Gary Bush wrote:
a 16-page module (not including this one)
The part between brackets to me sounds like as a player you can never gain a credit marked on the boon for this specific 16-page module.
this class design about being the one true way to behave is too reminiscent of dictatorial thinking patterns that cause heinous results. The holier than thou created by this design literally poisons table atmospheres. This poor class design encourages the paladin to believe that their character is "always right" because they are a "paladin" and there is one true path. The paladin player therefore feels entitled to tell others the way they should play their characters.
After my previous paladin player stopped playing due to time constraints I made it a house rule not to allow any more paladins at my tables outside PFS. Group atmosphere is so much better without one.
To me allowing a paladin again in a home game stands about the same chance as me allowing a drow noble in a home game. I'll only let it happen if the entire party and campaign are put together in a way to make it work.
Might be a regional thing but our regional roleplay groups are very much weighted towards millennials. I'm usually one of the older people around in my mid thirties. I understand when there's Boomers or Gen X in the game, that they might be behind on modern technology.
Either way, I agree with Bob. As long as it doesn't turn into a trend, there's no major issues as far as I'm concerned. That's what was my original concern, outside PFS it was already a trend for this player, so whether or not it is appropriate to inform the GM or VO of that so they know to prepare for fewer players.
Just as an update, the player didn't show up. Neither did two others. They didn't update their warhorn status and afaik didn't inform the GM. Even though the event was advertised as a full table, we ended up having to run with 3 players + a pregen. >_< I guess it's good we still had minimum legal table size though. I traveled 4 hours for this session. I would have been extremely pissed if it had to be cancelled for not meeting legal table size.
For the record, personally, I'm totally ok with people's plans changing, I understand that. And I would never hold that alone against someone. My problem is that people no longer have the common decency of giving notice if they can't make it to a plan that was agreed and that other people depend on. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned?
It's 2018, everyone's connected to the internet pretty much 24/7, it's never been easier than it is now to send out a quick message to notify people. Heck, the original post in this thread + the message I sent the DM I both typed on a cellphone while I was roaming internationally on 4G... that might be a bit more than I expect from everyone, but still. It's possible.
I have a situation today and wanted to make sure I dealt with it correctly.
The PFS lodge I'm visiting today uses Warhorn so people can book the limited amount of space around the table in advance. When I logged in to double check the address today, I noticed a player on there that used to be a part of my home campaigns for a while but that I had to kick due to him being a no-show at least half of the sessions and never giving any advance warning or responding to texts and messages when I asked him about it.
So obviously I figured I'd at least warn the GM of today and sent him a message warning him of this player's behaviour but now I'm worried that maybe I spoke out of turn, after all this player hasn't misbehaved in PFS yet as far as I know. I think this is even his very first planned PFS session (and to be honest I'm 99% sure he'll be a no-show).
For America I can understand the appeal since your regions are small in comparison. I have played in 3 different countries though, and already travel a ton for PFS, and still it's all just ONE region according to PFS. So IMO it's a really bad idea that would make it even worse for people outside the main PFS markets to find games of different scenarios going on, which is already a pain even now.
Let's start with a disclaimer, I've never GMd society before and have only played a limited amount.
GM Stars - I prefer option 3. I definitely agree though that the reward should be flavourful instead of overpowering.
Boons - I prefer the Legacy Boon option, but please for the love of god, stop limiting races/ancestries to boons. I very much believe if a players legitimately owns the required sources and the race is not banned for a specific reason, it should be allowed for all.
The way races are locked down in PFS and SFS is THE number 1 reason I can't convince any of my home players to ever play Society and why Society is dead in my country. There's literally not a single group left. The only reason I'm able to play Society at all is because I travel a lot.
PF1 replays - I *REALLY* like the Favored Character idea that's being mentioned. Make it so! ;)
Alright, I think that's very reasonable. And if I brought a ranger to that game, I would definitely agree to not mention spiders again during that session.
Also, I didn't mean to imply any given person is a bigot. I used the word transphobia to indicate the subject of my question, not as a personal judgement.
2 more questions regarding issues raised here.
When we're talking about phobias to certain creatures. Let's say a character at the table has specific bonuses Vs reptiles or Vs spiders from a trait, feat, racial ability etc but the DM replaced all the snakes/spiders with fluffy puppers. Sure it sounds cute, but you're making the session more difficult for that other character compared to how it's written through disabling some of their options. I do agree with being considerate of course, but I think a lot can also be done by being less graphic in descriptions and maybe using more neutral stand-in minis.
About transphobia. Let's say paizo writes in a non binary/gender fluid whatever npc. But the DM just introduces it as a female character and refers all session to it as a she. The players don't know about how the npc is written so they don't notice anything wrong until a few weeks later one of them reads about that npc being mentioned on the forum. Noone got hurt or offended, I mean, noone even noticed, but I'm guessing it's still against the community rules?
Bob Jonquet wrote:
I’m not talking about our PFS organizer having that rule, I’m talking about the convention owner/staff using it.
I hope this was communicated clearly to all players before the start of the convention, so people could at least stay far away from that cesspool?
If someone forced me to change my character like that, I wouldn't just walk.
I would be demanding my money back from the organiser (since you're talking of a convention, I'm guessing it's paid entry); and yes, I would be reporting the event.
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
It is NOT the case that alignment doesn't mean anything.
It IS the case that fewer rules interact directly with alignment. Not NO rules, but a LOT fewer rules.
I like this. If there's only very few rules where alignment still has an impact I might be able to houserule it completely out of the game without breaking as much as in PF/D&D.