GMing question...


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Sczarni 1/5

Is a GM allowed to refuse a certain player at their table? I know that PFS is supposed to be all-inclusive, but if the GM doesn't want a player at their table, what can they do?

Scarab Sages 5/5 5/5 *** Venture-Captain, Washington—Spokane

This is something you would need to work with your event coordinator to resolve. You do have the right to not run the table but that would cause issues for both the coordinator and the other players at the table. This is one of those delicate issues that would best be resolved by a conversation between your coordinator, and the person you don't want at the table (either all together or each person separately).

5/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Captain, Germany—Hamburg

Sure, a GM has the right to ask a player to leave their table. Depending on the circumstances, either the GM or the player might want to consult with the local VO.
If the player is being a problem player or the GM is being a jerk by randomly disallowing players at their table, that needs to be talked about so the situation doesn't get out of hand.

If the GM simply doesn't like the player, it might also be a good idea to talk to the event organizer and tell them. If there are enough other GMs at the event, it's easy to seat the player at a different table if the case is made known in advance.

Dark Archive 1/5

IMO, booting from the table should be a last resort. Are they disruptive? Try talking to them first. Are they playing an upper tier character for the session when everyone else is playing low tier? Ask if they're willing to run a pregen. Do they play a class you consider too overpowering compared to the others? Before they sign in ask if they have something else appropriate they can play.

Removing them from the table really shouldn't be your first or only choice.

The Exchange 2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can't be forced to run for someone, however the person organising the event may decide that they don't want you to run at all in that case.

Dark Archive 1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Only time I can see this being a viable choice off the bat would be if you're running Core, and the person not only doesn't have a core character but refuses to make one (for lev 1 group) or run a pregen.

3/5

Why are DMs being so exclusive?

I will DM for anyone that does not try to wreck other people's fun. I have yet to boot someone from my table. I have warned person and forced a guy to apologize to others, but removing someone is pretty extreme.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Finlanderboy wrote:
Why are DMs being so exclusive?

Because some DMs do not want to deal with certain things in their hobby.

5/5 5/55/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Finlanderboy wrote:

Why are DMs being so exclusive?

We don't know the circumstances here. Could be anything from "he plays a gunslinger" to a retraining order as far as we know.

Silver Crusade 4/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:

Why are DMs being so exclusive?

We don't know the circumstances here. Could be anything from "he plays a gunslinger" to a retraining order as far as we know.

Retraining order? Is that when a judge orders you to retrain all your level 1 PCs?

3/5

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:
Why are DMs being so exclusive?
Because some DMs do not want to deal with certain things in their hobby.

Then why play a situation that includes almost everyone?

3/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:

Why are DMs being so exclusive?

We don't know the circumstances here. Could be anything from "he plays a gunslinger" to a retraining order as far as we know.

Well a restraining order or personal protection order is enforced on one of the people. So if you have that order on you, you should not be attending any game that other person is at.

Dark Archive 1/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

That's the thing... We don't know the reasoning. Just that the original poster doesn't want a certain person to play at their table. For all we know the player in question might make it a habit of eating any printed off maps.

Which, yeah, if that's happening at a table I'm GMing then I'm going to politely ask that person to leave. Ink cartridges are pricey, so any map I print off I want to get plenty of use out of.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Finlanderboy wrote:
Then why play a situation that includes almost everyone?

Because not every individual table includes everyone.

3/5

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:
Then why play a situation that includes almost everyone?
Because not every individual table includes everyone.

That is silly. You can play private invite only games where you can include whoever you want as you mention.

But, this person is asking when they can shut the door on people in general.

Talk with the person and treat them like adults and let them know how you feel. Treat to fix the problem, not sweep it somewhere else. Just coming out and looking for reasons/excuses to veto the player I find wrong.

If you do nto want to play PFS in a public all inclusive game. Then do not. do not pretend you are inclusive but ban the guy you find annoying.

Grand Lodge 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Finlanderboy wrote:
If you do nto want to play PFS in a public all inclusive game. Then do not. do not pretend you are inclusive but ban the guy you find annoying.

If two players/GMs are unable to play together without ruining the experience for the rest of the table, I have no problem restricting one or the other from the table as necessary.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Fromper wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:

Why are DMs being so exclusive?

We don't know the circumstances here. Could be anything from "he plays a gunslinger" to a retraining order as far as we know.
Retraining order? Is that when a judge orders you to retrain all your level 1 PCs?

what are you going to do for comedy when i learn how to type... :)

Shadow Lodge 4/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Cry.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:
Then why play a situation that includes almost everyone?
Because not every individual table includes everyone.

damn your fancy citified large venues...

Dark Archive 1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Locally, we have capped out at 7 players, once. not enough yet have shown up to require a second table. I'm worried that the gamecon this upcoming weekend is going to flop hardcore too. So far there's a grand total of 10 people signed up for the gamecon's tables for the entire 2 day convention, 6 of whom are signed up as GMs. Only one table as yet is expected to be legal (with a GM ran char). If we don't somehow get out of towners, we'll have to cancel most of the games scheduled.

No advertising of the convention makes it unlikely IMO that this will happen. Especially with how short the convention hours are and how meh the special guests and panels are. I mean, seriously, one of the special guest/panels is a single 'famous' cosplayer who's claim to fame is having thousands of "likes" on facebook. Oh, and a heavy metal band nobody's heard of who wear magic markers as a spiked headpiece.

We can't afford to be picky about who sits at the table around here. Booting someone for "being that guy" might mean the table is no longer legal.

3/5

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:
If you do nto want to play PFS in a public all inclusive game. Then do not. do not pretend you are inclusive but ban the guy you find annoying.
If two players/GMs are unable to play together without ruining the experience for the rest of the table, I have no problem restricting one or the other from the table as necessary.

This is when people should respect each other and everyone else present and resolve the situation on their own.

if I have a problem with a player I let them know, and what i expect. I have stepped out of tables and declined to play politely instead of creating an issue with someone else.

You should not have to ask these things. talk with the player and then talk with a VO if they are unresponsive.

Grand Lodge 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I feel like you are in violent agreement with me.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Finlanderboy wrote:
But, this person is asking when they can shut the door on people in general.

Actually, this person is asking about a person in specific.

Finlanderboy wrote:
Just coming out and looking for reasons/excuses to veto the player I find wrong.

Wanting to know if you can veto a player when you already HAVE a reason to do so is perfectly fine.

3/5

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
I feel like you are in violent agreement with me.

How is it violent? What use of violence have I used? OR did you say this to use word to color things in a way they are not to gain appeal?

As I understand you know this situation, since you imply you KNOW they HAVE a reason.

The last time I was asked this in person was because they did like the guy because he was socially awkward. Although I do admit I think people beign exclusive about nerdy things a problem and the community should be more accepting. Maybe that is what you find violent about my speech.

Dark Archive 1/5

TOZ wrote:


Wanting to know if you can veto a player when you already HAVE a reason to do so is perfectly fine.

Without background info though the only real response can and should be (at least in my opinion) "handle it without booting the player if at all possible".

We don't know of the original poster has a reason beyond "I just don't like him/her".

As a side note, anyone else getting the feeling this is a troll thread?

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Daniel Myhre wrote:


As a side note, anyone else getting the feeling this is a troll thread?

Since the OP has run somewhere between 10 and 30 games and played in who knows how many more i'm inclined to say no.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Finlanderboy wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
I feel like you are in violent agreement with me.
How is it violent? What use of violence have I used?

As in, you are passionately arguing with someone on the same side. Preaching to the choir, as it were.

5/5 5/55/55/5

I don't think there's any yes/no answer to the OPs question. I do think there are some uidelines

Good reasons for avoiding a player

You hate them personally

BO (keep in mind that playing till 11 means it could be a long day for some people)

REAALLY annoying habbits.

Bad reasons:

You don't like their character class (this one is borderline not allowed in public games)

You don't like something legal they did (multi classing? HERETIC!)

Things that make it easier/less of a twit to avoid a player

-multiple venues nearby. Split the kids up, you go to Inn of the red dragon and they play at the red dragon Inn.

-Lots of tables: if you're table one of three there's two other opportunities to play. if you're the only table in fly over country... scheduling around that gets kind hard.

The Exchange 3/5

I swear for a second I thought this was the Can I forbid a character that is otherwise legal thread.

Please just act in a responsible manner with the intention of being inclusive and accommodating. That probably means talking it out with someone.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There are some legitimate reasons not to play with someone, but it has to be very bad IMO.

We mention the need for inclusiveness quite a lot, but I want to reiterate a reason why.

Many of us gamers are or were at some point socially awkward people. Being tolerated, even welcomed despite of it, gave us a chance to grow.

I've seen quite a lot of people come into places like a gaming or student society as very awkward, poorly adjusted people, and then gradually improve. Adjustment requires that people tolerate you so you can adjust. Social skills need to be learned by socializing.

That said, sure, it will be annoying now and then. It'll try your patience. But maybe you'll also be able to say afterwards "He did X which was annoying, but Y was actually cool".

4/5

In PFS when you agree to run the table, you are agreeing somewhat to run for whoever shows up. Like them or not.

You have the right to refuse to run for everyone and I believe you have the right to refuse to run a seven player table.

You don't have the right, in my opinion, to refuse to seat little Jimmy just because you don't like him.

As long as the player isn't being a jerk, you don't have much recourse.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Ragoz wrote:

I swear for a second I thought this was the Can I forbid a character that is otherwise legal thread.

Switching out a character probably would not help here.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Ragoz wrote:

I swear for a second I thought this was the Can I forbid a character that is otherwise legal thread.

Please just act in a responsible manner with the intention of being inclusive and accommodating. That probably means talking it out with someone.

slight variation: this does not seem solvable through breaking out another character.

Dark Archive 1/5

There's been very few people I'd refuse to game with. And most of them were pot heads. The vast majority of them I'd refuse to game with them because they aren't reliable. They were good roleplayers though, when they bothered to show up. So if they showed up at a PFS table I'm GMing I'd allow them, so long as they leave their drugs at home. I'm not going to delay a PFS session multiple times so you can go outside and smoke pot. A mid session break for bathroom/food, yeah. But not to do drugs.

Only two I would absolutely refuse to game with ever though. Not gonna name names, but one was highly abrasive. He refused to make his own character, but would refuse to play a pregen when one was available. Thus forcing more work on the GM. As a GM I always have pregens available. For non-PFS I typically have 8 to 12 characters made for any system I'm running. I make new characters as a hobby. When asked for things like skills, appearance, and personality he always pointed at himself. When asked things like "what class do you want to play" he'd also point at himself.

Not that he was good at actually playing anything with an alignment other then "Chaotic Stupid". Nor was he a very good GM. As a GM he had no sense of appropriate challenge or starting setting. And that was before factoring in his extreme favoritism and constantly throwing in a "GM personified" character to punish players for "not playing right" For example in a 3.5 campaign I brought in a concept for a half elf sorcerer who doesn't realize they're also half dragon. My concept was to use the Dragon Disciple prestige class to represent her draconic side slowly coming forth. He insisted I had to use the half-dragon template. Thus I had a hot tempered level 1 sorcerer with 28 strength (rolled 17 for str score).

For my character's draconic rage drawback I was willingly taking a mandatory strait roll will save to stay calm in stressful situations like allies getting taken out. If failed she'd fly into a berzerker rage with all the penalties of a barbarian's rage, but none of the benefits. This he'd approved. He then kept punishing me for playing the character as he'd approved it via things like having his GM Personification show up and magicly mount my character's still living head on a wall. Then dock me 10k xp when this merely pisses off the already enraged half dragon still further. At level 1.

Or when I played a monk who's concept was "Chinese theater actor, not actually a martial artist" he docked me 20k xp because my character slowed down and was being cautious. Setup was we're climbing a mountain. It's snowing. Yet it keeps getting warmer and warmer. Then 3 party members vanish into mid-air. He claimed I was using player knowledge of the two permenant Fire Walls a couple of iffrit had set up hidden behind a permanent illusion that those 3 party member had just walked into.

Did I mention yet that he'd already dropped the information we were being sent to kill two iffrit? Or that we were all level 2 with a grand total of ONE magic item among us, no casters? And that even though we could afford to have (and had commissioned) magic weapons for each of us, he'd flat out told us "No matter how long you wait, they wont be ready till you come back from this task". Or that he'd started a group of level 1 lawful good, neutral good, and chaotic good characters in the city of They, after havign decided half the party got captured pre-game and all their equipment taken (never to be recovered)? T his guy I will never RP with again. He's a disruptive player and even worse GM.

The other person I'd refuse to game with loved to phantommime his character's actions. Okay, I do that too. But he did it in a way that was proven to piss off the GM and other players. For example one time he kept acting like he was holding a drawn bow, and pointing it directly at the face of myself and other players. I'm talking holding his "bow holding" fist inches from my nose. And he'd be doing this while in-character pointing his bow at said player character with an arrow notched, threatening to fire. This guy I'd refuse to GM for in a PFS game because he violates one of the rules... No PvP.

Silver Crusade 3/5

Mulgar wrote:
As long as the player isn't being a jerk, you don't have much recourse.

...and if the player is a jerk? What then? What if the player has a history of angry outbursts, bad language, and threatening behavior?

Horizon Hunters 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis

The Fox wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
As long as the player isn't being a jerk, you don't have much recourse.
...and if the player is a jerk? What then? What if the player has a history of angry outbursts, bad language, and threatening behavior?

Players can be, and have been, banned. It's not unheard of.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
The Fox wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
As long as the player isn't being a jerk, you don't have much recourse.
...and if the player is a jerk? What then? What if the player has a history of angry outbursts, bad language, and threatening behavior?

Talk with your VO or gameday organizer. If the player is actually causing a problem, then they can remove them and stop them from playing at that location in the future.

The Exchange 5/5

James McTeague wrote:
The Fox wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
As long as the player isn't being a jerk, you don't have much recourse.
...and if the player is a jerk? What then? What if the player has a history of angry outbursts, bad language, and threatening behavior?
Talk with your VO or gameday organizer. If the player is actually causing a problem, then they can remove them and stop them from playing at that location in the future.

and if the judge/player combo has no problem when they are at different tables? I know of at least one couple that bring outside "issues" to the table when they game together. As an organizer, I would insure that they are at different tables - even if they did arrive in the same car.

Silver Crusade 3/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
James McTeague wrote:
The Fox wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
As long as the player isn't being a jerk, you don't have much recourse.
...and if the player is a jerk? What then? What if the player has a history of angry outbursts, bad language, and threatening behavior?
Talk with your VO or gameday organizer. If the player is actually causing a problem, then they can remove them and stop them from playing at that location in the future.

I tried that. Nothing changed. I think I'm the only one who has a problem with that particular player.

So I stopped playing at that location.

If the player showed up to the other location that I play at, and I was GMing, I would certainly disallow them from sitting at my table. If I was a player and he sat down at a table where I was playing, I would move to a different table, or I'd leave. I enjoy PFS tremendously, but not enough to suffer verbal abuse.

Dark Archive 1/5

if the player/judge know they have such an issue then the player knows to find a different table if possible so as not to be disruptive. As a player you know who's GMing a table. Might not know who this person is, but you can see them. Or you found out their name in advance if you signed up early. Thus if you're joining a table where you know there will be problems, that's all on you. That to me is deliberate disruption on the player's part.

Still think that booting someone from the table should be the last resort though.

Silver Crusade 3/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I want to add that I feel that my situation is resolved. I'm only posting my experience to show that there are circumstances where a GM should legitimately feel justified in turning a player away due to personality conflicts. Life is too short and the world is too big to game with jerks.

Silver Crusade 4/5

The original poster here hasn't come back to answer any of the questions about "What's the situation here?". So there's really no point in the rest of us talking hypotheticals or our own personal experiences that may be completely different.

Silver Crusade 3/5

Fromper wrote:
The original poster here hasn't come back to answer any of the questions about "What's the situation here?". So there's really no point in the rest of us talking hypotheticals or our own personal experiences that may be completely different.

1. We don't need to know the details of the OP's situation.

2. Some people basically said that GMs must suffer through any player that decides to sit down at their table no matter what. Hypotheticals and personal anecdotes illustrate that we should not have that stance.

4/5

The Fox wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
As long as the player isn't being a jerk, you don't have much recourse.
...and if the player is a jerk? What then? What if the player has a history of angry outbursts, bad language, and threatening behavior?

In my opinion the question is, "Is he currently being a jerk?" If the organizer/ store owner/ whoever is in charge hasn't banned them, you as a public PFS event are stuck with them. Part of the territory.

Silver Crusade 3/5

Mulgar wrote:
The Fox wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
As long as the player isn't being a jerk, you don't have much recourse.
...and if the player is a jerk? What then? What if the player has a history of angry outbursts, bad language, and threatening behavior?
In my opinion the question is, "Is he currently being a jerk?" If the organizer/ store owner/ whoever is in charge hasn't banned them, you as a public PFS event are stuck with them. Part of the territory.

Really? Someone calls you a "F&@%ing A$$#@!%" repeatedly and you think you need to GM for them just because they aren't currently calling you a "F&@%ing A$$#@!%"?

4/5

The Fox wrote:
Fromper wrote:
The original poster here hasn't come back to answer any of the questions about "What's the situation here?". So there's really no point in the rest of us talking hypotheticals or our own personal experiences that may be completely different.

1. We don't need to know the details of the OP's situation.

2. Some people basically said that GMs must suffer through any player that decides to sit down at their table no matter what. Hypotheticals and personal anecdotes illustrate that we should not have that stance.

Who said no matter what? As soon as they are a disruption then you deal with it. To refuse to sit someone who is not currently being an issue is wrong. To properly deal with a person who is being a jerk is quite another.

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mulgar wrote:
The Fox wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
As long as the player isn't being a jerk, you don't have much recourse.
...and if the player is a jerk? What then? What if the player has a history of angry outbursts, bad language, and threatening behavior?
In my opinion the question is, "Is he currently being a jerk?" If the organizer/ store owner/ whoever is in charge hasn't banned them, you as a public PFS event are stuck with them. Part of the territory.

There are people that I will not sit at a table with. If that means I bail from judging the table, well, I guess that means I bail. Having me judge for one of them would not be a good experience for me or them, and likely not for anyone else stuck at that table.

4/5

The Fox wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
The Fox wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
As long as the player isn't being a jerk, you don't have much recourse.
...and if the player is a jerk? What then? What if the player has a history of angry outbursts, bad language, and threatening behavior?
In my opinion the question is, "Is he currently being a jerk?" If the organizer/ store owner/ whoever is in charge hasn't banned them, you as a public PFS event are stuck with them. Part of the territory.
Really? Someone calls you a "F&@%ing A$$#@!%" repeatedly and you think you need to GM for them just because they aren't currently calling you a "F&@%ing A$$#@!%"?

Actually, yes.

I am way more confident in myself than to let myself get insulted by unintelligent vulgarity. I am also much more forgiving that than that.

Silver Crusade 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mulgar wrote:
The Fox wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
The Fox wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
As long as the player isn't being a jerk, you don't have much recourse.
...and if the player is a jerk? What then? What if the player has a history of angry outbursts, bad language, and threatening behavior?
In my opinion the question is, "Is he currently being a jerk?" If the organizer/ store owner/ whoever is in charge hasn't banned them, you as a public PFS event are stuck with them. Part of the territory.
Really? Someone calls you a "F&@%ing A$$#@!%" repeatedly and you think you need to GM for them just because they aren't currently calling you a "F&@%ing A$$#@!%"?

Actually, yes.

I am way more confident in myself than to let myself get insulted by unintelligent vulgarity. I am also much more forgiving that than that.

Well, the issue is currently resolved. I no longer play or GM at the location where he plays. I no longer need to suffer his abuse. If he shows up when I'm GMing and asks to sit at my table, I will say no. If that gets me kicked out of PFS, so be it. I have better things to do with my time than suffer verbal abuse and fear for my personal safety.

The Exchange 5/5

Mulgar wrote:
The Fox wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
The Fox wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
As long as the player isn't being a jerk, you don't have much recourse.
...and if the player is a jerk? What then? What if the player has a history of angry outbursts, bad language, and threatening behavior?
In my opinion the question is, "Is he currently being a jerk?" If the organizer/ store owner/ whoever is in charge hasn't banned them, you as a public PFS event are stuck with them. Part of the territory.
Really? Someone calls you a "F&@%ing A$$#@!%" repeatedly and you think you need to GM for them just because they aren't currently calling you a "F&@%ing A$$#@!%"?

Actually, yes.

I am way more confident in myself than to let myself get insulted by unintelligent vulgarity. I am also much more forgiving that than that.

surely there is someone in your past that you would have a problem running a game for? For whatever reason?

1 to 50 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / GMing question... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.