|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to start off with that my goal in this thread is not to argue what Canon says but the right to enforce clear canon if necessary in PFS.
This has come up a lot recently on if the GM has the right to enforce canon when it come to PFS characters, some are under the opinion that no they don't other are under the opinion like myself that they do.
I feel when it comes to Clear Canon *Defined as Canon that is clear and easy to understand, some canon is less clear* that in PFS play the GM has the right to bring up issues with PFS players when the player makes a character that goes against established canon, and to help that player understand what the established canon is so they can bring the character to match the canon. I feel that as an organized association we play in an established world with established canon and with the group being so large it makes it easier for all to follow what is established. By joining the PFS you have agreed to play in the established world and also agreed to follow the rules and established canon, this is not your home game but a shared world by many built by Paizo.
This brings up many issues that I will go over and answer based on my opinions.
- Does the GM have that Right?
- Is it the responsibility of the GM to know Canon?
- Is it the responsibility of the players to know Canon?
- How do you deal with players that become belligerent over this?
- How do you deal with GMs that become belligerent over this?
- What is and isn't canon?
- If a dispute cannot be rectified at the GM player level where do you go from there?
Does the GM have that Right?
I think he does, I think that is part of being a GM, you are a Game Master and part of this Game is the canon. I think it is unfair to the GMs not to be able to enforce certain standards at the table and I feel that canon is a standard.
Is it the responsibility of the GM to know Canon?
Many people are going to disagree with me here, but hell ya it is the responsibility of the GM to know the world they are running a game in! Of course they are not going to know everything, and I don't think they need to own every book, but I sure in hell believe that they should use the resources at hand to know the world they are running in. Some of us have the ability to buy every book, some of us don't, but those that don't have plenty of free resources they can use to learn about the world of PFS, to include the PathfiderWiki. I don't think that Every GM should be Mark like in knowing the inside and out of Golarion but you should do some research of the important things, like the Gods, Classes and Nations and especially the Society Organization. This becomes especially important for GMs who GM a lot *2 stars and above* for GMs that gm only once in awhile they should still have knowledge of the basics but since they really don't GM a lot they have less incentive to put the time in.
Is it the responsibility of the players to know Canon?
Less so then the GMs, I think it is the responsibility of the player though to understand that which effects his character, like where he comes from or the gods he worships, Just as above he does not need to own every book but he should use the free resources to investigate.
How do you deal with players that become belligerent over this?
This one is a bit harder to answer, I think a GM should do everything in his ability from stopping arguments to get to this point, a character against canon is in itself I feel not a reason to kick a player from your table, the character should still be allowed to play with the understanding from the GM that the player is against the 'rules' and should be fixed at the player's first connivance. But if the player calmly refuses to make the changes even in the future, the GM should have the right to report to the regional coordinator and only to the regional coordinator *once they are set up*, I don't feel that Josh should be getting emails about this from players and GMs. Both player and GM need to be willing to except the ruling of the regional coordinator no matters who side it falls on. But if it gets to the point the player starts be really argumentative or physically abusive *like hitting the GM over the head with a core book ;)* and the problem is causing the rest of the group to lose the enjoyment from the game I think then and only then it is the right of the GM to ask the player to please leave the table.
How do you deal with GMs that become belligerent over this?
I would hate to think that this would happen, but it could. A GM should be able to control themselves from getting to this point *for that matter show should players*. If a GM gets to this point I feel it is the right of the player to report to the regional coordinator of the GMs poor behavior or to Josh if there is no regional coordinator.
What is and isn't canon?
I don't want to get into this, if you wish to argue this please open another thread under the appropriate forum.
If a dispute cannot be rectified at the GM player level where do you go from there?
I pretty much already answered this above.
So what do others think? and what other problems do you think can come up from this?
|
I'm pretty ambivalent on this.
Enforcing canon doesn't really help good players, it helps the typical player a bit by encouraging them to learn about their character more. But it causes conflict with the third type of player at the table which is particularly frustrating at Cons.
If GMs are expected to enforce canon it NEEDS to be in the PFS guide as a fairly explicit rule. That puts the extra burden of knowing all the religions on the GM and knowing a specific religion on a player.
While I know Calistria, and Pharasma fairly well I couldn't say I know then all well enough to feel competent enforcing canon on a player.
|
|
The GM's job is to see that everyone at his table has fun and he should use and ignore canon as a tool to see that happens. If it is not part of the core assumptions the only time I would bring it up to enhance the player's fun.
So it is ok then for a player to bring in a character that background has it coming from a world not part of Golarion or a nation made added in by himself or his home game GM? Or a god made with the same reason?
|
|
to make it clear, I am using Enforce in it lightest meaning, I don't think a GM should kick a player from the table for this, but I do think the GM should have the right to explain canon to the player to help them fix it and only have to go beyond Player/GM interaction if the player refuses to 'comply', even then the game should go on with the player, unless the player at this point get to the point he is ruining the fun of the other player's.
Edit: I don't think a GM should make all his decision based on the 'feelings' of his players, a GM Definitely should have the right to enforce standards at the table even if enforcing those standards could cause certain players to become belligerent, though a GM should act in a manner that would cause the likelihood of the player to become belligerent, by acting calmly and non argumentative, and using other 'social graces'.
|
|
If GMs are expected to enforce canon it NEEDS to be in the PFS guide as a fairly explicit rule. That puts the extra burden of knowing all the religions on the GM and knowing a specific religion on a player.
I am under the opinion that a regular GM should have that burden. Note I say regular GM *2 star and above* an occasional GM does not have the incentive to carry that burden.
I feel it makes the game better as a whole if the GM knows the world he is running, and regular GMs should know the world.
|
|
If GMs are expected to enforce canon it NEEDS to be in the PFS guide as a fairly explicit rule. That puts the extra burden of knowing all the religions on the GM and knowing a specific religion on a player.
I am under the opinion that a regular GM should have that burden. Note I say regular GM *2 star and above* an occasional GM does not have the incentive to carry that burden.
I feel it makes the game better as a whole if the GM knows the world he is running, and regular GMs should know the world.
No doubt, the more a GM or a player knows about the campaign setting the better.
That said, can tell me whether a cleric of Kurgess would summon celestial or fiendish creatures? Which is more likely to challenge another character to a foot race, a cleric of Kurgess or a cleric of Milani? Which one accepts sacrifices under the full moon?
How many two star (or heck four star) GMs are going to know this when a player arrives at their table with a cleric of Kurgess?
I don`t think the focus should be on `enforcing` Canon on a player whose PC concept for example doesn`t accurately portray the culture of a country (say, claiming their Cheliax character was a minor scion of the Fey nobility which ruled Cheliax) or personality of a Diety / etc. The focus should be more on how does the existence of this Canon-breaking character within the game affect their cohesive game experience, and how to ensure that a Canon-cohesive experience does continue?
So what should you do? In some cases, if a character has a Canon-breaking concept (like Fey ruled Cheliax) perhaps the easiest response is for NPCs to treat said PC as insane or delusional, and for you as GM to support that such a character concept indeed is `crazy`. That doesn`t mechanically prevent the player from using their class abilities (a Fey Bloodline Sorceror is a Fey Bloodline Sorceror), etc, it`s just the natural response you would expect. If a player portrays a Cleric`s relation with a God in ways totally against the Canon for that diety, well, perhaps in the game world they actually aren`t a Cleric of said diety, but there`s a multitude of other diety`s they could gain said powers from, so let them CLAIM they are a Cleric of said god all they want, but leave it an open question if that is actually true... Interactions with NPCs who actually are of said religion (or rival religioons) would probably be the sharpest case to hilight such a disparity. This type of reaction in fact could be part of an adventure for Canon-coherent characters, that for some reason they find themselves disbelieved by NPCs and treated as insane, etc (discovering you have shifted multiverses somehow and the consequences of that is an interesting plot, for one).
There`s probably an infinite number of ways they could have acquired their class abilities in Canon-adherent ways, so without forcing a specific interpretation on them, you can just leave the implication that probably one of those ways is the character`s ACTUAL personal history as opposed to their claimed history.
Like Dennis says, most GMs AREn`T going to have a complete knowledge of Canon, so for the Canon-breaking character, their experience may diverge wildly, with some GMs giving them a pass and other`s bringing to the fore that the groups which said PCs claim to belong don`t actually recognize them as one of their own (since they don`t conform to actual Canon reality). But that`s the player`s problem (though likely one they don`t care that much about, if they don`t care about setting consistency in the first place). Like you said, the first thing to do is helpfully inform them in a nice way as to what the actual Canon is, which probably involves showing them some AP articles or Campaign Setting material. Some players will take the opportunity to modify their character concept, other`s will reject it, but since they ARE now aware that Canon for the setting contradicts their character background, they can`t really be surprised if it doesn`t `fly` exactly they thought in every game. It`s certainl reasonable to not GM for such a player if they show no interest in `playing by the rules of the game` whic includes setting consistency, but I say don`t worry about `official censures` or rule-based consequences for their PFS character, if they find another group that fits their play style then good for them, it`s not your problem anymore if it isn`t making your own games worse.
The best a GM can do is educate a player. Decent players will adapt and change their characters to suit. Asking for much beyond that is going to result in table conflict which will stink up game play.
Pretty much. Unless there's a rule in the game book that says "clerics of Soandso can never cast such-and-such spell", it's not my job to second-guess the thoughts of the gods.
|
|
If GMs are expected to enforce canon it NEEDS to be in the PFS guide as a fairly explicit rule. That puts the extra burden of knowing all the religions on the GM and knowing a specific religion on a player.
I am under the opinion that a regular GM should have that burden. Note I say regular GM *2 star and above* an occasional GM does not have the incentive to carry that burden.
I feel it makes the game better as a whole if the GM knows the world he is running, and regular GMs should know the world.
No doubt, the more a GM or a player knows about the campaign setting the better.
That said, can tell me whether a cleric of Kurgess would summon celestial or fiendish creatures? Which is more likely to challenge another character to a foot race, a cleric of Kurgess or a cleric of Milani? Which one accepts sacrifices under the full moon?
How many two star (or heck four star) GMs are going to know this when a player arrives at their table with a cleric of Kurgess?
trying to avoid going into what is and is not canon, but you do bring up a good point.
How much Canon is a GM expected to know? How Much Detail? Player?
For the GM they will not know all Canon right away, but as the learn the world they will learn more, and I think they should take that Burden up.
For a Player? Enough to know his character, If he has a God he should use the resources at hand to learn everything he can, same with the region he comes from. Especially with Pathfinder Wiki making it easy!
with the point of me feeling this is Off Topic I will answer your questions with the right to be not 100% accurate ;)
can tell me whether a cleric of Kurgess would summon celestial or fiendish creatures?
I do not know of anything that would stop Neutral character from summing a fiendish creature, though a good character cannot.
Which is more likely to challenge another character to a foot race, a cleric of Kurgess or a cleric of Milani?
Kurgess
Which one accepts sacrifices under the full moon?
That I will admit I do not know, but it does not sound like a Kurgess thing...
This is why I said in the other thread that there needs to be a section in the PFS Guide that covers these special cases, like the discussion of Pharasma and undead. The only books required to be at a table are the Core Book, the Bestiary, Seeker of Secrets, and the PFS Guide. It is perfectly possible for there to be no other books present, not even the Campaign Setting, it it is a newer GM and a table of newbie players.
As for canon, if it is in those Core books, whether used as written or modified by the Guide, then the player will get nowhere arguing about something that is clear. As for all the rest of the books, if the book is at the table, then the fluff should be considered canon and the relevant mechanics that are allowed by the Guide are canon as well.
The Pathfinder Wiki or Archives of Nethys, or any other website like that which is not owned and maintained by Paizo, are not canon because there can be errors there that Paizo is not responsible for. And besides, if they were considered canon for PFS play, then Josh would say it is legal to use a printout from those websites for optional material from chapter 13, but it is not.
|
|
This is why I said in the other thread that there needs to be a section in the PFS Guide that covers these special cases, like the discussion of Pharasma and undead. The only books required to be at a table are the Core Book, the Bestiary, Seeker of Secrets, and the PFS Guide. It is perfectly possible for there to be no other books present, not even the Campaign Setting, it it is a newer GM and a table of newbie players.
As for canon, if it is in those Core books, whether used as written or modified by the Guide, then the player will get nowhere arguing about something that is clear. As for all the rest of the books, if the book is at the table, then the fluff should be considered canon and the relevant mechanics that are allowed by the Guide are canon as well.
The Pathfinder Wiki or Archives of Nethys, or any other website like that which is not owned and maintained by Paizo, are not canon because there can be errors there that Paizo is not responsible for. And besides, if they were considered canon for PFS play, then Josh would say it is legal to use a printout from those websites for optional material from chapter 13, but it is not.
Archives of Nethys is defiantly not something you could use, as it is a rule database, and he is explicit about what sources you can go to for that. Pathfinder Wiki on the other-hand is not a rule data base, it is a data base of the 'fluff' of the setting and i feel is fully acceptable to use to make your background of your character in PFS with in mind you can't use it for anything that effect the 'rules' of your character.
This is why I said in the other thread that there needs to be a section in the PFS Guide that covers these special cases, like the discussion of Pharasma and undead.
But, to play the devil's advocate, as soon as you say "Pharasma's clerics can never cast Animate Dead", you're cutting down on the number of stories that can be told in Golarion. Who knows? -- maybe some author could come up with an interesting sinister sub-sect of Pharasma that uses Animate Dead in a clever way.
For instance, if the 3.5 PHB had said "Clerics of Hextor never co-operate with chaotic creatures", then there wouldn't ever have been an Ebon Triad in Shackled City or Age of Worms.
|
|
On re-evaluating my position I have come up with this.
I still feel a Regular GM should take the effort to know the world he is running, if anything it will make him a better GM.
I still feel a GM should help players with canon that they know when a character goes away from it significantly.
I still feel that a player that has a PFS character that does not fit canon should not be booted from a game.
I agree a GM will not know everything.
I agree the Society guide does not say a GM can enforce canon.
I still feel a GM and Player should not have to own every book, but they should use the free resource of the PathfinderWiki to help with the canon alone, not rules. They do how ever need to own the book or PDf if they use something from that book that is 'rule' related.
I am starting to think that it is more the players responsibility to know the canon of his character then the GM, much easier for the player to learn the little about just his character then the GM to know everything about everything.
If the PFS character goes significantly off very well known Canon that the GM is aware of, I do feel the GM should have the right to do everything I Said in my OP. I still think that playing in a Shared world should require a player to make a character that actually 'fits' in that world.
And again, I think a GM should take the effort to know the world he is running, but I concede he will not know everything ;).
|
|
But, to play the devil's advocate, as soon as you say "Pharasma's clerics can never cast Animate Dead", you're cutting down on the number of stories that can be told in Golarion. Who knows? -- maybe some author could come up with an interesting sinister sub-sect of Pharasma that uses Animate Dead in a clever way.For instance, if the 3.5 PHB had said "Clerics of Hextor never co-operate with chaotic creatures", then there wouldn't ever have been an Ebon Triad in Shackled City or Age of Worms.
Those may well be stories they *as in Pazio* never want to tell, so cutting them off is nothing to them.
In your home game though, feel free!
But, to play the devil's advocate, as soon as you say "Pharasma's clerics can never cast Animate Dead", you're cutting down on the number of stories that can be told in Golarion. Who knows? -- maybe some author could come up with an interesting sinister sub-sect of Pharasma that uses Animate Dead in a clever way.For instance, if the 3.5 PHB had said "Clerics of Hextor never co-operate with chaotic creatures", then there wouldn't ever have been an Ebon Triad in Shackled City or Age of Worms.
Those may well be stories they *as in Pazio* never want to tell, so cutting them off is nothing to them.
In your home game though, feel free!
I'm just saying that it doesn't particularly benefit Paizo to limit their alternatives. I have no qualms at all making absolute statements about how the gods work in my world. But then again, I don't publish several dozen adventures every year!
This is why I said in the other thread that there needs to be a section in the PFS Guide that covers these special cases, like the discussion of Pharasma and undead.But, to play the devil's advocate, as soon as you say "Pharasma's clerics can never cast Animate Dead", you're cutting down on the number of stories that can be told in Golarion. Who knows? -- maybe some author could come up with an interesting sinister sub-sect of Pharasma that uses Animate Dead in a clever way.
And to go along with what you are saying, nowhere in any of the books does it say that clerics of Pharasma are banned from using the various undead creation spells. Rather, there is a lot of fluff talking about how hated and despised they are. So if a cleric of Pharasma used one of those domain spells, such as animate dead, I would not tell them no, but they would risk losing their clerical powers til they could do an atonement or whatever else Pharasma may command them to do to make up for it.
So by canon, even though undead are despised by Pharasma, her clerics are not banned from making them.
And on a side note, in the other thread I started to deal with this, James did say that some things about Pharasma may get clarified or changed when she gets her turn in AP 44.
|
Pathfinder Wiki on the other-hand is not a rule data base, it is a data base of the 'fluff' of the setting and i feel is fully acceptable to use to make your background of your character in PFS with in mind you can't use it for anything that effect the 'rules' of your character.
But how complete is it?
Should a player be punished or censured for making a PC to the best of his/her ability, only for new entries to be added later, from non-Core sources, which alter the flavour?|
|
Pathfinder Wiki on the other-hand is not a rule data base, it is a data base of the 'fluff' of the setting and i feel is fully acceptable to use to make your background of your character in PFS with in mind you can't use it for anything that effect the 'rules' of your character.But how complete is it?
Should a player be punished or censured for making a PC to the best of his/her ability, only for new entries to be added later, from non-Core sources, which alter the flavour?
It is complete enough to know what is significantly against Canon..
|
|
It is complete enough to know what is significantly against Canon..
I guess you may get resistance, from posters who don't know where you're drawing the line. How significantly does it have to differ, to be worth bringing up?
The example you gave above, of some displaced plane-hopper, is annoying, and I totally agree that sort of thing shouldn't fly. But that shouldn't fly in any campaign, whether Organised Play or casual; published setting or homebrew. I had to overrule that crap all the time in the old days; one guy always whinging to play Kender, when you knew full well the only reasons were for the extra stat-bump and his belief it gave a licence to start PvP attacks, that the other players 'weren't allowed' to retaliate to.
Anyone wants to tell me they fell off a Spelljammer, then fine; they caught a native cold virus that they had no resistance to, and died a slow, painful death. Make another PC.
The other example, of someone declaring they serve 'the fey rulers of Cheliax'; well that's Just Plain Wrong, to a degree that can't be supported. The rulers of Cheliax are basic info, available at the most general level to even the most casual reader.
Where you're going to get resistance, is in the cases where someone has brought a PC that doesn't conflict with the common information, but with some factoid buried in a region book, a race book, an adventure, or a support article in an AP.
Many of those products, especially the AP instalments, are considered, rightly or wrongly, strictly GMs-eyes-only, even if some of the info in the back half could be for general use.
Many home-GMs have a dim view of finding their players buying the adventures they announced they would run, and aren't going to be impressed by promises that 'I'm only going to read the 6 pages about my country's patron faith, honest'.
So, you have to be careful how you approach the 'offending' player, and maybe give them the benefit of the doubt.
You'll get a much more positive response if you act like you're helping them, than hindering.
"That's a good backstory, about being on the run from the gangsters of Westcrown. It gives a GM something to work with. I think I've got my Council of Thieves files with me, I can give you the relevant NPC names to make that story fit better"
is going to leave a better taste than
"Nobody's playing anything, till THEY change their illegal character!"
|
|
It is complete enough to know what is significantly against Canon..I guess you may get resistance, from posters who don't know where you're drawing the line. How significantly does it have to differ, to be worth bringing up?
The example you gave above, of some displaced plane-hopper, is annoying, and I totally agree that sort of thing shouldn't fly. But that shouldn't fly in any campaign, whether Organised Play or casual; published setting or homebrew. I had to overrule that crap all the time in the old days; one guy always whinging to play Kender, when you knew full well the only reasons were for the extra stat-bump and his belief it gave a licence to start PvP attacks, that the other players 'weren't allowed' to retaliate to.
Anyone wants to tell me they fell off a Spelljammer, then fine; they caught a native cold virus that they had no resistance to, and died a slow, painful death. Make another PC.
The other example, of someone declaring they serve 'the fey rulers of Cheliax'; well that's Just Plain Wrong, to a degree that can't be supported. The rulers of Cheliax are basic info, available at the most general level to even the most casual reader.
Where you're going to get resistance, is in the cases where someone has brought a PC that doesn't conflict with the common information, but with some factoid buried in a region book, a race book, an adventure, or a support article in an AP.
Many of those products, especially the AP instalments, are considered, rightly or wrongly, strictly GMs-eyes-only, even if some of the info in the back half could be for general use.
Many home-GMs have a dim view of finding their players buying the adventures they announced they would run, and aren't going to be impressed by promises that 'I'm only going to read the 6 pages about my country's patron faith, honest'.
I am more worried about Major/Suspense of Believe canon breaking stuff.
as an examples of things we have seen recently,
I am ok if you want to play a character of a race or deity that the regions says is rare there or non existent *you can be the only one!* as long as the background you come up with makes sense to the world of Golarion.
But playing a Paladin of Asmodeous I have an issue with *Please don't bring up that argument again, if you want to argue that bring it somewhere else.*, or start raising dead all over the place when your deity is Pharasma.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I think the GM should tread very lightly on enforcing canon, and only to the extent that the rules allow. So for an example of can a player create a cleric of a god not allowed in PFS (because they don't exist in Golarion), then yes, enforce. You can show them in the PFS guide what sources are allowed and since their made up or imported god isn't in one of those sources (and they wouldn't have the source with them as backup) then you're fine enforcing.
As someone earlier said, if it's just background stuff, then have all the NPCs (and you can educate the other players also) treat the PC as delusional. The player with the non-Golarion stuff should get the hint.
What I'd be more concerned with is a casual player who likes playing and hacking monsters up show up with a PC named Ginsu or Cuisinart, or something else completely not at all Golarion flavored and or referencing the modern world. In that case, it's annoying, but I don't think there's much you can do in an open PFS setting (in your home game, sure though.)
Considering that as a player I'm most concerned about having a GM who a) runs a good game and b) knows the rules and enforces them fairly, I'd probably be annoyed if the GM spent a lot of time during the game to be a canon cop with another player, instead of running a great game that everyone enjoyed.
|
|
The GM's job is to see that everyone at his table has fun and he should use and ignore canon as a tool to see that happens. If it is not part of the core assumptions the only time I would bring it up is to enhance the player's fun.So it is ok then for a player to bring in a character that background has it coming from a world not part of Golarion or a nation made added in by himself or his home game GM? Or a god made with the same reason?
No that would not be ok because the player would be bringing material in to the game that is not part of the core assumptions or the additional materials listed in chapter 13.
|
|
No that would not be ok because the player would be bringing material in to the game that is not part of the core assumptions or the additional materials listed in chapter 13.The GM's job is to see that everyone at his table has fun and he should use and ignore canon as a tool to see that happens. If it is not part of the core assumptions the only time I would bring it up is to enhance the player's fun.So it is ok then for a player to bring in a character that background has it coming from a world not part of Golarion or a nation made added in by himself or his home game GM? Or a god made with the same reason?
Faulty Argument, since none of the Core assumption books include anything you can use for Background info.
I think people are confused what the Core assumption book list is for.
The Core assumption list is of books that is assumed that every player and GM has *GM needs the bestiary to* and that all rules inside are legal unless stated otherwise. To make it easier on Josh so he can subtract the few things not legal instead of adding the many things legal.
The Core assumption list was made to make it easier for players and GMs, Players do not have to bring Core assumption books to games when they add rule related material from it.
The Core Assumption list is for Rules, it is not meant to be used for the only source of knowledge of the setting and fluff in general.
|
|
Faulty Argument, since none of the Core assumption books include anything you can use for Background info.
I think people are confused what the Core assumption book list is for.
The Core assumption list is of books that is assumed that every player and GM has *GM needs the bestiary to* and that all rules inside are legal unless stated otherwise. To make it easier on Josh so he can subtract the few things not legal instead of adding the many things legal.
The Core assumption list was made to make it easier for players and GMs, Players do not have to bring Core assumption books to games when they add rule related material from it.
The Core Assumption list is for Rules, it is not meant to be used for the only source of knowledge of the setting and fluff in general.
Both Seeker of Secrets and the Guide to PFSOP both are core assumptions containing background materials.
|
|
Both Seeker of Secrets and the Guide to PFSOP both are core assumptions containing background materials.
Faulty Argument, since none of the Core assumption books include anything you can use for Background info.
I think people are confused what the Core assumption book list is for.
The Core assumption list is of books that is assumed that every player and GM has *GM needs the bestiary to* and that all rules inside are legal unless stated otherwise. To make it easier on Josh so he can subtract the few things not legal instead of adding the many things legal.
The Core assumption list was made to make it easier for players and GMs, Players do not have to bring Core assumption books to games when they add rule related material from it.
The Core Assumption list is for Rules, it is not meant to be used for the only source of knowledge of the setting and fluff in general.
Ok.. Once Again... Core assumption is not for Background, it is for rules.
Those books may have some fluff stuff, but they are not in the core assumption for that.
|
|
...uhm, gods to worship for Clerics, Inquisitors, and Cavaliers of the Order of the Star is crunch, not fluff, guys. Yeah, if you want to use a god not in the core book, you've got to bring the book it's in to every session and it needs to be listed as legal in Chapter 13.
Just so we know, I am not just talking about Gods.
And as a GM I would not require a Player to bring a book for following a God of the Golarion setting that is not in the PFRPG core book.
|
|
I am probably not going to be able to post here for awhile because I have a guest coming over but I will say this.
A GM knowing the world he is running IMO will make him a better GM.
A Player know the world he is playing in, especially that relevant to his character IMO will make him a better player.
At the least I think a GM should foster this by helping the players and themselves learn more about Golarion.
|
|
A GM has the responsibility to attempt to enforce canon, provided that there is a readily accessible, inexpensive, non-Internet-dependent way to know the canon of the world.
It should not require live Internet access to use (I game at a store that has neither public Internet nor power outlets), it should not require printing very many pages (Did you know that even some inkjet printers come to a fairly hefty price per page for printing in color? I have a printer that a full set of cartridges costs about $32, but only prints about 160 pages, which comes to a fairly hefty 20 cents a page... I need a new printer...)
It should be both succinct and comprehensible. No statements that leave the reader going, "Huh?" It needs to clarify what to do when you wind up with incompatible options, like the previously mentioned cleric of Pharasma whose LEGAL domains both only offer a spell that is illegal for the deity's canon.
And, whatever else happens, the GM as to exercise tact and diplomacy in handling it. There is going to be enough tension between gamers and GM to begin with, the GM doesn't need to increase that without cause...
Wow interesting topic of discussion here. I am going to try to put my spin on this so please don't take offense but feel free to tear my ideas apart.
1st off it is my belief that a GM should know the world he is running, as should a player for it is only fare to both parties to expect respect from the other party. Yes, the GM should have a broader understanding of the world but it doesn't mean the player shouldn't share in that responsibility.
2nd a player needs to remember GM is rule enforcer and should abide by his/her ruling for the betterment/enjoyment of the whole group. Why argue about Canon, player should state his/her beliefs and any supporting material. The GM should listen to the player's case and make a decision for the betterment of the group, this is just a game and it is meant to be fun.
3rd as stated in #2 this is a game and as such it should be fun for everyone and arguing over canon or rules is non productive and not fun for anyone involved.
Ok, now let the discussion continue...
|
|
I am probably not going to be able to post here for awhile because I have a guest coming over but I will say this.
A GM knowing the world he is running IMO will make him a better GM.
A Player know the world he is playing in, especially that relevant to his character IMO will make him a better player.
At the least I think a GM should foster this by helping the players and themselves learn more about Golarion.
I agree with this 100%
My issue is when it comes to enforcing things that are subject to interpretation or vague and pretty much 95% of canon falls into that sort of fuzzy trap. As I said above, you do your best to educate the player and point them to resources like PFWiki or appropriate books and most of them will try and bring their character into line.
Enforcement isn't going to help with the players that don't care, they are going to play whatever they can get away with and make a lot of noise if they can't. Rather than fight them just move on and try and not let them spoil the session for everyone.
I am probably not going to be able to post here for awhile because I have a guest coming over but I will say this.
A GM knowing the world he is running IMO will make him a better GM.
A Player know the world he is playing in, especially that relevant to his character IMO will make him a better player.
At the least I think a GM should foster this by helping the players and themselves learn more about Golarion.
+1
|
|
So it is ok then for a player to bring in a character that background has it coming from a world not part of Golarion or a nation made added in by himself or his home game GM? Or a god made with the same reason?
I have done something on the edge of this. My character is from Xian, or rather Minkai (The Japanese analog country, I looked it up). She is a Paladin of Sarenrae, rather, "my ancestress whom the people of these strange lands refer to as Sarenrae," whose "will manifests through me." She is of the Andoran faction because she is part of an Embassy based in Andor so being of use to her hosts (and learning about the inner sea region) is of use to her clan as providing aid and enlightenment to this land of barbarians. Her glaive she refers to as a naginata and fae as minor kami.
A few details, like her family name, her Mon, etc are references to L5R and someone familiar with that setting would "get" the inside references. However, that is as far is it goes. As far as I am concerned I have struck the right balance between creating the right balance.
I have never had a problem with a GM on that account. From your PoV and anyone else here, would I have anything to worry about?
All the Best,
Kerney
|
So it is ok then for a player to bring in a character that background has it coming from a world not part of Golarion or a nation made added in by himself or his home game GM? Or a god made with the same reason?
I guess I haven't played at enough conventions or something, but is this really a common (or even uncommon) problem at tables? I mean, this thread strikes me as a fairly academic discussion but how often do you encounter players who bring in characters that fit one of above-listed criteria?
By "you" I mean "anyone reading this". I'm curious. In my admittedly limited experience with Pathfinder Organized Play, I've never had someone try to play a "planar traveler" or a character from a non-canon nation, and I've definitely never had someone try to play with a god of their own creation.
For what it is worth, I've rarely had any background fluff on a character sheet (other than a brief physical description) get more than a passing mention at the table. In the unlikely event that someone pushes their background fluff, I'd treat each case as follows:
Non-Canon Country: Most NPCs would smile and nod if the country was brought up, and just assume it was some country they'd never heard of (it's a big world). A more well-traveled NPC might shrug his shoulders and say "never heard of it". Either way, no one would press the issue (because I, as the DM, don't want to waste precious play time on it). At worst, people might treat the character like they were slightly unhinged.
Self-described Planar Traveler: Same as a non-canon country but NPCs would definitely treat the character as if they were mentally imbalanced. Most NPCs would prefer talking to the other characters, and politely smile and nod at the "plane hopper".
Non-canon god: This is the most thorny of the three. What god a cleric worships is a fairly important game mechanic that effects domains, favored weapons, feats, traits and such. If Organized Play allowed clerics who didn't worship a specific god, there would be some wiggle room for me to handwave a "your god doesn't actually exist but it doesn't matter" situation. However, the Guide is very specific that all clerics have to pick a specific god from a very specific list. So this would be a situation where I'd have to say a very firm "no" to priests of non-Canon (and non-allowed) gods.
In any case, if the player starts acting disruptive, or tries to bog down play with pointless discussions about geography or religion, I'd point out (first politely and then somewhat less politely) that "no one cares" and then soldier on with the adventure. If they continue to be disruptive THEN I would ask them to leave. Not because they are breaking canon, but because they are being disruptive.
|
|
My issue is when it comes to enforcing things that are subject to interpretation or vague and pretty much 95% of canon falls into that sort of fuzzy trap. As I said above, you do your best to educate the player and point them to resources like PFWiki or appropriate books and most of them will try and bring their character into line.
Enforcement isn't going to help with the players that don't care, they are going to play whatever they can get away with and make a lot of noise if they can't. Rather than fight them just move on and try and not let them spoil the session for everyone.
+1 on this.
The important thing is to play and have a good time. If you run into the occasional difficult player, just be an adult about it and move on with the game. If they cause problems, then move on with the game without them.
If the player simply doesn't have a lot of knowledge about the campaign setting because they are a new or casual player, then I'd definitely suggest the free online (and not free & available from Paizo) resources to help them bring their character concept closer in line with the established world. During the game I'd encourage the other players at the table to take the newbie under their wing, and maybe incorporate the player's newness/lack of knowledge into gameplay in small ways.
If the player knows the world, and is just coming at it from a different angle or perspective, has a solid concept (even if I don't like it personally), is keeping it confined to their background fluff, isn't being disruptive to play, and isn't trying to gain some mechanical advantage out of it, then I'd let them have their fun.
If they don't care and are just filling a seat, I'd ignore them so long as they keep their head down and don't disrupt play.
|
I'm going to chime in and say, if you as the gm are comfortable with the fluff, let it slide. If it gives the character an unfair advantage, then talk to the player about it.
I think in a living society, the fluff is only really important to the player, while an unbalanced character is detrimental to whatever group the player plays with.
|
|
And as a GM I would not require a Player to bring a book for following a God of the Golarion setting that is not in the PFRPG core book.
Dragonmoon,
Technically, the expanded God list is part of an "allowed" section of a supplemental book so we're supposed to check. Unlike a lot of what you've mentioned, this is one thing that is actually dictated by the rules, as opposed to being purely "fluff" which could be made up by somebody not in the know of how Golarion works.
|
|
As the PFS is supposed to drive interest in Pathfinder materials, I see no reason to support play that comes from non-canonical materials. My creating a character to play in PFS, your agreeing to work within the defined portions on the game.
Time and time again my players have told me that they don't want players that muddle the waters with unofficial rules or fluff as it breaks the verisimilitude of play.
|
|
As the PFS is supposed to drive interest in Pathfinder materials, I see no reason to support play that comes from non-canonical materials. My creating a character to play in PFS, your agreeing to work within the defined portions on the game.
Time and time again my players have told me that they don't want players that muddle the waters with unofficial rules or fluff as it breaks the verisimilitude of play.
This is how I feel,
One thing though IMO it is one thing to go against canon unaware because you are not familer with the setting, it is a whole other thing to go against it knowingly, it the latter that bug the hell out of me.
|
|
The most important thing is that which rules are to be obeyed, what is legal and what is not, is clear from the start (ie, when creating the PFS character) for all participants.
In PFS, as opposed to a house game, it has to be clearly defined beforehand in a source easily and freely accessible to both GMs and players, since in many cases (such as convention play), the GM and the player do not have the opportunity beforehand to clarify this.
The PFS Guide covers this. More precisely, it explicitely states what is allowed and what is not. I believe we can also accept the usual legal axiom that anything not explicitely forbidden is implicitely allowed.
Any additional allowance or restriction is going to end up in arguments detracting from everyone's fun.
Cleric of Pharasma animating undead ? Is it explicitely forbidden by the PFS Guide or the references mentioned in it ?
If it is forbidden (thus ensuring that the player had prior knowledge of this rule), then the GM has to enforce the rule.
If it is not specifically forbidden, then it is supposed to be allowed and the GM has zero right to forbid it. Even if it does not conform to his belief of what is Canon in Golarion.
|
|
I believe we can also accept the usual legal axiom that anything not explicitely forbidden is implicitely allowed.
I Have never, and shall never except this concept of if it is not in there then must be allowed, for either PFS or RPGs in general. That opens way to many problems.
Sometimes things are implied, without the rules right out saying, but that is different.
From things I have seen Josh speak of, His greatest interest is making sure everyone has fun, so Though I would love to be able to bring characters that go against Canon, especially those that are purposely done that way, fitting into Canon, I don't think he will give the GM that power.
For now I will just have to be quietly upset about it when it comes up.
Though I still fully feel we should foster in both Players and GMs knowledge of the world we all play in.