Level 6 character playing with level 1 character


Pathfinder Society

51 to 100 of 119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
1/5

Haha, this is so funny to me. After just having the large thread wanting an option for a table of low levels with a high level pulled into high tier to play low. We now have this thread saying that it's okay to tell the high leveled player that he can't play because the others are low. Which was something that seemed to not get much support and some flak in the other thread.

A lv5 barb vs a lv1 barb is just a little more survivable. Everything dies in one hit to them anyways. A lv5 barb vs a lv2 barb there's even less difference, the lv2 isn't likely to die in one shot and neither is the lv5.

A lv5 bard is giving the party better buffs, and is more damaging like unto a barb maybe, if they are a damage bard.

A lv5 wizard maybe has some good spells to throw around.

So really, the easiness of combat isn't changed that much. Skill point wise the higher leveled guys can get higher, but a success is a success.

All it's done is made them less likely to die.

Is it the preferred route? no. But is it something to refuse a seat to an otherwise legal player for? no. I know I'd be complaining up the chain if I heard it was happening locally.

Dark Archive 1/5

Tallow wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Just because you can play a scenario doesn't mean you should or that others will be happy if you do.

you could say the same thing about an undead themed character, or a paladin. Or pet class when someone doesn't like them. People have a lot of objections to other peoples characters.

There are good reasons for playing a 5 in a 1-5. You need to get to 6 and you keep getting stuck in the 1-5 rut. Its the perfect scenario for your character. Its part 3 of the two parter you've done.

I'm a little skeptical of telling someone they can't play a legal character without knowing that they're going to try to be disruptive. But with that said, if you are playing out of tier it can be easy to ruin everyones night. A healer can probably stand in the back and buff and no ones going to complain that they're alive and totally shredding things. A barbarian would have a harder time dialing back, maybe punch the dungeon to death because their axe is in the shop?

There is a huge difference between using discretion to disallow a huge level discrepancy (level 5 with 1's and 2's is even more egregious than a level 9 with level 5's and 6's or a level 11 with 7's and 8's) and disallowing certain build choices. That's why its called discretion.

However, for the Paladin/Phrasmin vs. Necromancer issue, a GM always has the discretion to ask one or more of those players to play something different if the drama and angst between the players is untenable for fun for the rest of the table.

Except that there is not. As far as rules go, there is no difference. Be it a necromancer or a level 5, they are legal character choices for a tier 1-5. And I have been at a table with a level 5 in tier 1-2. I was in Bonekeep 3 with a party of 4 very good characters (all level 9) with the possibility of beating it at high tier, when we got saddled with a level 5 that dragged us down and we failed to finish because that slot should have been another level 8-9. Fact was turning away that character just because we wanted a higher level is no different then saying do not play your dual-cursed oracle or slumber witch because it ruins the fun.

This is organized play, not home games. You can chose to not run a game, but you do not get to chose what rules to follow. So unless you can quote it in the guild guide, or we can get Tonya or Jon to comment here that this is a change, then VO or not, you still have to follow the rules.

Let us be clear, this is not me saying I disagree with the philosophy or logic of why we would not want a level 5 with a bunch of level 1's in low tier. I agree that talking to the player and asking if they would be willing to run something lower, or maybe there is another table they can run at, is perfectly reasonable. But if one of the many scenarios BNW was true, or any other reason as to why they needed/wanted to play that character at that table, then you have to let them play or not run the game.

3/5 **** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro

Tallow wrote:


Very much so.

While Mike didn't publish it wide and far, because the implications of making it an official position are obvious, he did, privately, often tell VO's that he trusted them to use their discretion to run their region in the best way possible for the maximum amount of fun for the maximum number of people.

And yes, this did include several things like saying, "No 5's in a 1-2," and, "We schedule 5 person tables and rarely will allow a 6th." The implicit and tacit agreement between the VO's and Mike with this kind of discretion, is that the VOs knew if they abused this discretion, they would be quickly removed as a VO.

Jon and I simply empowered our VL's and Store organizers to do the same thing. That we'd back them.

And you know what? There was never an instance that I or Jon was made aware of where this discretion was being used to turn away a player from being able to play or to discriminate against anyone for any reason. Did some players choose to leave (and sometimes angrily?) the game day? Sure. But I'd rather that one player be angry about not being allowed to dominate a sub-tier 1-2 game with a bunch of 1's and 2's with their 5, than a table of possibly new players all playing their brand new 1's or pregens not ever coming back to...

What region did you run where you actively had the luxury of having 5 table groups?

Dark Archive 5/5 5/5

MadScientistWorking wrote:
Tallow wrote:


Very much so.

While Mike didn't publish it wide and far, because the implications of making it an official position are obvious, he did, privately, often tell VO's that he trusted them to use their discretion to run their region in the best way possible for the maximum amount of fun for the maximum number of people.

And yes, this did include several things like saying, "No 5's in a 1-2," and, "We schedule 5 person tables and rarely will allow a 6th." The implicit and tacit agreement between the VO's and Mike with this kind of discretion, is that the VOs knew if they abused this discretion, they would be quickly removed as a VO.

Jon and I simply empowered our VL's and Store organizers to do the same thing. That we'd back them.

And you know what? There was never an instance that I or Jon was made aware of where this discretion was being used to turn away a player from being able to play or to discriminate against anyone for any reason. Did some players choose to leave (and sometimes angrily?) the game day? Sure. But I'd rather that one player be angry about not being allowed to dominate a sub-tier 1-2 game with a bunch of 1's and 2's with their 5, than a table of possibly new players all playing their brand new 1's or pregens not ever coming back to...

What region did you run where you actively had the luxury of having 5 table groups?

Utopia.

I believe he meant to say no seven player tables.

1/5

Tallow wrote:
And you know what? There was never an instance that I or Jon was made aware of where this discretion was being used to turn away a player from being able to play or to discriminate against anyone for any reason. Did some players choose to leave (and sometimes angrily?) the game day? Sure. But I'd rather that one player be angry about not being allowed to dominate a sub-tier 1-2 game with a bunch of 1's and 2's with their 5, than a table of possibly new players all playing their brand new 1's or pregens not ever coming back to the game again because of that one jerk who refused to play a 1 or a 2.

I think this is from a bias of info.

If I'm the VL and I kick out someone from the game, will I tell you /remember to tell you that I've kicked someone out for being the wrong level? And how likely is the guy that got kicked to know how to bypass his VL to go up the chain to complain about being kicked? How many care enough to report rather than just quit?

Also, why would a table of lv1s quit playing? I think it'd be more of a, look what you'll be able to do someday type of thing.

I'd rather the one person wanting to play their legal character play than one jerk thinking he knows best and refusing to let someone play.

Dark Archive 5/5 5/5

Thomas Hutchins wrote:
Tallow wrote:
And you know what? There was never an instance that I or Jon was made aware of where this discretion was being used to turn away a player from being able to play or to discriminate against anyone for any reason. Did some players choose to leave (and sometimes angrily?) the game day? Sure. But I'd rather that one player be angry about not being allowed to dominate a sub-tier 1-2 game with a bunch of 1's and 2's with their 5, than a table of possibly new players all playing their brand new 1's or pregens not ever coming back to the game again because of that one jerk who refused to play a 1 or a 2.

I think this is from a bias of info.

If I'm the VL and I kick out someone from the game, will I tell you /remember to tell you that I've kicked someone out for being the wrong level? And how likely is the guy that got kicked to know how to bypass his VL to go up the chain to complain about being kicked? How many care enough to report rather than just quit?

Also, why would a table of lv1s quit playing? I think it'd be more of a, look what you'll be able to do someday type of thing.

I'd rather the one person wanting to play their legal character play than one jerk thinking he knows best and refusing to let someone play.

Maybe we just did things differently than you would have, and had success doing it.

Also, do you really want to encourage a culture of "Watch me obliterate every obstacle for four hours and maybe one day you too can do the same thing"?

Shadow Lodge 5/5

MadScientistWorking wrote:
What region did you run where you actively had the luxury of having 5 table groups?

In the region where any given game day during the week (of which there are usually a minimum of 4 days, and often more) usually has 3-5 tables and the GM-base to support that (typically due to above stated policies).

3/5 **** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro

MisterSlanky wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
What region did you run where you actively had the luxury of having 5 table groups?
In the region where any given game day during the week (of which there are usually a minimum of 4 days, and often more) usually has 3-5 tables and the GM-base to support that (typically due to above stated policies).

That's not a good explanation because that would mean I probably have met you before. It always seems like the rules aren't written for the logistical nightmare that is mustering people which my region tends to run into regularly.

Grand Lodge 4/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Thomas Hutchins wrote:
Haha, this is so funny to me. After just having the large thread wanting an option for a table of low levels with a high level pulled into high tier to play low. We now have this thread saying that it's okay to tell the high leveled player that he can't play because the others are low. Which was something that seemed to not get much support and some flak in the other thread.

I believe the nuance is that in that thread, everyone at the table wanted everyone to play, whereas this thread is discussing a player who has been asked by the table to play something different.

Grand Lodge 4/5

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

If someone can't port their characters around to legal tables because of regional variance that's not really an organized campaign.

I can see why level mismatches being kept to a dull roar is a laudible goal, but the underlying logic for the legality has some more than problematic implications.

Except no one is preventing people from porting characters. Unless that one table is the only one being run that day, you're still perfectly able to port your characters in. You just may be turned away from one that is deemed inappropriate.

5/5 5/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.

It is within the charter of Venture Officers running an event to refuse to seat players that they feel are being disruptive. If a VO feels that someone wanting to play a 5th level character at a Tier 1-2 table is being disruptive, they can decline to seat the player. That said, I think it would be better to reach some other accommodation and I think from my reading of the posts by others who do support a VO's discretion in these matters that they also would prefer that everyone get to play, they just don't want one player's fun to come at the expense of everyone else's. I have never refused to seat a player with a valid character, but I would want to reserve the right to do so if I think the situation warrants it.

Dark Archive 4/5

Thomas Hutchins wrote:


If I'm the VL and I kick out someone from the game, will I tell you /remember to tell you that I've kicked someone out for being the wrong level? And how likely is the guy that got kicked to know how to bypass his VL to go up the chain to complain about being kicked? How many care enough to report rather than just quit?

Actually - our VA's, VL's and VC's all communicate regularly and follow the VC Golden rule: "Don't Surprise Me". So since just this week a problem player was identified and discussed as possibly complaining about the organizer - I would bet on our people reporting it.

Overall - The mucho-ado is amusing to me since it's been pretty well clear that most people arguing for "Not allow the player to play" have since agreed in some fashion they meant it as
a)"calmly explain to the player a level 5 in a tier 1-2 in my opinion will ruin the game for the other players and myself and I would like you to play a lower level character or sit at a different table."
b)GM can walk away

Edit: Also: what Pete said very well.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

My preferred solution is to schedule another table for the out of subtier player at a later date as compensation for them not being able to play. I have only had to do so one time for a player who preferred not to be the seventh player.

1/5

Leg o' Lamb wrote:

Maybe we just did things differently than you would have, and had success doing it.

Also, do you really want to encourage a culture of "Watch me obliterate every obstacle for four hours and maybe one day you too can do the same thing"?

chesspwn wrote:
Is it the preferred route? no. But is it something to refuse a seat to an otherwise legal player for? no. I know I'd be complaining up the chain if I heard it was happening locally.

So encourage? No. Allow, yes, as the character is a legal character. If it becomes consistent and the tables they play at complain, then sure, talk to him that others have voiced he play in tier more, see if it's still an issue, and if it is take further action.

I've seen enough lv1/2s that obliterate every obstacle for four hours, and enough lv5s struggle to contribute in a 1-2 (happened just last week at my local lodge), that refusing characters of a certain level is just a random banning, not something that actually solves anything.

And success? I'll I've heard is that you've made people angry and storm out of the game store cause you think you know better than anyone or the rules on who should play at a table or not. So sure, if you call that success then sure you're reaching it, and I've not had it.

If you want to trust someone, trust the players that they wont suddenly ruin the game for everyone cause they are wanting to bring a lv5 to a low tier game if you stop trusting that your VO know best and can predict the future.

Dark Archive 5/5 5/5

Thomas Hutchins wrote:
Leg o' Lamb wrote:

Maybe we just did things differently than you would have, and had success doing it.

Also, do you really want to encourage a culture of "Watch me obliterate every obstacle for four hours and maybe one day you too can do the same thing"?

chesspwn wrote:
Is it the preferred route? no. But is it something to refuse a seat to an otherwise legal player for? no. I know I'd be complaining up the chain if I heard it was happening locally.

So encourage? No. Allow, yes, as the character is a legal character. If it becomes consistent and the tables they play at complain, then sure, talk to him that others have voiced he play in tier more, see if it's still an issue, and if it is take further action.

I've seen enough lv1/2s that obliterate every obstacle for four hours, and enough lv5s struggle to contribute in a 1-2 (happened just last week at my local lodge), that refusing characters of a certain level is just a random banning, not something that actually solves anything.

And success? I'll I've heard is that you've made people angry and storm out of the game store cause you think you know better than anyone or the rules on who should play at a table or not. So sure, if you call that success then sure you're reaching it, and I've not had it.

If you want to trust someone, trust the players that they wont suddenly ruin the game for everyone cause they are wanting to bring a lv5 to a low tier game if you stop trusting that your VO know best and can predict the future.

I do not believe I have caused anyone to become angry and storm out of a store because I said they could not play at a table. You must have me confused with some one else.

1/5

You are correct, Tallow had that as an example for banning high levels from a low table as working. My mistake.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha

Every situation is going to be different. It is much easier to make inclusive exceptions to a restrictive norm than to figure out halfway through a scenario that a player is being disruptive.

1/5

But if you're banning a high level just cause you feel it'll be disruptive or unfun for the others do you also ban necromancers, summoning specialists, gunslingers, slumber witches, hangover clerics, zen archers, etc. that are also voiced as often being unfun for others and dominating a scenario? Ban certain people cause their characters are always spotlight hogs that can do basically everything in a scenario alone?

Like unless there is ACTUAL complaints from people at tables saying it's an issue, AND that it's a recurring problem from specific people, I don't believe one should be limiting anything.

Be proactive in advocating correct and desired behavior.
Be reactive in punishing players for being disruptive and not proactively punish players for occasionally bringing a legal character to a table that is in the high level range cause it maybe might possibly upset someone in the table for reason A opposed to reasons B-Z that a character could upset a table.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Leg o' Lamb wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Tallow wrote:


Very much so.

While Mike didn't publish it wide and far, because the implications of making it an official position are obvious, he did, privately, often tell VO's that he trusted them to use their discretion to run their region in the best way possible for the maximum amount of fun for the maximum number of people.

And yes, this did include several things like saying, "No 5's in a 1-2," and, "We schedule 5 person tables and rarely will allow a 6th." The implicit and tacit agreement between the VO's and Mike with this kind of discretion, is that the VOs knew if they abused this discretion, they would be quickly removed as a VO.

Jon and I simply empowered our VL's and Store organizers to do the same thing. That we'd back them.

And you know what? There was never an instance that I or Jon was made aware of where this discretion was being used to turn away a player from being able to play or to discriminate against anyone for any reason. Did some players choose to leave (and sometimes angrily?) the game day? Sure. But I'd rather that one player be angry about not being allowed to dominate a sub-tier 1-2 game with a bunch of 1's and 2's with their 5, than a table of possibly new players all playing their brand new 1's or pregens not ever coming back to...

What region did you run where you actively had the luxury of having 5 table groups?

Utopia.

I believe he meant to say no seven player tables.

It wasn't our region. There were some regions where they actively set their schedules for 5 player tables and allowed a 6th. So in other words, there were absolutely zero 7 player tables.

This was not something we did in the Twin Cities.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Pete Winz wrote:
It is within the charter of Venture Officers running an event...

It is within the charter of Venture Officers running an event to refuse to seat players that they feel are being disruptive. If a VO feels that someone wanting to play a smurf* is being disruptive, they can decline to seat the player

Replace smurf with any legal character that some people think is problematic and you have a backdoor ban at the whim of the VOs. The artifical level cap looks kinda hinky in theory but workable in practice (ie, you do what toz suggested and offer to run the game again) but that line of reasoning is oh hell no.

*totally overpowered with paizo's dex to damage builds

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
Be proactive in advocating correct and desired behavior.

Is that not what these VOs have been advocating? Players should be aware of others at the table and willing to make accommodations. That can mean any number of solutions ( don't animate dead, summon 1 big thing rather than many things, save slumber for round 2+, or play another one of their characters, etc.)

That isn't punishing a player. That's proactively encouraging discussion to make sure that player has as much fun as everyone else at the table.

1/5

KingOfAnything wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Be proactive in advocating correct and desired behavior.

Is that not what these VOs have been advocating? Players should be aware of others at the table and willing to make accommodations. That can mean any number of solutions ( don't animate dead, summon 1 big thing rather than many things, save slumber for round 2+, or play another one of their characters, etc.)

That isn't punishing a player. That's proactively encouraging discussion to make sure that player has as much fun as everyone else at the table.

No, you tell players that they are to work together and that they shouldn't hog the spotlight.

Unless you know that a person has an issue with the summoning of undead it's not a known issue to avoid.
Summoning 1 big thing can be more oppressive than many little things. As long as the person can fit their minions turn in a reasonable and short time it shouldn't matter if they have 500.
Right, so instead of the slumber witch removing a person via slumber it's okay to do it via hold person or a barb swing?
etc.

Unless it's a known and/or previously experienced issue you shouldn't be assuming that something is a problem.

Because NONE of the builds NEED to be a problem to everyone. Some may love to sit at a slumber witches table, some love having a lv5 cleric that can channel over their max HP every round all day.
Hence why you should be reactive, only address problems once they are actually brought up as problems. Cause I know I get slightly annoyed at some things and build (people that can't add 5+17 in under a minute), but are they really being "disruptive"? No, the build is legal, and so far no one is getting angry to leaving or voicing that they can't take it anymore.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Thomas Hutchins wrote:
You are correct, Tallow had that as an example for banning high levels from a low table as working. My mistake.

I have had reports of someone storming out, in our region. But after looking at all the factors, it was determined it was that player's fault, and not due to any belligerence or negligence of the organizer. Personally, I have not had someone storm out of a game day I organized.

The point is, when you advertise for weeks that everyone else at the table is level 1 or 2. And that person signs up with a 5, and you repeatedly try to communicate with them via email and meetup messages, and they still show up to the game day with a 5 and refuse to play a level 1 or 2 character, that is their own fault. They had ample opportunity to bring a different character and all our organizers have many if not all of the pregens available to choose from.

Furthermore, the individuals who have stormed out, are usually the ones who try to play the high level character in low sub-tier, every time, and those specific players have been deemed disruptive to play because of using that as a method to dominate the table and reduce any and all risk of dying. It straight up is not fun for anyone playing with those players, and we have had loud complaints about those players.

So yeah, when Jon and I were in charge (and it looks like the current VO group have done so as well) we gave our VLs and organizers authorization to use their discretion as appropriate.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Thomas Hutchins wrote:
But if you're banning a high level just cause you feel it'll be disruptive or unfun for the others do you also ban necromancers, summoning specialists, gunslingers, slumber witches, hangover clerics, zen archers, etc. that are also voiced as often being unfun for others and dominating a scenario?

This has already been covered and is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

Build choices are not something that falls under discretion. But if player choices dictate that they are being disruptive because of the way they are choosing to play their characters at the table, then those players may be asked to play a different character or leave. It has nothing to do with whether someone thinks their build choice is good or bad or disruptive, but rather the player is actively being disruptive with that build.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:


Except no one is preventing people from porting characters. Unless that one table is the only one being run that day, you're still perfectly able to port your characters in. You just may be turned away from one that is deemed inappropriate.

Or you've played the other game, or it's out of tier for you, or the other table is full.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Or you've played the other game, or it's out of tier for you, or the other table is full.

And all of that is taken into consideration of the situation, since no two incidents are the same.

Dark Archive 1/5

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

If someone can't port their characters around to legal tables because of regional variance that's not really an organized campaign.

I can see why level mismatches being kept to a dull roar is a laudible goal, but the underlying logic for the legality has some more than problematic implications.

Except no one is preventing people from porting characters. Unless that one table is the only one being run that day, you're still perfectly able to port your characters in. You just may be turned away from one that is deemed inappropriate.

How are you to say it is inappropriate? by Paizo and PFS leadership's decision, a level 5 is appropriate for a tier 1-5, regardless of table makeup.

like BNW said wrote:
Replace smurf with any legal character that some people think is problematic and you have a backdoor ban at the whim of the VOs.

Furthermore

Community Behavior Policy wrote:
The Pathfinder Society (PFS) is an inclusive social event open to everyone. It is our intention that everybody enjoys gaming in a safe and fun environment. While conflict between characters may arise, at no time should a player feel excluded or threatened at the table

Saying you can not play your totally legal character at the table because I(the VO) feels it will ruin the run is exactly excluding.

No one is arguing that the preference would be to have everyone play a similar tier character and not have 1 person make the scenario about their character. My original comment on this was the fact that it should not be a rule that you absolutely can not do that, and instead should be a discussion with the person to see if it is possible to accommodate them in some other way. If not, then you let them play and do not exclude them, as that is clearly not ok by Paizo's own policies.

1/5

Tallow wrote:
Thomas Hutchins wrote:
You are correct, Tallow had that as an example for banning high levels from a low table as working. My mistake.
The point is, when you advertise for weeks that everyone else at the table is level 1 or 2. And that person signs up with a 5, and you repeatedly try to communicate with them via email and meetup messages, and they still show up to the game day with a 5 and refuse to play a level 1 or 2 character, that is their own fault. They had ample opportunity to bring a different character and all our organizers have many if not all of the pregens available to choose from.

The point is, when you advertise that you're running a 1-5 then a lv5 is a legal choice to play. The lv1's have had ample opportunity to change their character or play a pregen to be in the same tier as him, that's their own fault.

This situation you're talking about is basically the same one that was in the thread asking for a way for high tier to play down. You have a 1-5, and some person brings a lv5 bringing the table high, and doesn't want to play a lower leveled character.

Your solution is to force-ably boot the player. Their request was make an option for the table to override the rules. Both seem to be complaining about "badwrongfun".

Now if it's 1 specific individual that is doing this AND causing tables to actively complain that he's ruining their game then it sounds like you've basically needed to boot that player from playing. Which is valid response to that situation.

But everything else you've said as to why you'd boot someone in the text I've quoted I feel has no weight as to actually imply you'd need to boot a player.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Hutchins wrote:
No, you tell players that they are to work together and that they shouldn't hog the spotlight.

That is exceedingly optimistic. Abstract principles don't often translate well to address table conflict. Oftentimes, both sides can accuse the other of not working together or hogging the spotlight. If you establish a baseline of what problematic behavior looks like, you can have a discussion that doesn't devolve into name-calling. "Edgy" players can know what objections they will face and have a plan to address those concerns. The VOs I know would be glad to seat a player that sat down saying "I know this build might be a problem, but here is how I plan to minimize disruption if someone has an issue."

Quote:
Because NONE of the builds NEED to be a problem to everyone. Some may love to sit at a slumber witches table, some love having a lv5 cleric that can channel over their max HP every round all day.

Exactly why you talk about it before you sit down to play with strangers.

Quote:
Hence why you should be reactive, only address problems once they are actually brought up as problems.

No, you can very easily be proactive without "punishing" players. As the saying goes, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." It is perfectly reasonable to identify possible problems and check with players first. If it won't actually be a problem, great! If it would be a problem, you address it early. That makes a much happier table than a reactive situation.

Grand Lodge 4/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
RSX Raver wrote:
How are you to say it is inappropriate?

By the rest of the table not being comfortable with that player/character.

Scarab Sages 5/5

RSX Raver wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

If someone can't port their characters around to legal tables because of regional variance that's not really an organized campaign.

I can see why level mismatches being kept to a dull roar is a laudible goal, but the underlying logic for the legality has some more than problematic implications.

Except no one is preventing people from porting characters. Unless that one table is the only one being run that day, you're still perfectly able to port your characters in. You just may be turned away from one that is deemed inappropriate.

How are you to say it is inappropriate? by Paizo and PFS leadership's decision, a level 5 is appropriate for a tier 1-5, regardless of table makeup.

like BNW said wrote:
Replace smurf with any legal character that some people think is problematic and you have a backdoor ban at the whim of the VOs.

Furthermore

Community Behavior Policy wrote:
The Pathfinder Society (PFS) is an inclusive social event open to everyone. It is our intention that everybody enjoys gaming in a safe and fun environment. While conflict between characters may arise, at no time should a player feel excluded or threatened at the table

Saying you can not play your totally legal character at the table because I(the VO) feels it will ruin the run is exactly excluding.

No one is arguing that the preference would be to have everyone play a similar tier character and not have 1 person make the scenario about their character. My original comment on this was the fact that it should not be a rule that you absolutely can not do that, and instead should be a discussion with the person to see if it is possible to accommodate them in some other way. If not, then you let them play and do not exclude them, as that is clearly not ok by Paizo's own policies.

VOs have been given agency to determine what's best in their region. As long as they do everything in their power to work things out amicably with plenty of time in advance, then everything should work out fine.

Nobody is talking about someone showing up to a table with no advance notice and being blindsided by some arbitrary ruling.

But yes, VCs do have the right to make discretionary decisions for their region based on keeping the health of their region alive. If they abuse that discretion, then there will be complaints and if there are enough of them, they will (and have) be (been) removed from office.

Scarab Sages 5/5

KingOfAnything wrote:
Thomas Hutchins wrote:
No, you tell players that they are to work together and that they shouldn't hog the spotlight.

That is exceedingly optimistic. Abstract principles don't often translate well to address table conflict. Oftentimes, both sides can accuse the other of not working together or hogging the spotlight. If you establish a baseline of what problematic behavior looks like, you can have a discussion that doesn't devolve into name-calling. "Edgy" players can know what objections they will face and have a plan to address those concerns. The VOs I know would be glad to seat a player that sat down saying "I know this build might be a problem, but here is how I plan to minimize disruption if someone has an issue."

Quote:
Because NONE of the builds NEED to be a problem to everyone. Some may love to sit at a slumber witches table, some love having a lv5 cleric that can channel over their max HP every round all day.

Exactly why you talk about it before you sit down to play with strangers.

Quote:
Hence why you should be reactive, only address problems once they are actually brought up as problems.

No, you can very easily be proactive without "punishing" players. As the saying goes, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." It is perfectly reasonable to identify possible problems and check with players first. If it won't actually be a problem, great! If it would be a problem, you address it early. That makes a much happier table than a reactive situation.

And then as an organizer you aren't fielding 4 or 5 complaints about a disruptive player or a horrible experience.

Dark Archive 1/5

Tallow wrote:


VOs have been given agency to determine what's best in their region. As long as they do everything in their power to work things out amicably with plenty of time in advance, then everything should work out fine.

Nobody is talking about someone showing up to a table with no advance notice and being blindsided by some arbitrary ruling.

But yes, VCs do have the right to make discretionary decisions for their region based on keeping the health of their region alive. If they abuse that discretion, then there will be complaints and if there are enough of them, they will (and have) be (been) removed from office.

I assume this is written in some VO only document about their responsibility then. Because nothing published (Season 8 Guild Guide, or Policies) supports your assertion that they can change the rules/standards of the organized play environment.

Also we are exactly talking about someone showing up and being blind sided by that rule, because when it was first brought up, it was said as "We have this rule, period." If I am visiting town because I am traveling and I pop into the local PFS lodge to get my game on, I have no reason to not expect that my character which is level appropriate for that tier should not be allowed to play. Also, the entire reason of rules for organized play being the same everywhere in the world, is so that people always know what to expect.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha

RSX Raver wrote:

Furthermore

Community Behavior Policy wrote:
The Pathfinder Society (PFS) is an inclusive social event open to everyone. It is our intention that everybody enjoys gaming in a safe and fun environment. While conflict between characters may arise, at no time should a player feel excluded or threatened at the table

Saying you can not play your totally legal character at the table because I(the VO) feels it will ruin the run is exactly excluding.

No one is arguing that the preference would be to have everyone play a similar tier character and not have 1 person make the scenario about their character. My original comment on this was the fact that it should not be a rule that you absolutely can not do that, and instead should be a discussion with the person to see if it is possible to accommodate them in some other way. If not, then you let them play and do not exclude them, as that is clearly not ok by Paizo's own policies.

Community Behavior Policy also wrote:
We ask all participants to respect their fellow players and to work together to create positive memorable experiences.

A player refusing to seek compromise or discuss alternatives does not seem like working together to create positive experiences. Players have just as much responsibility to the table as VOs.

Grand Lodge 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
RSX Raver wrote:
I assume this is written in some VO only document about their responsibility then. Because nothing published (Season 8 Guild Guide, or Policies) supports your assertion that they can change the rules/standards of the organized play environment.

Quite honestly, the only problem I have with your statement is the overt threat to bludgeon me with policy. Hitting people with the rulebook is not a very productive method of discourse.

Dark Archive 1/5

KingOfAnything wrote:
RSX Raver wrote:

Furthermore

Community Behavior Policy wrote:
The Pathfinder Society (PFS) is an inclusive social event open to everyone. It is our intention that everybody enjoys gaming in a safe and fun environment. While conflict between characters may arise, at no time should a player feel excluded or threatened at the table

Saying you can not play your totally legal character at the table because I(the VO) feels it will ruin the run is exactly excluding.

No one is arguing that the preference would be to have everyone play a similar tier character and not have 1 person make the scenario about their character. My original comment on this was the fact that it should not be a rule that you absolutely can not do that, and instead should be a discussion with the person to see if it is possible to accommodate them in some other way. If not, then you let them play and do not exclude them, as that is clearly not ok by Paizo's own policies.

Community Behavior Policy also wrote:
We ask all participants to respect their fellow players and to work together to create positive memorable experiences.
A player refusing to seek compromise or discuss alternatives does not seem like working together to create positive experiences. Players have just as much responsibility to the table as VOs.

That argument only works on the assumption the player was both talked to about it and then refused to tone it back or play respectfully. By deciding that there is no way they wont just overrun the experience and make it all about them, you are not giving them the option to "work together" and have fun.

Scarab Sages 5/5

RSX Raver wrote:
Tallow wrote:


VOs have been given agency to determine what's best in their region. As long as they do everything in their power to work things out amicably with plenty of time in advance, then everything should work out fine.

Nobody is talking about someone showing up to a table with no advance notice and being blindsided by some arbitrary ruling.

But yes, VCs do have the right to make discretionary decisions for their region based on keeping the health of their region alive. If they abuse that discretion, then there will be complaints and if there are enough of them, they will (and have) be (been) removed from office.

I assume this is written in some VO only document about their responsibility then. Because nothing published (Season 8 Guild Guide, or Policies) supports your assertion that they can change the rules/standards of the organized play environment.

Also we are exactly talking about someone showing up and being blind sided by that rule, because when it was first brought up, it was said as "We have this rule, period." If I am visiting town because I am traveling and I pop into the local PFS lodge to get my game on, I have no reason to not expect that my character which is level appropriate for that tier should not be allowed to play. Also, the entire reason of rules for organized play being the same everywhere in the world, is so that people always know what to expect.

Well I have to ask the question on how you are managing to just "pop into a local game day," and expecting to play in such a way as to be blindsided by something like this? I mean wouldn't you go to their meetup page (or facebook or warhorn or whatever scheduling app they use) to make sure there is a seat available before you just "pop in?"

Meetup allows organizers to ask you a question upon RSVP'ing for your seat, as to what level and what scenario you want to play. If the organizer feels there is an issue with your RSVP answers, they will message you to discuss this thing. Warhorn requests you choose a level of the character you are planning to bring. So if you see everyone signing up with level 1's and 2's, why would you bring a 5? That's just being a jerk IMHO.

And if you do just "pop in" without looking at their schedule, wouldn't you bring a variety of characters to ensure maximum flexibility?

5/5 5/55/55/5

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

Quite honestly, the only problem I have with your statement is the overt threat to bludgeon me with policy. Hitting people with the rulebook is not a very productive method of discourse.

I dumped charisma and pumped strength. Its very effective!

Dark Archive 1/5

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
RSX Raver wrote:
I assume this is written in some VO only document about their responsibility then. Because nothing published (Season 8 Guild Guide, or Policies) supports your assertion that they can change the rules/standards of the organized play environment.
Quite honestly, the only problem I have with your statement is the overt threat to bludgeon me with policy. Hitting people with the rulebook is not a very productive method of discourse.

This is a discussion about policy to begin with, so it is very fitting to talk about it. This is not a discourse over whether a tier 5 should be playing with 1's and 2's, or about the possible impact on the fun if they take over the scenario. This is a rules discussion on whether it is okay for a VO to forbid a legal character from playing at a table because they think it should be that way. So yes, I am going to argue the rules side of things. It is the rules and processes of PFS that make it work on a worldwide scale. As soon as everyone starts making their own rules for their areas, it becomes counter-intuitive to the purpose of having organized rules and play.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
RSX Raver wrote:
I assume this is written in some VO only document about their responsibility then. Because nothing published (Season 8 Guild Guide, or Policies) supports your assertion that they can change the rules/standards of the organized play environment.
Quite honestly, the only problem I have with your statement is the overt threat to bludgeon me with policy. Hitting people with the rulebook is not a very productive method of discourse.

You obviously haven't read everything I've written in this thread. If you had, you'd have seen that I said that Mike Brock gave VCs discretionary authority for their regions, but that for obvious reasons, did not codify it. And that if a VO abused this discretion, they weren't a VO for long.

EDIT: This was obviously meant for RSX Raver and not Steven.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha

RSX Raver wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
RSX Raver wrote:

Furthermore

Community Behavior Policy wrote:
The Pathfinder Society (PFS) is an inclusive social event open to everyone. It is our intention that everybody enjoys gaming in a safe and fun environment. While conflict between characters may arise, at no time should a player feel excluded or threatened at the table

Saying you can not play your totally legal character at the table because I(the VO) feels it will ruin the run is exactly excluding.

No one is arguing that the preference would be to have everyone play a similar tier character and not have 1 person make the scenario about their character. My original comment on this was the fact that it should not be a rule that you absolutely can not do that, and instead should be a discussion with the person to see if it is possible to accommodate them in some other way. If not, then you let them play and do not exclude them, as that is clearly not ok by Paizo's own policies.

Community Behavior Policy also wrote:
We ask all participants to respect their fellow players and to work together to create positive memorable experiences.
A player refusing to seek compromise or discuss alternatives does not seem like working together to create positive experiences. Players have just as much responsibility to the table as VOs.
That argument only works on the assumption the player was both talked to about it and then refused to tone it back or play respectfully. By deciding that there is no way they wont just overrun the experience and make it all about them, you are not giving them the option to "work together" and have fun.

I don't see where anyone was deciding that except for you. The assumption of communication is an easy one to allow for. How else would a player know there was a problem?

Grand Lodge 4/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
RSX Raver wrote:
This is a discussion about policy to begin with, so it is very fitting to talk about it. This is not a discourse over whether a tier 5 should be playing with 1's and 2's, or about the possible impact on the fun if they take over the scenario. This is a rules discussion on whether it is okay for a VO to forbid a legal character from playing at a table because they think it should be that way. So yes, I am going to argue the rules side of things. It is the rules and processes of PFS that make it work on a worldwide scale. As soon as everyone starts making their own rules for their areas, it becomes counter-intuitive to the purpose of having organized rules and play.

No, this is a discussion of table adjudication, which rigid rules cannot serve as one size fits all.

Dark Archive 1/5

Tallow wrote:
RSX Raver wrote:
Tallow wrote:


VOs have been given agency to determine what's best in their region. As long as they do everything in their power to work things out amicably with plenty of time in advance, then everything should work out fine.

Nobody is talking about someone showing up to a table with no advance notice and being blindsided by some arbitrary ruling.

But yes, VCs do have the right to make discretionary decisions for their region based on keeping the health of their region alive. If they abuse that discretion, then there will be complaints and if there are enough of them, they will (and have) be (been) removed from office.

I assume this is written in some VO only document about their responsibility then. Because nothing published (Season 8 Guild Guide, or Policies) supports your assertion that they can change the rules/standards of the organized play environment.

Also we are exactly talking about someone showing up and being blind sided by that rule, because when it was first brought up, it was said as "We have this rule, period." If I am visiting town because I am traveling and I pop into the local PFS lodge to get my game on, I have no reason to not expect that my character which is level appropriate for that tier should not be allowed to play. Also, the entire reason of rules for organized play being the same everywhere in the world, is so that people always know what to expect.

Well I have to ask the question on how you are managing to just "pop into a local game day," and expecting to play in such a way as to be blindsided by something like this? I mean wouldn't you go to their meetup page (or facebook or warhorn or whatever scheduling app they use) to make sure there is a seat available before you just "pop in?"

Meetup allows organizers to ask you a question upon RSVP'ing for your seat, as to what level and what scenario you want to play. If the organizer feels there is an issue with your RSVP answers, they will message you to discuss this thing....

So we use Warhorn here, so lets go off of that. What happens if I signup as the first person and list my level 5, then 4 more people signup afterwards with level 1's? Now who is being a jerk? Also as most game stores with webpages will advertise their calendars, I could easily have looked up a game store in the area and saw them list PFS on X day at X time.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha

RSX Raver wrote:
So we use Warhorn here, so lets go off of that. What happens if I signup as the first person and list my level 5, then 4 more people signup afterwards with level 1's? Now who is being a jerk? Also as most game stores with webpages will advertise their calendars, I could easily have looked up a game store in the area and saw them list PFS on X day at X time.

You see there are four 1s signed up and take advantage of one of several options available to you.

1. Reregister with your own 1-3.
2. Message the other players to see if they have high tier options
3. Message your coordinator to see if you can make two tables
4. Bring your 5, explain you were first to sign up and don't wish to change, and that you'll do your best not to overwhelm the scenario.

51 to 100 of 119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Level 6 character playing with level 1 character All Messageboards