|
Okay, I feel we need to make something here from everyone. I'm getting concerned we're talking past each other potentially.
Are you talking about a "general rule" like you don't allow lv5s to be in a tier 1-2 game. A
Or are you talking about a specific individual that has been complained about that you are now needing to take action on. B
I believe no one has a problem with VO's doing B. If player Bob always plays the highest allowed hoping for low tier and it often got complaints from most of the table saying it's ruining the game. (2-4 games, you know, enough to see this is a problem and not just an off day) That you've talked with Bob and he's refusing to compromise or tone it down or whatever. Then using your VO powers you say he can no longer play because it's disruptive. Cool, good job on doing the right thing.
The thing people have an issue with is A, having a general rule that you outright don't allow lv5s to play in tier 1-2. There doesn't need to be any change from a player that wants to play a lv5 through a scenario that is looking to be low tier. This they feel is going against the guide. This is an abuse, sure you might remind them not to hog the spotlight, but you shouldn't be like, "play a different character or leave cause we don't like lv5's with lv1s. Oh you don't want to change, well that shows your uncompromising and not a team player, boot!"
But I'm worried that we're getting people saying they've done B arguing against people saying don't do A.
|
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 are assuming the worst, not sure why people immediately do that on the internet.
As an organizer, you start having conversations with everyone involved. You find out why people are signing up as 1's and 2's when a 5 has already signed up. And depending on the answer, you might go back to the 5 and ask them to adjust. Its about trying to be fair to EVERYONE involved. If you tell the 5, though, "hey, they are all brand new folk, could you bring a 1 or a 2 instead?" and the 5 is like, "NO I WANT TO PLAY MY FIVE! GRAR! HOW DARE YOU." I'm going to have little sympathy for them.
So you'd just look at the game store webpage and "pop in" unannounced at an out of region game day? Sorry, but it is extremely unlikely you'd find an available seat in the Twin Cities doing that.
|
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.
Considering I started this discussion when I questioned Andrew's rule about not ever allowing a level 5 with nothing but 1s and 2s in sub-tier 1-2, I am fairly certain I know exactly what point I have been talking about this entire time. If you are arguing something else, then more power to you.
Tallow: Sure he told you privately, which is not the same thing as an official policy.
This could easily be resolved with Tonya saying that yeah, it is ok to have a rule like that, but it does lead to dangerous precedent.
|
|
Okay, I feel we need to make something here from everyone. I'm getting concerned we're talking past each other potentially.
Are you talking about a "general rule" like you don't allow lv5s to be in a tier 1-2 game. A
Or are you talking about a specific individual that has been complained about that you are now needing to take action on. B
I believe no one has a problem with VO's doing B. If player Bob always plays the highest allowed hoping for low tier and it often got complaints from most of the table saying it's ruining the game. (2-4 games, you know, enough to see this is a problem and not just an off day) That you've talked with Bob and he's refusing to compromise or tone it down or whatever. Then using your VO powers you say he can no longer play because it's disruptive. Cool, good job on doing the right thing.
The thing people have an issue with is A, having a general rule that you outright don't allow lv5s to play in tier 1-2. There doesn't need to be any change from a player that wants to play a lv5 through a scenario that is looking to be low tier. This they feel is going against the guide. This is an abuse, sure you might remind them not to hog the spotlight, but you shouldn't be like, "play a different character or leave cause we don't like lv5's with lv1s. Oh you don't want to change, well that shows your uncompromising and not a team player, boot!"
But I'm worried that we're getting people saying they've done B arguing against people saying don't do A.
I'm pretty sure AJ was very explicit that at game days he organizes he does not allow 5's to play with 1's and 2's in sub-tier 1-2.
But he doesn't do so blindly. He works with all the players involved to try to find the best possible and amicable solution for everyone.
We've found in the Twin Cities, that largely those people who choose to play 5's in a sub-tier 1-2 with 1's and 2's, are disruptive people in general.
|
|
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.Considering I started this discussion when I questioned Andrew's rule about not ever allowing a level 5 with nothing but 1s and 2s in sub-tier 1-2, I am fairly certain I know exactly what point I have been talking about this entire time. If you are arguing something else, then more power to you.
Tallow: Sure he told you privately, which is not the same thing as an official policy.
This could easily be resolved with Tonya saying that yeah, it is ok to have a rule like that, but it does lead to dangerous precedent.
I never said it was an official policy. Not everything needs to be codified in text. Sometimes you trust your volunteer leadership to run things in the best way they know how, especially since they know their region, and you don't.
|
Considering I started this discussion when I questioned Andrew's rule about not ever allowing a level 5 with nothing but 1s and 2s in sub-tier 1-2, I am fairly certain I know exactly what point I have been talking about this entire time. If you are arguing something else, then more power to you.
So you are purposefully talking past me? Good to know I can stop responding. But are you referring to this post? And is "not ever allowing" just hyperbole, or something else?
ummm how is it ok for a venture officer, or anyone else ok to change paizos policies?You are assuming they are changing things. First and foremost a VO has the duty to ensure a healthy community having fun. If a rash of level 5s playing subtier 1-2 is causing lots of players trying to play low subtier a poor time or chases away newbies, then they are following the most important policy by disallowing that from hapoening.
Edit: Ah, different Andrew. Who has not engaged you in the slightest.
|
|
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?
This seems to be a little bit talking past each other.
King, here's a scenario. Player Bob looks to sign up. the other 5 are all lv1 characters signed up. Bot signs up with a lv5. You don't know Bob, this is his first time here since he recently moved here. You message him and say, hey play a lv1, repeatedly and he doesn't reply, nor change his sign-up. Then on game day he shows up with his lv5. You go over and ask him to play low level for the fun of the table. He says he's going to play his lv5 as it's legal for the scenario.
are you advocating that Bob should play a lv1 or boot, since he's now refuse to change after you talking with him. A
Or are advocating that Bob should play, but that if he ruins the table, and then ruins another table or 2 and has constantly not responded well to you that you boot Bob the next time he brings a 5 to play with lv1s? B
I believe RSX Raver believes you're saying A. And disagrees. Your posts maybe seem like you're talking about situation B.
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
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.Considering I started this discussion when I questioned Andrew's rule about not ever allowing a level 5 with nothing but 1s and 2s in sub-tier 1-2, I am fairly certain I know exactly what point I have been talking about this entire time. If you are arguing something else, then more power to you.
I think you missed a part of his post, then.
Noone has ever argued it when table balance was explained.
|
|
So my two cents since i apparently started this snowball....
A) i never said it was a regional rule nor even a rule at my Gameday. I said i dont allow it at my table. That's from years of experience of hating that kind of experience.
B) if you want to leave it at rules discussion , if i have the right to i)ask them to please play another character more in tier to allow a better experience for everyone, and ii) they refuse... iii) AJ Torgerud, vo or not, has the right to apologize to the table and walk away... then im not breaking the rules as written
C)i never said i wouldnt consider an exception - but it's never gotten far enough that i or the player in question left or complained to the powers that be
|
|
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 are assuming the worst, not sure why people immediately do that on the internet.
As an organizer, you start having conversations with everyone involved. You find out why people are signing up as 1's and 2's when a 5 has already signed up. And depending on the answer, you might go back to the 5 and ask them to adjust. Its about trying to be fair to EVERYONE involved. If you tell the 5, though, "hey, they are all brand new folk, could you bring a 1 or a 2 instead?" and the 5 is like, "NO I WANT TO PLAY MY FIVE! GRAR! HOW DARE YOU." I'm going to have little sympathy for them.
So you'd just look at the game store webpage and "pop in" unannounced at an out of region game day? Sorry, but it is extremely unlikely you'd find an available seat in the Twin Cities doing that.
So by little sympathy are you saying that you're going to just boot them? Or are you going to wait and see if it ACTUALLY causes problems?
Personally if someone was badgering me to play low when I'm wanting to play a certain character I wouldn't respond well either. It's a legal character, I've signed up to claim my spot. I'VE DONE NOTHING WRONG! You shouldn't be taking action on potential problems but on actual problems. And again, if this was happening at a store I was as I'd be raising a storm taking it up the chain to have that VO addressed by a leader telling him not to kick players that haven't done anything wrong.
|
|
So my two cents since i apparently started this snowball....
A) i never said it was a regional rule nor even a rule at my Gameday. I said i dont allow it at my table. That's from years of experience of hating that kind of experience.
B) if you want to leave it at rules discussion , if i have the right to i)ask them if please play another character more in tier to allow a better experience for everyone, and ii) they refuse... iii) AJ Torgerud, vo or not, has the right to apologize to the table and walk away... then im not breaking the rules as written
C)i never said i wouldnt consider an exception - but it's never gotten far enough that i or the player in question left or complained to the powers that be
I don't believe anyone is saying you don't have the right to not GM for a table. You as a GM or player always have the right to not participate if you'd prefer not to.
But if you're advertised as an open/public PFS event then you shouldn't be kicking legal and not proven disruptive players away.|
|
Considering I started this discussion when I questioned Andrew's rule about not ever allowing a level 5 with nothing but 1s and 2s in sub-tier 1-2, I am fairly certain I know exactly what point I have been talking about this entire time. If you are arguing something else, then more power to you.So you are purposefully talking past me? Good to know I can stop responding. But are you referring to this post? And is "not ever allowing" just hyperbole, or something else?
No I am referencing this post.
And considering we are discussing different things, I felt no need to argue with you over it. It is not hyperbole as Tallow confirmed
I'm pretty sure AJ was very explicit that at game days he organizes he does not allow 5's to play with 1's and 2's in sub-tier 1-2.But he doesn't do so blindly. He works with all the players involved to try to find the best possible and amicable solution for everyone.
We've found in the Twin Cities, that largely those people who choose to play 5's in a sub-tier 1-2 with 1's and 2's, are disruptive people in general.
|
|
So my two cents since i apparently started this snowball....
A) i never said it was a regional rule nor even a rule at my Gameday. I said i dont allow it at my table. That's from years of experience of hating that kind of experience.
B) if you want to leave it at rules discussion , if i have the right to i)ask them to please play another character more in tier to allow a better experience for everyone, and ii) they refuse... iii) AJ Torgerud, vo or not, has the right to apologize to the table and walk away... then im not breaking the rules as written
C)i never said i wouldnt consider an exception - but it's never gotten far enough that i or the player in question left or complained to the powers that be
And I stated that you walking away was totally fine back in the beginning. The issue I raised was if you played the table but excluded the level 5 because you wanted it that way.
|
|
I'm pretty sure AJ was very explicit that at game days he organizes he does not allow 5's to play with 1's and 2's in sub-tier 1-2.But he doesn't do so blindly. He works with all the players involved to try to find the best possible and amicable solution for everyone.
Misquotes happen on the internet - though i do proactively work hard to communicate when subtiers are pretty well set to get players notified.
I trust my GM's discretion the same way i have been trusted.
|
|
All of this "discussion" has shown why it's so useful to a) use Warhorn or a similar mustering tool where you can schedule the scenario *and subtier* well in advance, and b) have an organizer that looks for such issues well in advance and deals with them, rather than just seeing who shows up on the day. In smaller regions, of course, it's going to be harder to not have wide level spreads at a table. But, avoiding a level 5 at a subtier 1-2 table should be done if at all possible. In all the games I've played or run in this situation, it's been un-fun for much of the table much of the time. Is it the only situation in which PFS becomes un-fun? Nope - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to avoid this situation.
In the cases where the player of the level 5 won't budge, I have seen the other players withdraw from the game if they don't want to play under those circumstances. Again, when flagged early, it doesn't require any banning, as the democratic method deals with the situation one way or the other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
