|
@Mark Stratton: I've seen players banned or warned for making racist or sexist comments. I've seen people sent packing for cheating. I have never seen people banned for conflicting play styles.
Lucky you. I know of a VO who has said, outright, that because I moaned after a game about how someone ran a PC, causing a TPK, that he would never run a table for me, nor sit at a table I was running.
@Raymond Lambert: Please do not agree to GM a game and then refuse. That is a waste of both money and time spent by the players who showed up for that game.
And having someone try to do something that they don't find enjoyable is better for you? You do know that this kind of thing is whaty causes GM burn-out, don't you? If the GM isn't having fun, he stops GMing.
@OP: As mentioned, the best first step, if possible, is to have a mature discussion with the players who are causing you issues. Explain what you are seeing from them, and how it is making things unenjoyable for you. Also, it sounds like you GM at Drogon's store, and he seems to be very proactive, so hopefully he can help you get things worked out so everyone can go back to having fun.
@Hymenopteran: It sounds like you are having a very bad people day. You might want to take a step back, give the boards a rest for a while, and come back when you can be civil. As it is, your posts come off as more than a bit of bullying, rather than any attempt to provide helpful advice to either the OP or anyone else with similar issues.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just got back from a long walk. Look guys, I apologize for the outburst. I have my own issues and its my responsibility to take care of them.
I just want to say this: people with PTSD tend to be very sensitive and can get triggered to react in extreme ways. This should be taken into account.
The GM who is experiencing this, I would advise him to seek help and get into therapy (I'm going to go back into counseling as I obviously have a lot that still needs to be worked out) because you cannot change the world or other people and you will need to develop coping strategies for when you are triggered.
I really don't think that PFS is a bad place more or less than any other public environment. And its online aspect is prone to even worse tendencies, just like any other public online forum.
I wish everybody the best RP experience and I hope you all do not lose sight of the central objective to have a good time and make friends.
Most of the time people are just acting like imperfect humans and its important to forgive them for their mistakes, just as we would like to be forgiven for our own mistakes and shortcomings.
Again, I apologize for creating an uncomfortable environment on here and I hope people can move past that and learn from it. I am doing my best to as well.
-Best regards
Thanks guys. I hope this GM is able to resolve his issues too.
Maybe expectations are part of the problem too? When people don't conform to our expectations sometimes we get mad. Hmmm. Never heard that one before...:/
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay GM, here's the deal:
The GM is supposed to be a referee and your job is to make sure all the players are having fun and getting along and that the game is running smoothly. If the power gamers are disrupting things for everyone else then its an issue and it should be brought up at the table for everyone to discuss. Otherwise you should be willing to compromise and work with this player.
Keep your perspective too - its just a game and its not the end of the world if it doesn't play out how you want it to. You will also have plenty of opportunities to run more games in the future. Many more games if you choose to. This is just a drop in the bucket in the long run and will be a valuable learning experience for you. Look at it that way instead of being fixated on the here and now.
And please, as I have demonstrated above, please, please, please, don't take every little jab or gesture as a personal insult because, chances are, it isn't intended that way. Even if it is, its on the other person and doesn't really matter.
The alternative is that you can quit and deprive yourself or you can act out like I did and make things a lot worse, solving nothing.
Okay, good night everybody.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to make a suggestion for everyone who's said "my time and money" ... let's quit making this about time and/or money. This is about the way a person feels, and about how they are uncomfortable around another player.
My first suggestion to you is to find a venue at which you don't have to pay to play. I have never once, not even a single time, paid money to play a PFS game. I pay enough for the books, and I don't like to pay extra on top of that. I'd offer for your consideration that there are plenty of venues where one can sit at a table and not pay for PFS, and still support whatever store, library, student center, etc. where the game is by buying food, drinks, etc. And that should be enough.
...
More than that, though, let's not make this about *you*. This is about the OP's problem, and how he feels. Let's not turn this around, and make it all about how you want this, or you want that. Let's take all of the "I" our of this, and offer some kind of helpful suggestions about how to deal with a difficult situation. It's already been said that the place to make this decision isn't at the last minute. But, rather, in a considered time and place, giving others (like the organizer) time to cover the table or arrange to have a discussion with the player.
That being said, it's no different than if the GM got sick at the last minute. Especially if the organizer hasn't made it so that the GM is aware of who signed up for the game. But, if he makes the choice to run the game, the who are we (or who are you to tell him that his feelings are invalid and imply that he's somehow required or obligated by a social contract to run a game regardless of how upsetting or distinctly not fun that would be for him.
...
It's not about you, or your five dollars, or the drive time it took to get there ... it's about a fella who's having a difficult time, is feeling hurt and conflicted, and needs help figuring it out.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
Playing a game in Pathfinder Society is a shared experience - that is, it isn't the experience of a single person, but rather, the individual AND collective experiences of those at the table.
I don't, for a moment, suggest the OP is wrong - I mean, how we feel about a game or a game session is entirely subjective. Something about this player bothers the OP. I get it. There are people who I won't play with - if I see they sign up for the same table I am playing at, I will sign up for a different table or won't play, and that's because playing with them as a player totally detracts from my enjoyment.
As a GM, however, once I sign up to GM, I have committed to run that game. If I see one of the players sign up who I wouldn't play with (as a player), I will still run, and everyone at that table gets a fair game and, frankly, those players don't bother me when I sit as a GM - it's only when I sit as a player.
Society GM's aren't slaves, but when we sign up, we do make a commitment, and while things do come up from time to time, a personal prejudice or the like should not be reason for us to step out of that slot. Things that are beyond our control (illness, car accident, etc.) are different; personal preferences or prejudices or what have you are not.
I have done what I have advised the OP to do: go directly to the person with whom he has the issue and talk with that player. This is, I think, the best advice given to the OP, and it has been given by many, many people here, some far more experienced in Society than I am.
As a current Venture Officer, I can only tell you that if a GM made the choice not to run games at a store I oversee because of Player X, I would try to resolve that issue, or at least help to do so. But if GM X said, "I will not run games so long as Player Z is at that table," I would tell him, "Thank you for running games in the past, but please don't sign up to run games here any more." As a VL, I need GMs that are dependable and reliable, and if the possibility is going to arise that someone may, at the last minute, bow out because Player Z signs up, then I can't count on that person to show up. Of course, if the Player Z has done something for which he or she should be banned from play, I'll support the GM in that call.
But, the good thing about the vast majority of players and GMs in PFS is that, if we have problems with someone else and we speak to them directly, we can oftentimes resolve many of these issues.
Please, OP, just try to reach out to the other person. And if that doesn't work, if it's just an impasse that cannot be resolved, then you have to strongly consider whether or not you should be running public play in a venue where there is a chance that player is going to show up. As others have said, you can always run PFS for private groups (I do that, in addition to public venues). But, as I said elsewhere, the issues you have raised, in my view, do not meet the threshold for banning a player. He may tread dangerously close to the "don't be a jerk" line, but a difference in play style (and that's what I get the sense this is) isn't grounds (in my view) to ban a player.
I hope you and this player can resolve this, I really do. Good luck to you, and if it's at all helpful, remember that one of the duties of a member of the Pathfinder Society is to cooperate.
Best wishes and good luck.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mark ...
Personal differences absolutely *are* a reason to not GM a table. As are playstyles. I personally like long sessions of RP. I won't play with powergamers that don't understand that. It's often problematic when PFS as a whole generally insists that a game must be playable in a 4 hour slot. When I take the time to RP, and a powergamer continuously tries to prevent it, or huffs and puffs, or rolls his eyes - it's a disruption. And it prevents people from having fun. And it's not *my* fault, and I have to change my playstyle. If I'm GMing, I would absolutely tell a player that they need to straighten themselves out or they'd be asked to leave a table. Just because the OP isn't quite so outspoken and doesn't feel comfortable being that direct doesn't mean that he's any less in the right.
If a GM came to you off the boards and said, "A player is causing a problem", would you do the same thing as you are here on the boards? Because you're essentially saying that you'd tell *him* to deal with it. The OP has come to the boards asking for help, similar to going to a VO IRL. And you're saying, "I'd tell him to go talk to the person himself". That's the point - the OP has already said that he doesn't want to cause problems and doesn't want to speak out. And rather than saying, "Talk to him, and if you want, I'll do it with you to help. I'll help you find a solution." What you're saying is "Go do it yourself, and if you don't want to play with him, and I assign a table anyway, I'm going to ban you from local PFS."
And the sheer fact that rather than work with a player to help resolve a difficult situation you'd *BAN* a GM from running games, tells me that you are absolutely just as much a part of the problem. PFS is a privilege, not a right. And insinuating that you condone players misbehaving to the point that it irritates a GM, and that you'd remove a GM before the offending player, is precisely the problem that arises from having people that have no authority whatsoever pretend like they somehow have a say-so in what other people do. It is absolutely *NOT* your job to decide to ban a GM. And before you say "I didn't say I'd ban anyone", saying that you'd ask a GM to not participate in the PFS in his local area is the same thing for all intents and purposes.
I would like to point out that no one is saying (except you) that the GM would simply not show up. There's a difference between a GM not showing up, and a GM being there but, deciding not to run because a VO didn't bother posting a play-list beforehand. If there's a known issue, as part of the collective experience you referred to, it *IS* your job to not put players at a table where there's a known issue.
...
Just out of curiosity, if you're a Venture Lieutenant, why doesn't your nameplate say that, like all of the other Venture Officers' do?
|
|
and imply that he's somehow required or obligated by a social contract to run a game regardless of how upsetting or distinctly not fun that would be for him.
He's not obligated to run a game: unless he signs up to run a game. That's the pretty literal social contract of signing up to run a game when you say "I'm going to run a PFS game at X time".
It's not about you, or your five dollars, or the drive time it took to get there ... it's about a fella who's having a difficult time, is feeling hurt and conflicted, and needs help figuring it out.
Its about both of them. There's only one "here" but there's more people than that involved.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just out of curiosity, if you're a Venture Lieutenant, why doesn't your nameplate say that, like all of the other Venture Officers' do?
Mike appointed me as a Venture Lieutenant about 3-4 weeks ago, but there's a technical item affecting a handful of VOs, and I am one of them. Once it's straightened out, you should see the appropriate VO tag on my nameplate (and the handful of others that are affected.) It's why I keep the email Mike sent me, just in case I need it. :-) And, of course, the Venture Captain for this area has already posted the respective thread about my appointment, so beyond that, I don't have more to say.
As to the more important question:
If a GM came to me and said he or she was having a problem with a player, I'd inquire as to the nature of the problem. In this case, it would be clear to me that the problem is that the GM isn't a power-gamer, doesn't like playing with power gamers, etc. I would encourage him to talk with that player.
But power-gaming, as much as *I* don't like it as a player, isn't a violation of the rules of Society play, isn't an offense for which one could or should be banned, and is a personal issue that the GM has. And yes, I would suggest that the GM talk with that other player.
Now, if the GM, "Hey, Mark, I am not all that comfortable having that conversation," I would tell that GM, "well, the conversation has to start with you - if you need me there to help facilitate the conversation, sure, I'm happy to do that." The issue here, as I read, is that the problem isn't the other player - it's that player's play style. Nothing that the OP has posted here has indicated to me that it's anything more than a difference in play styles, unless I missed something.
I am willing, as a GM, a player, and a VO, to help resolve these differences the best I can, but sometimes, the two parties involved have to work out their differences.
|
|
He's not obligated to run a game: unless he signs up to run a game. That's the pretty literal social contract of signing up to run a game when you say "I'm going to run a PFS game at X time".
I agree with that up to a point. If the VO (or whoever's organizing) doesn't publish a playlist, or it's not a visible sign-up, then it's not the GM's fault. If there's a known issue, then the GM has every right to apologize to the other players, and rest the problem squarely on the shoulders of the organizer. There's certainly an implied social contract to run a game when one signs up for it ... but, if the other party breaks faith in that contract that implies that he won't be put at a table he'll loathe running, then there is absolutely no moral compunction compelling him to run it.
It's not about you, or your five dollars, or the drive time it took to get there ... it's about a fella who's having a difficult time, is feeling hurt and conflicted, and needs help figuring it out.Its about both of them. There's only one "here" but there's more people than that involved.
My apologies - I should've been more precise. While I was generally referring to the situation the thread is about (i.e. - the IRL situation involving the player and GM), what I was more specifically saying is that this thread isn't about him. I meant this thread is about a fella asking for help. It's the "I" statements that got me. He's saying "I spent money", "I took time", "I'm upset" - making it personally about him, when the thread is about someone else and how they're feeling confused and upset. ... As a goofy clarification: There's two "here's" and only one person involved. Unless, I s'pose, that he was actually one of the players at the table with the OP. And I s'pose that's a possibility.
:)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally like long sessions of RP. I won't play with powergamers that don't understand that.
By your second sentence quoted above, you may have meant what I am about to say, but while I understand that some powergamers/optimizers are not interested in role-play, that is not universally true. It seems like many people believe optimization and role-play are mutually exclusive, but I have not known that to be true.
Though I rarely go a full 10 on optimization for PFS (I prefer a little versatility for this campaign), I do optimize heavily. This does not in any fashion stop me from seeking out and enjoying the role-play opportunities available in a given scenario/AP/module either. I have found that typically the amount of role-play you get to engage in depends heavily upon all of if your session is timed or not, the players you have present and their styles, and the depth of the scenario/AP/module in question.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with that up to a point. If the VO (or whoever's organizing) doesn't publish a playlist, or it's not a visible sign-up, then it's not the GM's fault.
There are not an unlimited number of flat rolling surfaces. There are not an unlimited number of other players. There are not an unlimited number of scenarios being run on any given night. Agreeing to run a table is occupying a (sometimes the only) valuable piece of real estate both physically and metaphorically. You occupy the physical table, if you're not the only game you're probably the only high/low game, and you occupy what will probably be that scenario's only run for a while,
If you are going to push a player out of that you need a good reason. Its not something you should do frivolously, and any behavior that warrants taking that step should be easily articulable and incredibly rare.
If there's a known issue, then the GM has every right to apologize to the other players, and rest the problem squarely on the shoulders of the organizer.
Or don't run. Dming PFS when you don't like optimization is like volunteering at a dog shelter when you can't stand barking. Leave the spot to someone else.
I meant this thread is about a fella asking for help.
I'm going to gather from your "We" approach to things you're advocating peer active listening or something along those lines. I'm more into a problem solving approach. Step 1 is to identify the problem even if (especially if) the problem is you.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry if I am reading too much into this, but these statements seem a bit one sided.
Mark ...
Personal differences absolutely *are* a reason to not GM a table. As are playstyles.
Actually, no they are not. Well, at least not in PFS. PFS is supposed to be welcoming to all play styles that do not violate the PFS Guide to Organized play. Refusing to DM someone simply because of their play style is not in keeping with the spirit of PFS. Now, having said that, there are certainly individuals who are disruptive to games that it is acceptable to refuse to DM because they are disruptive. But that is an individual issue, not a play style one. Banning someone simply because they are a Power Gamer, or Heavy RPer, or any other of the many styles of play is wrong.
I personally like long sessions of RP.
I am not accusing you of this behavior, but how is an RP Limelight hog that monopolizes the table for 20 minutes with a one on one RP session with the DM while everyone else has to just sit there and twiddles their thumbs any less obnoxious than the Power Gamer glory hog that monopolizes combats by rofflestomping the monsters in one round?
I won't play with powergamers that don't understand that.
Are you as understanding of their powergaming needs as you expect them to be of your RP needs?
It's often problematic when PFS as a whole generally insists that a game must be playable in a 4 hour slot.
I sympathize, but the 4-5 hours slot is a practical necessity of organized play. And this practical limitation means that every player needs to be considerate of the other players at that table so that everyone gets a fair share of the fun regardless of play style.
When I take the time to RP, and a powergamer continuously tries to prevent it, or huffs and puffs, or rolls his eyes - it's a disruption. And it prevents people from having fun.
That all depends on how much time you are spending RPing, especially if the nature of the RP excludes others from joining. If you having been monopolizing the DM with your RP needs for the last 20 minutes while everyone else has to sit around twiddling their thumbs because it is illogical to join in your RP session or they simply don't like RP that much, then you are the one preventing people from having fun, not them.
And it's not *my* fault, and I have to change my playstyle.
The moment you agreed to play PFS you agreed to change your playstyle, at least to the extent that your playstyle needs to adapt well enough to allow others at the table who prefer a different playstyle to enjoy the game as well. Proclaiming you refuse to change your playstyle for anyone else at the table is proclaiming your intend to be utterly selfish.
If I'm GMing, I would absolutely tell a player that they need to straighten themselves out or they'd be asked to leave a table.
If you are telling them to straighten up because they are being very disruptive to the table, that is one thing. If you are telling them to straighten up because you don't like their particular playstyle, then you need to re-evaluate if you should be GMing for PFS.
We all feel our personal style of play is the "best" way of playing the game and there is nothing wrong with gently encouraging others to play in that manner (especially if you are doing so by example). But no PFS GM has the right to force their players to play the game in the GM's particular style, including banning them if they refuse to oblige.
The point is that the people coming to play PFS are not coming to play in GM Fred's home campaign. They are coming to play PFS. And if you ban someone from your table for playing in the exact same style that the last 20 GMs they played under found perfectly acceptable then the problem isn't with the player.
|
|
You mentioned the PTSD, so I'm going to address it. I've had it myself for about twenty years, though I dodged getting diagnosed until a few years ago. Anyway, whether or not you keep running games or just playing, don't use the one table and the two guys as your excuse to quit coming around in favor of being a recluse or something. In my experience that's sort of the resting position of PTSD, and it's easy to take a relatively minor thing like this (really) and let it ruin something that's probably good for you.
Secondly, on the same topic: If you're the confrontational type, don't let it simmer in your head too long without saying anything if you know you're bound to say something eventually. I don't know you, but for me the longer I let a conflict with someone ferment in my head the more likely it is that I'm going to look like the bad guy due to how it comes out. Try saying it from a seated position, with mutual friends around. I know that, for me, if I'm not all that conscious of how I'm expressing that something is irritating me, my whole body language can appear really confrontational. I'm not a violent man, but there's always that part of my brain that is ready for some s$%t to kick off, and sometimes that's outwardly visible when I'm totally focused on the other person. The least bad thing that can happen there is that your message will be lost.
|
Alright,
the way I see it, W. Kris and Mark are talking past each other.
@W. Kris
From the information given by the OP, the only thing we know that the player in question has done, is
A. Have a good/min-maxed/cheesy/well made build.
B. He doesn't like roleplaying.
There is nothing wrong with either of those things. It may not mesh with OP's preferred style of play, but it's not against the rules. Which is the only thing that's important.
Part of being a PFS GM, is being willing to deal with players whose definition of "fun" is different from yours. That's the only way a public campaign can work.
|
You could also go at it from a reverse angle, saying to the player, "You don't seem to enjoy yourself at my games. I see you doing this, this, and this, which to me indicates that you don't like the way I run my games. Are you sure you wouldn't be happier at another table?"
So how he responds. If he is like, "No, I like your games just fine," then you have that in the ego bank, and maybe it is just a social interaction problem.
If he is like, "Yeah, your games suck, seeya," then problem solved.
In my experience, gaming with strangers is very hard to do. I've only really enjoyed myself at a PFS session that wasn't a home game once or twice, simply due to play style. It happens.
|
I applaud the OP for looking for help and trying to find a resolution. Even if my prior posts are leaning towards suggesting he discontinue signing up to GM since I do not see enough details to know.how much if the problem is the player or GM.
I think everyone can understand cancellation due to family emergency, work, and sickness. I still do not condone signing up to GM before finding a solution for the problem at hand.
I think it would be terrible for a player to spend $20-$70 on a convention badge, maybe hotel cost also, then be told they are not allowed at the table due to prior events the week before. Tell the player a problem exits before they undergo these costs. Even smaller costs at a single game day event. That includes buying food at the hosting spot or miniatures/cards at a game shop. Even a convention may only have 2 or 3 PFS games a slot but the others may have already been played or out if tier(pregens should only be used for people who never built a PC). The con may feature other.games, but they might nit be what justified the cost of that con badge/hotel/travel/weekend food in the first place. On the other hand, if a player shows up to a con and acts there in a fashion worthy if being banned, tough luck.on those expenses, and that player, but warn a player first if the problem was known before hand.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You yourself might not realize what the standard level of expected performance is. Without examples, we cannot tell if the player is power gaming, which is not actually wrong, or if you just don't understand the math the game expects for PCs to survive and achieve the goal.Do you not understand that adventures are somewhat written to be easy so players can survive and accomplish the objective? How many people do you think would have stuck around this hobby if they routinely got killed and always had to start brand new ? No xp, no gold, no progress saved at all. At least in a video game, you get save points...
This is something I've written a lot about here. It took me a long time and kind of a needlessly dramatic moment to realize how strongly many people feel about really not wanting the mods to be very dangerous/challenging. I suppose for a long time, I just thought people didn't really understand how much more punishment their characters could take than what the mods typically have to offer. I now realize this is not the case. People DO know the the mods are (relatively) easy, and they like it and want it this way. At least, a lot of people do, or anyway a lot of the people who are left playing organized play do.
On the other hand, I have heard several people complain about this too. But here's the tricky part- most of them just stopped participating in organized play. Because the people who want it easy are the majority, and because they feel very strongly about it (like Ray expresses in his comments on this thread), I think it's difficult to know how many players would potentially want a harder game: most of them just leave.
People sometimes get a bit self righteous with players/DMs that want the game to be harder, but it's worth bearing in mind that the only thing keeping the game easy is the "tyranny of the majority." There's no real logical argument behind why it should be that way. And Ray's comparison to video games isn't really apt, either. Afterall, PFS has resurrection, for a relatively cheap resource expenditure. And if you'll recall, back in the good old days of Nintendo, "getting killed and having to start brand new" was the default mode, not save points.
Anyway, there are always going to be GMs who want to challenge players more than the current settings do, and there will always be players who want more of a challenge. My point is the same as it has always been: there should be some kind of variable settings and options to allow GMs the possibility of more control and/or increased difficulty. The GM running the table could announce on the muster what variant he was using. Then people simply wouldn't have to signup if they weren't looking for increased difficulty. Any problems that resulted from this would be self correcting, as it ever was in gaming. That is to say, people who didn't want difficult mods would simply stop signing up for games being run by the GMs who used the difficult settings.
I still say this is the way to go, and that GMs and players who want this kind of thing should keep up the pressure and express their discontent. In the meantime, play by the rules as long as you can, and if you can't anymore then just quit. It's apparently the reaction the devs are looking for. This is not snark, by the way. I'm not sure how else to interpret their oft-expressed response to criticism: "organized play isn't for everyone."
Again, though, it's hard to tell how many players would actually prefer some kind of options along the lines of what I'm suggesting. I myself, afterall, fall distinctly into the category that Ron Edwards called "the bitterest gamers in the world." I like high simulation, high challenge, low competition play. This means I get labelled as a min-maxer by most sim-focused players, and then kicked in the nuts by actual min-maxers. Very frustrating, but so it goes. Anyhow, between the players who just leave organized play when they realize it's never going to get harder and those who don't know they'd enjoy a harder game simply because they've never experienced it, the actual demographics are very hard to estimate. So by all means, you have the right to express your preference for an easy game. But I don't think you need to suppress the opposite viewpoint in order to do that.
|
|
I appreciate the constructive responses.
I obviously came here expecting that the answer would be "You can't do that" which puts me in a position of leaving public PFS events, which is a shame because I've always gotten very positive feedback (even from the power gamer who just rolls dice and announces his damage without any expression) as a GM.
I'm probably not cut out for PFS play with public groups. I am turned off by uber-power gaming, and I'm seeing way too much of it in PFS, and its worst when I GM.
I don't think I want to put the owner of the store where we play or the VC, both of whom are great people, through any trouble on my behalf. The power gamers are very popular people in the community, and the problem appears to be mine predominately anyway.
As a GM, don't you expect the NPCs to generally lose the combats? Is it so important how this happens as long as it is legal?
|
|
I find that that is often out of the GMs control. Be it early season scenarios with 6-7 players or a table with two animal companions and an eidolon, the author sets the difficulty level. I don't feel that there is legally anything the GM can do in these cases.
I have just accepted that pets turn these scenarios into jokes. There is nothing to be done in the current PFS structure.
|
|
And this helps the rest of the table enjoy it how?
They don't have to play with someone that isn't enjoying himself.
How do you know a priori that the table is going to have three pets at it?
Some of us use this thing called communication to plan the table in advance. :)
That is not a solution.
It is a solution, just not one that works for you. And at no point did I say you must either always show up or never show up. I have summoners I am glad to play with and summoners I hate to play with. The same as any other class.
|
|
I have just accepted that pets turn these scenarios into jokes. There is nothing to be done in the current PFS structure.
There is nothing wrong with letting the player of a pet-class know that his pet will turn the scenario into a joke, and ask that he perhaps consider leaving the pet at home.
This applies to any character that will overpower a given scenario, not just David's pet-class example.
-Matt
|
|
I have just accepted that pets turn these scenarios into jokes. There is nothing to be done in the current PFS structure.There is also nothing wrong with letting the player of a pet-class know that his pet will turn the scenario into a joke, and ask that he perhaps consider leaving the pet at home.
-Matt
I really wish they wouldn't write scenarios where this is true. Given that druid has been here from day 1, it's very annoying. But this is just one possible example.
|
|
I guess that's better than bailing at the last minute when people have already shown up, but it still seems like bad practice.
It's no different than signing up and then having a schedule conflict. No one can force you to run the game, but habits will certainly change the group dynamic. Always canceling when one player signs up without telling anyone what the issue is certainly will make you the bad guy.
|
|
I really wish they wouldn't write scenarios where this is true. Given that druid has been here from day 1, it's very annoying. But this is just one possible example.A scenario being unable to handle a particular variety of character is no excuse for using that particular variety of character to overpower the scenario. It is the community's responsibility to discourage the use of overpowering options.
-Matt
Pretty hard to that when "stock mouth-breathing druid with no optimization" is the culprit. I really don't like trying to strong-arm people this way.
|
|
Also, more scenarios like Library of the Lion would help where the super killers aren't all-powerful. And some better NPC construction/spell selection and better encounter design (NO MORE LONE CASTERS!) would help this problem as well. And more NPCs with their own pets. Enemy summoners for the win to even the odds.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This Friday I get to decide if I continue to play Eyes of the Ten or drop out and wait for a different group. Between the two pouncing eidolons, the archer paladin, and the archer ranger, me and the inquisitor did nothing but make some AoOs on my part and some trip attempts on his.
If I do continue, I'm reconfiguring my spells prepared to be entirely party buffs and condition removals. No need for me to swing my waraxe for 1d10+6 when the eidolons remove enemies before they get a turn and the summoner ends encounters with a single spell.
|
|
That's different as a player. I myself have dropped tables where it was clear it was going to be a miserable table. But annoying =/= miserable. If other players want to stop playing with player X, that's one thing. But a GM shouldn't be making that call imo. To me, part of the GM's automax rewards takes into account all the poundings your NPCs take and how it can be quite dull from a combat standpoint.
|
|
If I do continue, I'm reconfiguring my spells prepared to be entirely party buffs and condition removals. No need for me to swing my waraxe for 1d10+6 when the eidolons remove enemies before they get a turn and the summoner ends encounters with a single spell.
I know archery builds work so much better than non pouncing melee at that level, but isn't 1d10+6 REAALLY low damage at that level? That's a moderately optimized first level fighter.