the top, with this, but teaching young kids to underachieve has so many things wrong with it, I'm not going to get into it.

Scarab Sages

David Bowles wrote:
I think the setup for season 5 is helping with the railroady nature of earlier PFS seasons that actually discouraged roleplay in my opinion. And no more Osirions asking to search every room for their bit of fungus taking up table time.

It was fungus wine, sir.

There is a difference.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
David Bowles wrote:
Without an enforceable mechanism, ie a rule, there is nothing stopping power builds from sitting at a table. I guess there's always the "GM can throw off any player for any reason" thing.

A GM who starts throwing out players for being better players in PFS, is going to have some major answering to do.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I think that was his point, LazarX.

Silver Crusade 2/5

That was my point.

The Exchange

N N 959 wrote:

It is one of the biggest perpetuated fallacies of modern RPG game developers that things can be balanced. In order for things to be "equal" we have to have some metric to compare them. For objects we use mass. For business ventures, we can use return on investment or cash flow.

The game cannot be balanced.

We may disagree on this one. We don't know the metric to measure in game balance, but that doesn't mean one does not exist. Before mass was discovered, man still used levers and scales. A person was still described as rich when they did not make quarterly reports.

For another analogy, we cannot say that 2 apples are the same as 3 oranges, but we can say that 2 apples have the same cost as 3 oranges.

Also worth noting is the difference between static and dynamic equilibrium. Two things can be constantly equal or there can be a constant flux between them that forces them towards equality, such as osmosis. Without going into chemistry lessons I'll leave it there but I think that 'game balance' fits much better in the latter example.

Similarly, it is difficult to say that a healer, who does little damage, and a huge hitting caster or fighter are balanced based on numbers, but rubrics do exist to compare them. Especially with social media you can start by gauging public response, or tracking number of class a vs. class b, or party make-ups in TPKs. There's no set formula but you can still make qualitative decisions.

N N 959 wrote:


In old school D&D, hardly anyone cared about balance. What mattered was purpose. Did the class or spell or ability serve some non-trivial...

If it came out that I preferred WOTC's attempt to balance to the Pathfinder system, I apologize. To put that into perspective I played AD&D 2nd ed up until last year, when I switched to Pathfinder. I personally don't place balance at a high priority, and I can proudly say I played a 2nd ed Bard.

Quote:
Quote:


My only comment regarding those who wish to only optimize and not RP at all is that I feel there are much better systems to do that, many of which I love playing (miniature games, many board games, etc.)
But that is irrelevant to the individual. What matters is they want to play PFS and their play-sytle is 100% legal. You can't punish people for following the rules. You can't punish people for not subscribing to your values i.e. making the design choices you make. If a particular build violates the spirit of the rules or negatively impacts the game, change the rules. Don't try to impose values on people.

Was just passing that as a joke, guess I missed.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Jiggy wrote:
FLite wrote:

Yes, but you assume that the entire community *shares* a common ascetic.

The pure ascetic approach is impossible in a diverse community with diverse ascetics. In such a community you require a mechanic to mediate conflicting ascetics.

Which is exactly what rules are for.

The rules are not remotely all encompassing nor perfectly clear nor do I think they can be.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Okay. You say that as though you were responding to a claim to the contrary, yet I see none in your quote.

1 to 50 of 98 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Ascetical vs Juridical Approaches to PFS Culture All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.