nosig |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a group is disfunctional enough to be shafting each other... maybe they shouldn't play together?
Obscuring Mist and Darkness builds? Silence casters? Barbarians with low Will saves? there are so many potential problems I can't even begin to list them....
IMHO we as judges don't - in fact CAN'T - police this. Not effectively. We as players can, and in fact always have. If a player is a real pain to play with - we don't play with him. "Playground rules." In time he fixes his problem (whatever it is), or he goes and plays Warcraft or something (not meaning to imply Warcraft players are less that fine people - just picking a random other part of the hobby).
It's maybe not real nice, it might not be pretty, ... and I may out of the kindness of my heart try to "fix the problem" ("hey guy, don't cheat on dice rolls - yeah, we can all tell..."). But I don't have to fix it. And I don't expect the someone else, some "authority figure" to fix it, or "control it".
In the end, life is to short for bad games. Play with friends. Talk to people. If you want to pull some great gimmic, don't keep it a secret, share it with your "friends" that the table. Enjoy. PLAY!
"If it's not fun, don't do it."
sheesh, now I need to go wash my face... sorry about that
EvilMinion |
Just as an aside... in the bard/cleric example above...
Inspire courage is not affected by silence for more then a single round (they can just switch to a visual performance to get around the silence). The problem was the obscuring mist blocked the visuals too!
If the bard had switched to dancing, and moved in, to be adjacent to her comrades inside the mist (you can still see 5'!), they would have benefited from her performance just fine... perhaps she wouldn't get everyone, but she could have positioned herself to get some of them that were in melee.
Someone should have explained that to her, and she might have been ok with it.
David Bowles |
Artanthos wrote:trollbill wrote:Are you now advocating taking control of characters away from people who don't play the "right" way?Artanthos wrote:Passive aggressive PVP may not be PVP by RAW but I am pretty sure it is by RAI. To me, it's not any better.
At this point, I refuse to heal the offending party member, and discourage other party members from healing him as well.Refusing to heal is not PVP. After he falls down, I can go back to blocking the NPC's line of sight.
No, that is what your doing by saying it is okay to circumvent the intent of the PvP rules on a technicality. There is no effective difference between deliberately killing someone and deliberately letting them die. In both cases, your actions were intentional and your desired outcome was to have that someone die. Just because one method lets you escape punishment on a technicality doesn't make you any less of a jerk. In fact, I would argue it makes you more of one because you know what you are doing is wrong but don't care because you think you can escape punishment for it.
Quote:You've already advocated giving one character the ability to veto usage of spells and abilities in situations where those spells and abilities could mean the difference between survival and an TPK.I did? Really? Where?
Quote:Is forcing a party TPK by vetoing everyone else's abilities PVP?I don't understand what this has to do with what I have said. All I was trying to say was, is that if it is wrong for your character to deliberately kill another character at the table by action, then it is wrong for you to deliberately kill another character at the table by inaction ('deliberate' being the key word and by your example your suggested actions were definitely deliberate). The fact that you may escape punishment for the latter does not make it any less wrong. There are better solutions than killing off PCs whose actions you don't like. If no consensus can be met then the...
This is why I don't like shielding players from bad judgement in general. While this shielding from actions, there is no reciprocal shielding for LACK of action.
Call it wrong all you like, there is no possible way to force a cleric to keep someone up. Keep in mind that PFS in a finite-resource system, and the GMs can not award extra loot to make up for bad luck or new player mistakes that cost other PCs their lives.
Under A Bleeding Sun |
Obscuring Mist can be fine, especially with a ranged build and sniper goggles. I have someone who regularly plays an Oracle 1/Slayer 7ish now who does this. She can generally pull off her trick without interfering with the party. It CAN be a very powerful trick, attacking FF'd and getting SA is win.
By Darkness does the OP mean deeper darkness? Because most people should be equipped to deal with darkness.
Deeper Darkness is better and means you'll pretty much straight own. The radius is bigger though than the cloud and even a ranged PC would have an issue that being 60 feet. This one is kind of a jerk move and can't really be done USUALLY without interfering with the party.
That being said both are valid tactics. When a caster drops black tentacles and stinking cloud and most the party can only watch is that legit? Does that combo need to be banned? Or how about sleep hex? I find sleep hex much more disruptive, particularly if the scenario tends to be fewer single enemy encounters. Literally had a witch nearly solo a scenario because of this. Or a shadow dancers shadow, who can literally single handedly defeat every encounter except the boss in a tier 10-11 scenario (at least 2 I've ran) without risking a scrath. Or a heavens oracle, summoner, Kensai/Bladebound Magus, Zen Archer, or any other number of "broken" builds out there thats not regulated.
Since everyone will find something disruptive I don't see it as as big as a deal. I know when my heavens oracle drops an entire room of baddies I get eye rolls, or when a gunslinger attacks an ac 24 points less, a witch sleep hexes/ice tombs 3 of 4 encounters or a pounce eidilon flying charges and drop 200 damage per round nearly like clockwork, etc. etc. Not saying its not kind of a jerk move (I think it is) but I suspect most people here have at least 1 jerk move PC in their repertoire.
David Bowles |
and yet a party is composed of only of single players.
There is no entity called a "party" that doesn't include every single person at the table.
Hiding behind the veil of "it is what everybody wants" while excluding someone at the table is just bullying by committee.
Without a strong defense of the communal (as in including everyone) aspect of the game a lot is lost and the game devolves into pure tactics and an exchange of rules. It loses the deeper archetypal underpinnings that ties us into myth, legend, and the stories shared late at night that define a group.
---
It seems that we disagree and odds are that our paths will never cross. I truly hope that all of your games are amazIng experiences that other people will talk about for years to come. May only good gaming be yours.
It's ironic that I have every only been on the receiving end of this discussion, and yet I never ONCE thought to petition the GM to disallow an action that another PC is legally capable of performing. I stumbled around for entire scenarios in darkness and had a dwarf fighter go five encounters without getting to swing once. To me, that's on the other players and I'm not going to petition the GM to "turn off" their PCs.
David Bowles |
Obscuring Mist can be fine, especially with a ranged build and sniper goggles. I have someone who regularly plays an Oracle 1/Slayer 7ish now who does this. She can generally pull off her trick without interfering with the party. It CAN be a very powerful trick, attacking FF'd and getting SA is win.
By Darkness does the OP mean deeper darkness? Because most people should be equipped to deal with darkness.
Deeper Darkness is better and means you'll pretty much straight own. The radius is bigger though than the cloud and even a ranged PC would have an issue that being 60 feet. This one is kind of a jerk move and can't really be done USUALLY without interfering with the party.
That being said both are valid tactics. When a caster drops black tentacles and stinking cloud and most the party can only watch is that legit? Does that combo need to be banned? Or how about sleep hex? I find sleep hex much more disruptive, particularly if the scenario tends to be fewer single enemy encounters. Literally had a witch nearly solo a scenario because of this. Or a heavens oracle, summoner, Kensai/Bladebound Magus, Zen Archer, or any other number of "broken" builds out there thats not regulated.
Since everyone will find something disruptive I don't see it as as big as a deal. I know when my heavens oracle drops an entire room of baddies I get eye rolls, or when a gunslinger attacks an ac 24 points less, a witch sleep hexes/ice tombs 3 of 4 encounters or a pounce eidilon flying charges and drop 200 damage per round nearly like clockwork, etc. etc. Not saying its not kind of a jerk move (I think it is) but I suspect most people here have at least 1 jerk move PC in their repertoire.
Pathetically, I don't. I know the math. I know the builds. I just don't have one. There's always something more interesting for me that doesn't work as well.
Under A Bleeding Sun |
Pathetically, I don't. I know the math. I know the builds. I just don't have one. There's always something more interesting for me that doesn't work as well.
Nothing wrong with that...*What a noob, oh wait forgot to turn this thing off, oh da* :)
There is a difference between stopping other players from killing the bad guys by killing them first, and stopping other players from killing the bad guys by impeding them.
Oh, if you have a build that goes first and ends every fight the first round, or one that drops deeper darkness, but you still have a combat, I'd take the latter personally and find it slightly less disruptive. I have 0 fun if someone at the table solos everything, unless maybe its me;) Besides, gives me precedence to drop fireballs on my allies then and not get the PVP rule thrown at me, could be anyone's screams of pain I hear.
David Bowles |
There is a difference between stopping other players from killing the bad guys by killing them first, and stopping other players from killing the bad guys by impeding the entire party.
Seriously, why should I care about the difference if the net effect is the same to me? Because one is more protected by the rules? I'm not petitioning the GM to turn off a darkness spell that some PC can legally cast, even if it completely hoses my PC.
GM Lamplighter |
And that is your tacit permission for them to do so. However, you are in the minority of players I have seen - most people do not want their "friends" to cause them more trouble than their enemies. Yes, eventually no one wants to play with folks like that, but that doesn't help out the new folks who got stuck at their table because it was the only seat open.
If players can't, won't, or don't police themselves, the GM is empowered (and in my view encouraged) to step in. YMMV.
David Bowles |
I guess it's "permission". I'd rather them not be glory hogs or whatever, but at the same time, the concept of me being to turn off their stuff by GM petition is even worse. I would go as far as to not accept GM intervention on my "behalf". I guess I'm just never going to sync up with the concept of giving other PCs permission. I don't think that's my place as a PC. Nor the place of the GM, really. They're there to run the NPCs.
nosig |
Just as an aside... in the bard/cleric example above...
Inspire courage is not affected by silence for more then a single round (they can just switch to a visual performance to get around the silence). The problem was the obscuring mist blocked the visuals too!
If the bard had switched to dancing, and moved in, to be adjacent to her comrades inside the mist (you can still see 5'!), they would have benefited from her performance just fine... perhaps she wouldn't get everyone, but she could have positioned herself to get some of them that were in melee.
Someone should have explained that to her, and she might have been ok with it.
her only perform skill was sing... but I'll try to mention it to her if I when I see her again...
Jeff Merola |
EvilMinion wrote:her only perform skill was sing... but I'll try to mention it to her if I when I see her again...Just as an aside... in the bard/cleric example above...
Inspire courage is not affected by silence for more then a single round (they can just switch to a visual performance to get around the silence). The problem was the obscuring mist blocked the visuals too!
If the bard had switched to dancing, and moved in, to be adjacent to her comrades inside the mist (you can still see 5'!), they would have benefited from her performance just fine... perhaps she wouldn't get everyone, but she could have positioned herself to get some of them that were in melee.
Someone should have explained that to her, and she might have been ok with it.
You don't need a perform skill trained to Inspire Courage with it.
nosig |
And that is your tacit permission for them to do so. However, you are in the minority of players I have seen - most people do not want their "friends" to cause them more trouble than their enemies. Yes, eventually no one wants to play with folks like that, but that doesn't help out the new folks who got stuck at their table because it was the only seat open.
If players can't, won't, or don't police themselves, the GM is empowered (and in my view encouraged) to step in. YMMV.
having been in a group who regularly played together, when the judge felt empowered to step in and shut down standard party tactics because we were "playing wrong"...
well, clearly we have a difference of opinion on how this should be done.
BigNorseWolf |
GM Lamplighter wrote:most people do not want their "friends" to cause them more trouble than their enemies.Ruining the play experience is ruining the play experience IMO. At least the guy just dropping darkness or mist gives me a chance to contribute.
The guy making the entire encounter taste the rainbow before anyone else can go ruins that session. The person that gets you killed because you're human and everything else on the face of golarion can see in the dark better than you can screws hings up for a while.
Lucy_Valentine |
When that one player's refusal to allow other players to act is killing the entire group yes, I will advocate allowing him to die. Once the character is dead, the veto dies with him. Had he consented to the AoE, the party would have sustained less damage and he would have survived. To go one step further, AoE damage automatically removes clinging army ants and would have put an end to the continuing damage that wound up killing him.
This seems like a last resort in an extremely awkward situation, which is exacerbated by some sort of serious communication problem. You have my sympathy - it doesn't sound fun. If it was evident to you that the only way to kill the ants is AoE, why was it not evident to this other player? What was his plan? The questions are rhetorical - they just demonstrate the communication problem.
Perhaps all sessions should start with some sort of communication exercise :)
GM Lamplighter |
having been in a group who regularly played together, when the judge felt empowered to step in and shut down standard party tactics because we were "playing wrong"...
well, clearly we have a difference of opinion on how this should be done.
Sorry you had that experience, nosig... I guess I don't understand why both of these things were true; games usually don't become "regular" if people don't agree on fundamental stuff.
It's not really equivalent to the PFS situation, where you can have different players and different GMs every game. In PFS, the GM is likely needed to smooth out different play expectations from different players. If one player drops in without any understanding of the premise of the campaign and just wants to blow stuff up and race people to the treasure, the GM needs to inform the player how the game works.
nosig |
nosig wrote:having been in a group who regularly played together, when the judge felt empowered to step in and shut down standard party tactics because we were "playing wrong"...
well, clearly we have a difference of opinion on how this should be done.
Sorry you had that experience, nosig... I guess I don't understand why both of these things were true; games usually don't become "regular" if people don't agree on fundamental stuff.
It's not really equivalent to the PFS situation, where you can have different players and different GMs every game. In PFS, the GM is likely needed to smooth out different play expectations from different players. If one player drops in without any understanding of the premise of the campaign and just wants to blow stuff up and race people to the treasure, the GM needs to inform the player how the game works.
this type of disconnect occurs when players who play regularly together sit at the table with a judge that is new to them. Esp. when the judge feels he knows "the correct way" of playing, and these players are not doing it.
a group of friends that get together several times a year at CONs to play together, sitting down with a new to them judge. When the judge feels empowered to step in and shut down standard party tactics because the players are "playing wrong"... because when the combat starts, most of the players just sit back and let "the combat specialist" do his job. Or when RP is taking place, some of the PCs are sitting "unengaged in the discussion". Clearly (in the eyes of the judge) the majority of the players can not be having fun - or at least not "having fun the right way". "...the GM is likely needed to smooth out different play expectations from different players..."...
David Bowles |
David Bowles wrote:Or, in my case, take a 1.5 hour lunch.if that's what you enjoy... go for it.
I sure wouldn't do it. My game time is to valuable to spend on ... fast food? but to each his own.
;)
Oh no, it wasn't fast food. Went to an Irish bar :) It was more entertaining than the triple pet attack. And a quasi-test to see if anyone noticed/cared. Newp.
Disk Elemental |
Alright so, after 4 pages of discussion, we know the following things constitute PvP and/or violate the basic rules of PFS:
In all seriousness, the fact that you can't determine what's going to be at the table before you sit down, conflicts are inevitable.
The 5th Barbarian isn't going to be doing a whole lot, but that doesn't mean the other 4 Barbarians are violating any rules, or worthy of punishment.
If there are two Tieflings, and 4 humans at a table vs. enemies without darkvision, casting Darkness invalidates the 4 humans, but means the enemies can't hurt anyone. From what I've read, some would consider this PvP. However, let's say the Tieflings doesn't use the spell, and someone dies in the resulting fight. Is this PvP? The death was 100% preventable, the players knew the way to prevent it, but they chose not to.
If someone comes to the table with an optimized character and effectively solos the scenario, is that PvP?
I mean, they made all the other players feel marginalized, and led to a bad time for some of the players, doesn't that violate the 'Don't be a Jerk' rule.
If someone comes to the table with an unoptimized character, and the party TPKs because they were unable to contribute, is that PvP?
I mean, the person chose to make an ineffective character, and that error led to player deaths, and a bad time all around, doesn't that violate the 'Don't be a Jerk' rule?
David Bowles |
Alright so, after 4 pages of discussion, we know the following things constitute PvP and/or violate the basic rules of PFS:
Darkness Obscuring Mist Pets Slumber Witches Bladebound Kensais Pets Gunslingers Zen Archers Tieflings Optimized characters Unoptimized characters Pets Any character that's better than me Any character that's worse than me Anyone using bad tactics Anyone using good tactics Pets In all seriousness, the fact that you can't determine what's going to be at the table before you sit down, conflicts are inevitable.
The 5th Barbarian isn't going to be doing a whole lot, but that doesn't mean the other 4 Barbarians are violating any rules, or worthy of punishment.
If there are two Tieflings, and 4 humans at a table vs. enemies without darkvision, casting Darkness invalidates the 4 humans, but means the enemies can't hurt anyone. From what I've read, some would consider this PvP. However, let's say the Tieflings doesn't use the spell, and someone dies in the resulting fight. Is this PvP? The death was 100% preventable, the players knew the way to prevent it, but they chose not to.
If someone comes to the table with an optimized character and effectively solos the scenario, is that PvP?
I mean, they made all the other players feel marginalized, and led to a bad time for some of the players, doesn't that violate the 'Don't be a Jerk' rule.If someone comes to the table with an unoptimized character, and the party TPKs because they were unable to contribute, is that PvP?
I mean, the person chose to make an ineffective character, and that error led to player deaths, and a bad time all around, doesn't that violate the 'Don't be a Jerk' rule?
I think this is a well-deserved post. And further serves to highlight he completely arbitrary and subjective nature of "don't be a jerk".
I think to answer your question in all seriousness, most of the more "hands-on" GMs are policing positive actions, not negative inaction. That seems to be their interpretation of the PvP rules. So, casting darkness is prohibited, but a cleric refusing to heal is a-okay. Someone from the GM-intervention camp correct me if I misrepresented their position.
"If someone comes to the table with an unoptimized character, and the party TPKs because they were unable to contribute, is that PvP? "
/raises hand
GM Lamplighter |
nosig: Thanks, that explains things. I agree, a GM that step in based on their own opinion, and not those of the other (perhaps silent) players at the table, are indeed overusing their power if they tell you "no" to a tactic.
As for the list: there isn't a list that applies in all circumstances, that is the point. Zen archer who prevents anyone else from having fun: bad. Zen archer who plays well with team, or team who is happy to let zen archer dominate the combats while they do other things: fine by me. That is why we have a GM that is a human, and players who are humans: to discuss an issue and resolve it based on the specific circumstances.
GM Lamplighter |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[example using darkness] Is this PvP? The death was 100% preventable, the players knew the way to prevent it, but they chose not to.
This is the fallacy of this argument: casting darkness is NOT a guarantee of safety. The enemies may have access to magical means of seeing, or blindfighting, or just charge in anyway and roll really well. The only thing guaranteed is that the humans are blinded by their own team. (Now, with darkness, if you're a human and you aren't ready to deal with this... back to Pathfinder school for you!)
Will darkness hinder the bad guys? Probably. Will darkness hinder 2/3 of your own team? Absolutely, unless you discuss it with them and see if they can work around it. Talking about it first is called teamwork. Doing it without talking about it, or doing it anyway after not getting the answer you want, is being a jerk.
trollbill Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne |
And further serves to highlight he completely arbitrary and subjective nature of "don't be a jerk".
Yes, it is arbitrary and subjective. You keep saying that. What I don't understand is why? The entire nature of social interaction is arbitrary and subjective, so any rule covering it has to be, as well.
Sniggevert |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I keep saying that because is makes it hard to enforce. I don't much care for arbitrary rules, and this is a rule that many posters reference over and over. I find it kind of a non-rule because of the many, many definitions of "jerk".
Actually, it makes it a lot easier for a table GM to call a player on it. If it was black and white listed what constituted being a jerk, wanna-be jerks would know it and would toe the line so as to get as close to one of the known boundaries...and, in their mind, stop. That means the GM has show they've stepped over a line, and there's more of a defense of saying they didn't do any of the listed items, so it's not against the rules.
Having it subjective and arbitrary gives the table GM a LOT more leeway in keeping their table to toe THEIR line as to what is acceptable and what is not.
I realize this gives the player a non-set standard of what is a jerk and what isn't...but everyone has their own idea of what that is anyway. Also, regardless, it's up to the GM to interpret whatever guidelines they're given against what the players are doing at the table.
That's my opinion on it.
Artanthos |
When I use darkness it has always been as a means to protect the group and myself.
I have a tiefling summoner with Darksight. She could choose to cover every battlefield in supernatural darkness and still see clearly. Not that she ever has, but the option is there.
Certain players have builds that do this. Every fight. Baring the tactic because of bad players could make it impossible for the good players to pull the ability out when needed.
RoshVagari |
This is a timely thread because just this week I had the unfortunate experience to run a scenario with a complete fun sponge who effectively soloed it, completely trivializing the rest of the party. It's also a lesson in the arbitrary nature of what being a "jerk" is. Allow me to explain.
There's this kid. He's a college student, so that makes him a kid to this old man. He plays this incredibly well-built control wizard; complete hats off to him on his build because it shows real commitment to learning the rules and hyper-effectiveness to applying them. However, the downside is, he has no concept of letting other people play the game. And he is completely unapologetic about it. The game is, apparently, all about him, and he gets pathologically defensive when called out on it. There are immaturity and poor socialization factors at play, but if you try and exclude every immature and/or socially deficient gamer, there wouldn't be much of a hobby left. So, we make allowances.
When I first encountered this kid, he was notorious for dropping AOEs on top of other player characters and complaining that the melee character's shouldn't have been in melee in the first place because they are in the way of his spells. So, yeah... I learned to avoid playing with him after that, but against my better judgment I let him play a game I was running, thinking, after all these months, maybe he's learned to be more of a team player. I was wrong.
With a few more levels, he will still completely lock down an encounter and AOE anyone who was in his way coupled with astronomical DCs that are impossible for the bad guys to beat with their bonus and a 20 sided die. Congrats. You win Pathfinder. You also sopped up all of the fun around you.
Now, I run a 13th level Gunslinger who is a massive damage machine. I know all about how a maxed out Gunslinger can stop a combat in a heartbeat. So, I get the whole "Gunslingers are no fun," argument." But I disagree with it because Gunslingers don't completely eliminate a character's ability to engage with targets, or make entire rooms off limits, thus negating the rest of the party from being able to do what they do.
Which is why AOEs like floor targeted Grease, Black Tentacles, Darkness, etc. are the pains that they are. I'm sure that ANYONE who has GMed a game and a bad guy drops Black Tentacles has had the players call shenanigans, or other less family friendly terms. It's even more of the suck when it's a fellow player who drops that kind of thing.
It's been called a Player "increasing the CR." It's one thing if it's a poor choice of strategy by an inexperienced player, it's another thing entirely when it's the intended strategy and the player knows it will prevent other people from playing the game entirely. THAT'S being a jerk.
Now, here's the rub. Some of the people who play with this kid don't care that he shuts down encounters. Or whole scenarios. They have fun drifting along and get their chronicle sheet at the end. It's what I call "winning the game, not playing the game." Totally not what I consider a good time.
So, while I think this kind of play style, and accompanying unapologetic attitude for it, is completely "being a jerk," others disagree and have a grand old time watching and being rewarded for attendance.
My lesson is this: know who you are gaming with and who fits your play style. And when you blacklist someone, be careful about giving them a second chance. You quit playing with them for a reason.
Eric Brittain |
RoshVagari - the problem here is a player problem and not a PC problem and it might not even be a problem all the time.
If the player you mention does not impact the experience of the table then there is no problem.
If the player you mention does impact the experience of the table (other PCs and judge) then there is a problem. This player needs a conversation in private to calmly and without blame surface the relevant issue which is "spot light sharing". If the game is only about him and he causes the other players or judge issues, knows that he does this, and subsequently chooses to not change his behavior then who ever organizes the event should let him know he should seek his fun elsewhere. To do any different is to erode the social contract of the game. Or to use a phrase I seem to keep coming back to "sometimes you need to scrape the barnacles off your boat". If there are a small subset of other players and judges that have fun with this player then they are welcome to organize events together. Kick this player out and your community will be all the better for it.
If the player is causing damage to other PCs without their consent then in my opinion that player is guilty of PVP and it should stop immediately.
David Bowles |
Even I draw the line at that point, Rosh. This is not a mistake on the part of the wizard. It's intentional damaging of other players, not just putting some mist in front of them or a legitimate targeting mistake.
"It's even more of the suck when it's a fellow player who drops that kind of thing."
Not if they're good at placing it.
Sir_Wulf RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16 |
Sebastian Hirsch Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria |
This is a timely thread because just this week I had the unfortunate experience to run a scenario with a complete fun sponge who effectively soloed it, completely trivializing the rest of the party. It's also a lesson in the arbitrary nature of what being a "jerk" is. Allow me to explain.
There's this kid. He's a college student, so that makes him a kid to this old man. He plays this incredibly well-built control wizard; complete hats off to him on his build because it shows real commitment to learning the rules and hyper-effectiveness to applying them. However, the downside is, he has no concept of letting other people play the game. And he is completely unapologetic about it. The game is, apparently, all about him, and he gets pathologically defensive when called out on it. There are immaturity and poor socialization factors at play, but if you try and exclude every immature and/or socially deficient gamer, there wouldn't be much of a hobby left. So, we make allowances.
When I first encountered this kid, he was notorious for dropping AOEs on top of other player characters and complaining that the melee character's shouldn't have been in melee in the first place because they are in the way of his spells. So, yeah... I learned to avoid playing with him after that, but against my better judgment I let him play a game I was running, thinking, after all these months, maybe he's learned to be more of a team player. I was wrong.
With a few more levels, he will still completely lock down an encounter and AOE anyone who was in his way coupled with astronomical DCs that are impossible for the bad guys to beat with their bonus and a 20 sided die. Congrats. You win Pathfinder. You also sopped up all of the fun around you.
Now, I run a 13th level Gunslinger who is a massive damage machine. I know all about how a maxed out Gunslinger can stop a combat in a heartbeat. So, I get the whole "Gunslingers are no fun," argument." But I disagree with it because Gunslingers don't completely eliminate a character's...
I have come to the conclusion that the game (not just PFS, Pathfinder in general) does benefit from player self censorship.
Not playing the very best option can a quite rewarding experience, and giving yourself restrictions can make it more challenging.
Obviously some encounters are harder than others, but conscientiously players should try to share the spotlight.