Complaining about a PFS table aka "Airing your dirty laundry"


Pathfinder Society

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I fail to see why this is being hashed out in the forums. We see posts all the time where a player bashes a GM or a GM complains about a "broken" character or disruptive GM. I just don't understand why these issues have to be aired-out in the forums.

In nearly every case, the OP is describing the situation from their perspective, often with selective memory, or at least skewed perspective (their own) or is unaware of some aspects of the situation that caused the other party to do what they did.

When you post these types of complaints in the forums, you get the same two types of responses. (1) one that sides with the OP as if everything they say is 100% accurate and complete, and they blast the other party for their failure. (2) a passive response, where the comments are "what-ifs" that try to speculate why what happened is what happened.

Why does it seem soo many players/GMs are unable/unwilling to just talk, face-to-face, to the person in question, express their feelings, and get feedback that will proceed to a resolution, or at least an understanding?

4/5

I think alot of it has to do with Rule Zero. It often leaves alot of players feeling powerless. Although, it's often subjective to perspective and situation as you often put it.

Shadow Lodge 3/5

I think people want to feel like the rules are/were being followed, or to find a better way to do things in future, and to discuss them with the community.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tsriel wrote:
I think alot of it has to do with Rule Zero. It often leaves alot of players feeling powerless. Although, it's often subjective to perspective and situation as you often put it.

That doesn't really explain the GMs that do this though.

I think some of the problem is that PFS attracts a lot of socially awkward people. Many times they either don't have the necessary social skills or at least enough confidence in their own social skills to deal with the problem face to face. Dealing with it on the anonymous internet is far less confrontational as they can always just walk away if things get too uncomfortable. In some cases, they may be looking for assurance from the internet that they are in the right which may give them the actual confidence they need to deal with the problem face to face. Other times they may be looking for genuine advice on how to solve the problem. And still other times they simply want to vent or even brag. In short, there is no one reason why people do these things.

Silver Crusade 3/5

14 people marked this as a favorite.

Bob, you could always ask those folks directly instead of posting a thread about it. You are likely to get a better answer to your question that way.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 *

I'm going to suggest that the forum posts you are speaking of are the abberation not the standard in the community. I see a lot of issues handled locally between people before the rise to these forums. Besides the two responses you list, Bob, I also see a lot of responses that suggest taking it to the local VO staff. I like that answer because it attempts to humanize the issue and send it back locally where the VO can help mediate. Also coordinators know a loot more about all parties involved to the disagreement, on a social level, than some people on the Internet.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Well complaining at the table has some downsides:

-Time constraints may prevent players/GMs from talking about it in a sufficient amount of time.
- Players usually haven't researched the scenario in question, some of them have a reputation for killing characters (negative channeling clerics)
- Suddenly you are "that guy", someone who just lost a character and can't deal with it.

As players we have to believe what the GM is telling us is correct, of course there are always areas were players should feel motivated to correct the GM when something seems like a misunderstanding (a cleric channeling negative energy to harm the party and heal her undead minions, GM claiming that a particular enemy is immune to critical hits- especially if this was true in D&D...), but the scenario might always have given enemies specific abilities, that can make things tough.

On the flip side if a GM has a reputation to kill an anomalous amount of player characters and/or even states this intention when the game starts... I think this is very much worthy of reporting.
Anomalous monster tactics like killing a dying, while other players are still attacking you leaves a pretty bad taste.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Fox wrote:
Bob, you could always ask those folks directly instead of posting a thread about it. You are likely to get a better answer to your question that way.

Ok, this made me genuinely laugh out loud.


Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Well complaining at the table has some downsides:

-Time constraints may prevent players/GMs from talking about it in a sufficient amount of time.
- Players usually haven't researched the scenario in question, some of them have a reputation for killing characters (negative channeling clerics)
- Suddenly you are "that guy", someone who just lost a character and can't deal with it.

As players we have to believe what the GM is telling us is correct, of course there are always areas were players should feel motivated to correct the GM when something seems like a misunderstanding (a cleric channeling negative energy to harm the party and heal her undead minions, GM claiming that a particular enemy is immune to critical hits- especially if this was true in D&D...), but the scenario might always have given enemies specific abilities, that can make things tough.

On the flip side if a GM has a reputation to kill an anomalous amount of player characters and/or even states this intention when the game starts... I think this is very much worthy of reporting.
Anomalous monster tactics like killing a dying, while other players are still attacking you leaves a pretty bad taste.

Surely a negative channelling cleric, blasting their own party, wouldn't be allowed? That is pvp.

Silver Crusade 1/5

DM Under The Bridge wrote:


As players we have to believe what the GM is telling us is correct, of course there are always areas were players should feel motivated to correct the GM when something seems like a misunderstanding (a cleric channeling negative energy to harm the party and heal her undead minions, GM claiming that a particular enemy is immune to critical hits- especially if this was true in D&D...), but the scenario might always have given enemies specific abilities, that can make things tough.

Surely a negative channelling cleric, blasting their own party, wouldn't be allowed? That is pvp.

He means an enemy cleric who damages the party and heals his undead minions AT THE SAME TIME (which he may not do, it's one or the other). Just as an example for "Hey guys, today there was a ruling my GM did I'm unsure about, can someone who played the scenario have a quick look if it was okay?"

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Yeah the cleric bit is a bit of a spoiler I got from reading on these boards, apparently at least one scenario has one (and the tactics are apparently intentionally sub optimal to avoid killing killing the party).

5/5 5/55/55/5

I think that people assume that the internet is a bigger place than it actually is...

Sczarni 4/5

Bob Jonquet wrote:


Why does it seem soo many players/GMs are unable/unwilling to just talk, face-to-face, to the person in question, express their feelings, and get feedback that will proceed to a resolution, or at least an understanding?

Unfortunately, not everyone in this world is blessed with ability to socialize and communicate perfectly with other people. In fact, I have seen a wide variation of them and while some have no issues at all in outlining the problem, others are distrustful and of exploding attitude.

Expectations of gameplay are another issue. This doesn't even have to be connected with Pathfinder in general; some people simply dislike gameplay of others.

Overall, these issues are nothing new in human world and arguments will persist as long as we know it.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Michael Tracey wrote:
I'm going to suggest that the forum posts you are speaking of are the abberation not the standard in the community.

Even more to the point, people who are able to solve their issues face-to-face have little reason to come out to these forums and post about it since the problem has already been solved. So we are only seeing one side of the anecdotal data points.

5/5 5/55/55/5

There are also a lot of legitimate reasons for it, before our admittedly well based stereotype for poor social skills.

I read a rule this way, the dm read it that way, am I right? am I wrong? Or is that one of those many gray areas of interpretation/ common practice?

I don't have the scenario. Is the thing that irks me in there?

Graarrrrrrrg! (letting it out before a bunch of strangers will have less impact than venting it with the people you have to game with next week)

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Why does it seem soo many players/GMs are unable/unwilling to just talk, face-to-face, to the person in question, express their feelings, and get feedback that will proceed to a resolution, or at least an understanding?

Here's some possible reasons:

1. They like the person, and feel like a confrontation would be taken as an attack, so they want to solicit third-party opinions instead.

2. They only see the person once or twice a month at games that are a half-hour drive away and don't have time at events to talk to them, so they go to the more conveniently-approachable internet.

3. For some people, posting a thread about their experiences is truly the equivalent of showing up at Cheers their favorite hangout and talking to friends about their day, like any normal person would.

4. Maybe they're not willing to assume they're right (a virtue all too rare and vastly underappreciated among roleplayers) and want to crowdsource an answer so they don't have to bother the person unless they can be sure it really was an error.

5. In the case of rules disagreements, usually the other party has already stated they believe X to be the case when the topic came up in gameplay, so they need help finding relevant rules/FAQs before approaching them again. What would be the point in trying to have a conversation about it before being able to bring in new information, since the other party is already convinced of their own position?

6. Sometimes, the guy who just did X to you doesn't seem like the most approachable person in the world, you know? They could go to a VO instead, but (a) that might feel like "tattling", (b) they might not KNOW there's someone else to go to, or (c) the person in question is the local VO.

7. Maybe the person is just shy and doesn't like confronting people directly.

8. Have you SEEN how some people react to being corrected, or even just questioned? I kid you not, sometimes I've clicked "reply" on someone's posted question, copy-pasted the relevant rule, and clicked "submit" without typing any words of my own at all; and then been criticized for making personal attacks. This has happened multiple times, all from different posters. I have told someone they got a piece of information wrong and then been publicly chastised, telling me I have no right to tell someone they're wrong. The list goes on. The thought of how the other party (especially entrenched veterans) might react to being approached can be quite a deterrent.

9. Sometimes they're new, and the messageboards are the first venue they found to try and reach out.

10. Maybe they have a rant that's not directed at one person but there was a recent "final straw" and they've just got to get it out in a (relatively) safe space.

---------------------------------------------

That's all just off the top of my head. There's a lot of legitimate (or at least understandable) reasons why someone would react to a situation in some way other than a face-to-face.

4/5

So I think we can agree there are understandable reasons why people come to the forums to bring these issues up.

I think we can all also agree there are more productive ways of going about this (namely going to local coordinator, your VOs, and Mike Brock, in that order of escalation).

Dark Archive 4/5

David_Bross wrote:

So I think we can agree there are understandable reasons why people come to the forums to bring these issues up.

I think we can all also agree there are more productive ways of going about this (namely going to local coordinator, your VOs, and Mike Brock, in that order of escalation).

I think the issue here is that most people assume that that the VOs will side with the event coordinator and that Mike Brock will side with the VOs by default. Its how most organizations typically work.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

ZomB wrote:
I think the issue here is that most people assume that that the VOs will side with the event coordinator and that Mike Brock will side with the VOs by default. Its how most organizations typically work.

I would love to work for one of these mythical organizations. Seems like most places would rather throw their own under the bus to appease the "customer."

5/5 5/55/55/5

Remember though that VCs and organizers are also customers though... chances are pretty good they're you biggest customer. They pay to work for you!

Scarab Sages

Jiggy wrote:
8. Have you SEEN how some people react to being corrected, or even just questioned? I kid you not, sometimes I've clicked "reply" on someone's posted question, copy-pasted the relevant rule, and clicked "submit" without typing any words of my own at all; and then been criticized for making personal attacks. This has happened multiple times, all from different posters. I have told someone they got a piece of information wrong and then been publicly chastised, telling me I have no right to tell someone they're wrong. The list goes on. The thought of how the other party (especially entrenched veterans) might react to being approached can be quite a deterrent.

On a related note; have you seen how some people react to being supported?

I've spoken/posted before, siding with someone, and providing further information to supplement what they said, and had them argue with me, as though I've contradicted them. 0_o?

Them: "The rule is [blah blah]"
Me: "And if you check out Chapter X, there's a table that summarises this stuff..."
Them: "NO! THE RULE IS [BLAH]! AND [BLAH]!"
Me: "...."
Them "SO THERE!"
Me: "I was agreeing with you, in case you didn't realise."

5/5

Snorter wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
8. Have you SEEN how some people react to being corrected, or even just questioned? I kid you not, sometimes I've clicked "reply" on someone's posted question, copy-pasted the relevant rule, and clicked "submit" without typing any words of my own at all; and then been criticized for making personal attacks. This has happened multiple times, all from different posters. I have told someone they got a piece of information wrong and then been publicly chastised, telling me I have no right to tell someone they're wrong. The list goes on. The thought of how the other party (especially entrenched veterans) might react to being approached can be quite a deterrent.

On a related note; have you seen how some people react to being supported?

I've spoken/posted before, siding with someone, and providing further information to supplement what they said, and had them argue with me, as though I've contradicted them. 0_o?

Them: "The rule is [blah blah]"
Me: "And if you check out Chapter X, there's a table that summarises this stuff..."
Them: "NO! THE RULE IS [BLAH]! AND [BLAH]!"
Me: "...."
Them "SO THERE!"
Me: "I was agreeing with you, in case you didn't realise."

I believe we are the generation that forgot how communication was supposed to work. One could blame the internet for that, but I can take at least some of the blame. As part of said generation.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

FranKc wrote:
Snorter wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
8. Have you SEEN how some people react to being corrected, or even just questioned? I kid you not, sometimes I've clicked "reply" on someone's posted question, copy-pasted the relevant rule, and clicked "submit" without typing any words of my own at all; and then been criticized for making personal attacks. This has happened multiple times, all from different posters. I have told someone they got a piece of information wrong and then been publicly chastised, telling me I have no right to tell someone they're wrong. The list goes on. The thought of how the other party (especially entrenched veterans) might react to being approached can be quite a deterrent.

On a related note; have you seen how some people react to being supported?

I've spoken/posted before, siding with someone, and providing further information to supplement what they said, and had them argue with me, as though I've contradicted them. 0_o?

Them: "The rule is [blah blah]"
Me: "And if you check out Chapter X, there's a table that summarises this stuff..."
Them: "NO! THE RULE IS [BLAH]! AND [BLAH]!"
Me: "...."
Them "SO THERE!"
Me: "I was agreeing with you, in case you didn't realise."

I believe we are the generation that forgot how communication was supposed to work. One could blame the internet for that, but I can take at least some of the blame. As part of said generation.

In an internet forum you don't see the other person, their age, their race, their sexual orientation, their smell, their facial and body movements and gestures, the tone and volume of their voice ...

I could continue, but it is s rather simple fact, that peoples brains aren't suited to this kind of communication.

Twitter is far worse though. Oh and I would be lying, to argue that people not paying attention is a big part of the issue.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snorter wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
8. Have you SEEN how some people react to being corrected, or even just questioned? I kid you not, sometimes I've clicked "reply" on someone's posted question, copy-pasted the relevant rule, and clicked "submit" without typing any words of my own at all; and then been criticized for making personal attacks. This has happened multiple times, all from different posters. I have told someone they got a piece of information wrong and then been publicly chastised, telling me I have no right to tell someone they're wrong. The list goes on. The thought of how the other party (especially entrenched veterans) might react to being approached can be quite a deterrent.

On a related note; have you seen how some people react to being supported?

I've spoken/posted before, siding with someone, and providing further information to supplement what they said, and had them argue with me, as though I've contradicted them. 0_o?

Them: "The rule is [blah blah]"
Me: "And if you check out Chapter X, there's a table that summarises this stuff..."
Them: "NO! THE RULE IS [BLAH]! AND [BLAH]!"
Me: "...."
Them "SO THERE!"
Me: "I was agreeing with you, in case you didn't realise."

Yeah, there seems to be a trend that when someone states an opinion, they believe that they know what all possible thoughts are on the topic. They've already stated their side, so anyone mentioning a different set of information must be disagreeing. And of course since I know the entirety of the reasons someone might disagree, I don't have to read all the words before I can reply to them; I already know what their position is! You can see this in most discussions on frequent topics, such as alignment, healing in combat, optimization/min-maxing, and everything else that comes up with any sort of regularity.

But that's all kind of a tangent, I suppose.

5/5 5/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I made one of those posts about year and half ago and was jumped all over for it both on the boards and locally.

I posted mainly because I did not really know what to do about it; characters died, a GM clearly was in the wrong by bumping the scenario encounters to extra hard mode for the final encounter only.

At the time I had never heard of it happening before. Why had I not heard of it happening before? well mainly because no one talked about these situations. So by experienced players and VO’s keeping it on the down low I nor anyone else slighted at the table knew of the situation happening before or what to do about it so I turned the question to the boards.

Silver Crusade 2/5

This is why I openly question GMs at the table, and expect to be questioned if I GM. I make plenty of errors and I appreciate them being pointed out.

Silver Crusade 2/5

roysier wrote:

I made one of those posts about year and half ago and was jumped all over for it both on the boards and locally.

I posted mainly because I did not really know what to do about it; characters died, a GM clearly was in the wrong by bumping the scenario encounters to extra hard mode for the final encounter only.

At the time I had never heard of it happening before. Why had I not heard of it happening before? well mainly because no one talked about these situations. So by experienced players and VO’s keeping it on the down low I nor anyone else slighted at the table knew of the situation happening before or what to do about it so I turned the question to the boards.

Hear! Hear!

*

The Fox wrote:
Bob, you could always ask those folks directly instead of posting a thread about it. You are likely to get a better answer to your question that way.

That's is likely true. Now we can just post a link to this thread asking this question. It will stop those threads from growing (as Bob's point gets mentioned on each of the individual threads), and if we are lucky, gets posters to include the information that will move a rant to a discussion. :)

Though I might rephrase it, the OP could be stickied for common ease.

Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Complaining about a PFS table aka "Airing your dirty laundry" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.