|
In the new reporting system, however, if a player is by herself at a gaming table and lets the faction missions skate on by, she is indeed lowering the percentage of assigned faction missions that get completed, and she is therefore weakening that faction in competition for whatever cool prizes efficient factions win.
Yes, I hope this is addressed in the upcoming guide as the game changes then.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
So let me ask you this, If you knew for a fact the the way a player is playing a PC could or would cause some or all of the players at the table to get pissed/angry/not have fun, you would still let that player play?
Depends on whose problem it is. I know people who get upset when kids play in their party. Of course I'll still seat a kid at my table, because the kid doesn't own that problem. If someone insists that all Andoran agents have to reveal their alleigance and team up to win faction prestige, and that's not Belvedere's schtick, of course I'll seat Belvedere, for exactly the same reason.
|
|
On the GM side; the player would be noted as not helping with the faction mission and receive 0 PA. But that's what he wanted -- oh noes I gave a plyer what they wanted, no PA.I didn't realize that, as a GM, I could do this: pick and choose which members of a faction get prestige awards. I've been giving full prestige awards to all members of a faction, regardless of which member actually succeeds in noticing / killing / disarming / stealing the doobis.
I don't look at it as picking and choosing if the player is ACTIVELY not doing their PA..
Easy, If I feel the PC the player is playing will be disruptive to the fun of other players, in any case, I will tell the player to either play a different PC or leave my table.
Now we know why the Andorans won. They outnumbered the other factions at every table and complained to the DM whenever the others roleplayed a non-Andoran. The DM then told the other faction members to either play an Andoran or leave the table. Such is the foolishness of democracy...
These boards seem to be full of people complaining about other players:
"I didn't like the fact he cast that spell, it spoilt my fun"
"I didn't like his ape using a halberd, it spoilt my fun"
"I didn't like the fact he was optimised, it spoilt my fun"
"I didn't like the fact he wasn't optimised, it spoilt my fun"
"I didn't like his character name, it spoilt my fun"
"I didn't like the fact he was trying to get PA, it spoilt my fun"
"I didn't like the fact he wasn't trying to get PA, it spoilt my fun"
What a bunch of whingers! People play different characters in different ways. So long as no-one is being actively disruptive, or engaging in PvP (and the OP was saying nothing of the sort) then just relax and roleplay any differences you have. Variety is the spice of life.
|
I am at work now so I don't have time to go into detail, I can latter on tonight. But I have seem multiple occasions because a player choose not to do a faction mission others of that faction lost out of the PA.
I know you guys are smart people here, if you guys really thought about it and looked at some Faction missions you can see how this can occur, if I can think of them you guys can to. But like I said above, I would take it at a case by case basis depending on the missions and on whether there are others in the same faction.
|
|
Easy, If I feel the PC the player is playing will be disruptive to the fun of other players, in any case, I will tell the player to either play a different PC or leave my table.
Now we know why the Andorans won. They outnumbered the other factions at every table and complained to the DM whenever the others roleplayed a non-Andoran. The DM then told the other faction members to either play an Andoran or leave the table. Such is the foolishness of democracy...
These boards seem to be full of people complaining about other players:
"I didn't like the fact he cast that spell, it spoilt my fun"
"I didn't like his ape using a halberd, it spoilt my fun"
"I didn't like the fact he was optimised, it spoilt my fun"
"I didn't like the fact he wasn't optimised, it spoilt my fun"
"I didn't like his character name, it spoilt my fun"
"I didn't like the fact he was trying to get PA, it spoilt my fun"
"I didn't like the fact he wasn't trying to get PA, it spoilt my fun"What a bunch of whingers! People play different characters in different ways. So long as no-one is being actively disruptive, or engaging in PvP (and the OP was saying nothing of the sort) then just relax and roleplay any differences you have. Variety is the spice of life.
OMG I LOVE you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*walks away giggeling all over herself*
|
|
I agree with Thea on this one.
First Dragonmoon, how would you know the player (unless you’ve experienced that player at a previous table) is planning to ignore faction missions unless they told you before hand?
Second, if I were the player, I’d refuse to leave your table and ask you to get a ruling from the event coordinator and/or venture captain. I’d actually ask to be seated at a different table, as I would not want to play in a game you were DM’ing.
Heavy handed DM’ing like this is actually terrib le DM’ing. Pure and simple.
|
|
I am at work now so I don't have time to go into detail, I can latter on tonight. But I have seem multiple occasions because a player choose not to do a faction mission others of that faction lost out of the PA.
I know you guys are smart people here, if you guys really thought about it and looked at some Faction missions you can see how this can occur, if I can think of them you guys can to. But like I said above, I would take it at a case by case basis depending on the missions and on whether there are others in the same faction.
Oh absolutely :)
I just ran a mod at the con this weekend that required a Spellcraft check from the Ninja PC. I guess my point it that other PCs do not have the right to receive help on their faction missions. It's great when they do, but it should not be an expectation.
Regardless of your table, faction points are not, and should not, be a guarantee for anyone. Having someone in your faction decide not to help may suck, but it isnt a gamebreaker. You should go into each mod confident that you can do the most for your faction at the best of your ability. You should expect to have to do this on your own.
I wouldn't build this character. As stated above, it really is a spit in the face of a baseline to the campaign. It's like a story I heard from a friend where the gm is running a fantasy based campaign and tells the players to make characters from any D20 system and a player shows up with a Jedi. It's just bad form, and it will become a major issue in Season 3 where faction completion percentages actual have a meaning.
|
|
Allowing 1 player to ruin the fun of other players is Bad DMing..Pure and simple.
Ah geez, Dragnmoon, really?
You're going to animate a second strawgolem in this thread?
I'll wait while you beat it to death with your adamantine keyboard.
Dragnmoon, everyone agrees that:
1) Allowing players to ruin scenarios for other is bad;
2) You shouldn't allow others to ruin faction missions for others.
There! We all agree. Of course, no one was arguing anything different and these things weren't in the original post.
I'm pretty sure you have a bunch of people just watching you animate more strawgolems just so you beat them to death.
Pro tip: Look at these strawgolems carefully, they seem to be solely animated by your own insecurities and need to tell others how to play the game.
-Pain
|
|
stuff
Skill checks are the kind of faction missions that the OP would not make much of a difference, One that require actions other then skill checks are a different story.
as a quick example, the faction mission is to poison someone before he dies, player A refuses to do faction missions Player B and C are of the same faction. Player A in combat with target goes before player B and C but chooses not to do the Posion because he refuses to not do that faction mission and out right kills the guy before player B and C could poison him and B and C lose out of the PA, not it would be one thing if it was all a random thing that another player randomly of a different faction killed the guy but Player A who choose not do do the Faction mission cause those of his same faction to lose out of the PA because of a Choice not just random dice rolls.
I am at work now so I don't have time to go into detail, I can latter on tonight. But I have seem multiple occasions because a player choose not to do a faction mission others of that faction lost out of the PA.
I know you guys are smart people here, if you guys really thought about it and looked at some Faction missions you can see how this can occur, if I can think of them you guys can to. But like I said above, I would take it at a case by case basis depending on the missions and on whether there are others in the same faction.
I can think of the following scenarios:
1) The mod requires all members of a faction to do something or no members of the faction get PA. As a DM I would just ignore the player who said he had no faction for this purpose. I can't remember it ever occurring.
2) The other members of a faction lack a certain skill and must ask other party members for help. Most of the time we chip in and help each other, as personal (in-character) loyalties rank higher than faction loyalties, but maybe that's just the people I play with. Members of a faction cannot assume they will get help from other factions though, whether they enjoy the result or not, so they just have to live with it. If the OP announces he has no faction, then he falls into the 'other faction' camp. Note: the OP may be quite happy to help others get faction points, even if they are (theoretically) the same faction as him, he just doesn't want the points awarded to himself.
3) The player actively undermines other members of his faction to stop points being awarded. If this is the case then I agree he should be asked to stop, his actions retconned, or else be removed from the table. I've never met a player like this, but I've seen some posts about them...
I think the key to this is for the OP to create a character of faction A (because the database requires it) and then never refer to it again. Just tell the GM you follow no faction and don't wish to receive a faction mission. None of the other players will know whether you were their faction or not and so you cannot possibly affect their enjoyment (any more than playing a different faction would).
As a DM I would remind the player what the impact of ignoring PA was, assuming they didn't already know, and then leave it at that. I have to fill in their PA at the end of the game, and I just fill in 0. I can quite see a Chelaxian agent who refuses to follow orders because of his conscience. Or a Taldan for that matter, due to the utter inanity or evilness of some of their missions. I also quite admire people playing hardcore, it reminds me of LG, although I like my soft and fluffy PA personally!
|
|
stuffSkill checks are the kind of faction missions that the OP would not make much of a difference, One that require actions other then skill checks are a different story.
as a quick example, the faction mission is to poison someone before he dies, player A refuses to do faction missions Player B and C are of the same faction. Player A in combat with target goes before player B and C but chooses not to do the Posion because he refuses to not do that faction mission and out right kills the guy before player B and C could poison him and B and C lose out of the PA, not it would be one thing if it was all a random thing that another player randomly of a different faction killed the guy but Player A who choose not do do the Faction mission cause those of his same faction to lose out of the PA because of a Choice not just random dice rolls.
Now there's a good example.
IF that player is purposely doing this, knowing that it will ruin a PA, thats disruptive playing. He should be punished in some way, perhaps by giving him to the Chelaxian faction leader for some 'play' time.
I would give the player a chance to think about what he was doing. If he insisted on continuing, he would either auto-miss or I would boot him. As stated above, it's a purposeful FU, and therefore deserving of our disdain.
A better way to handle this on the PC side is simply not to look at the orders. Would stop this sort of thing from happening purposefully.
stuffSkill checks are the kind of faction missions that the OP would not make much of a difference, One that require actions other then skill checks are a different story.
as a quick example, the faction mission is to poison someone before he dies, player A refuses to do faction missions Player B and C are of the same faction. Player A in combat with target goes before player B and C but chooses not to do the Posion because he refuses to not do that faction mission and out right kills the guy before player B and C could poison him and B and C lose out of the PA, not it would be one thing if it was all a random thing that another player randomly of a different faction killed the guy but Player A who choose not do do the Faction mission cause those of his same faction to lose out of the PA because of a Choice not just random dice rolls.
So long as the player announces he has no faction, and the DM doesn't tell everyone what he is, then the player becomes a member of 'another faction' to all intents and purposes. If the other players want to get the poison in first, then they should be asking the OP to hold back in the same way they would for any other faction member attacking. As the player I would tell the GM "I don't want to see the faction mission" so I could treat requests to hold back like any other in-character request.
|
|
...the faction mission is to poison someone before he dies, player A refuses to do faction missions Player B and C are of the same faction. Player A in combat with target goes before player B and C but chooses not to do the Posion because he refuses to not do that faction mission and out right kills the guy before player B and C could poison him and B and C lose out of the PA, not it would be one thing if it was all a random thing that another player randomly of a different faction killed the guy but Player A who choose not do do the Faction mission cause those of his same faction to lose out of the PA because of a Choice not just random dice rolls.
This is a problem that could have been solved by some basic communication (in or out of character).
Player A, who doesn't care about the faction mission, says "Hey guys, I really don't care about the faction mission or the PA."
Player B & C, who are in the same faction and do care, say "We do care. We've gotta poison this guy. Could you not kill him before we do that?"
At the end of the adventure, the DM simply gives PA to players B & C and not Player A. Everyone wins. Problem solved.
If Player A goes ahead and kills "the guy" knowing that it would spoil Player B & C's chances of getting PA, then Player A is simply a jerk, which is a separate problem entirely.
|
|
This is a problem that could have been solved by some basic communication (in or out of character).
Player A, who doesn't care about the faction mission, says "Hey guys, I really don't care about the faction mission or the PA."
Player B & C, who are in the same faction and do care, say "We do care. We've gotta poison this guy. Could you not kill him before we do that?"
At the end of the adventure, the DM simply gives PA to players B & C and not Player A. Everyone wins. Problem solved.
If Player A goes ahead and kills "the guy" knowing that it would spoil Player B & C's chances of getting PA, then Player A is simply a jerk, which is a separate problem entirely.
If a player was willing to compromise like that I would except that.
|
|
Allowing 1 player to ruin the fun of other players is Bad DMing..Pure and simple.
Heavy handed DM’ing like this is actually terrib le DM’ing. Pure and simple.
First of all, let me apologize. I'm not saying you are a terrible DM. I've never sat at your table, so I have no idea what kind of DM you are. I'm sure you are fine. I happen to dislike heavy handed DM fiat decisions that try to tell me how to roleplay my character.
Now keep in mind, I have chosen a faction for my character, and I try to accomplish the faction missions to the best of my character's abilities.
However, I disagree with you wholeheartedly, that by simply choosing to ignore faction missions, that it makes you a disruptive player.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
As a quick example, let's say the faction mission is to poison a particular merchant. Character A refuses to do faction missions; Characters B and C are of the same faction. Player A engages the merchant in combat before Characters B and C. Character A chooses not to posion the merchant and kills the guy before Characters B and C could poison him. B and C lose out of the PA. Now, it would be one thing if a character of a different faction unknowlingly killed the guy, but Character A choose not do do the faction mission deliberately and caused those of his same faction to lose out of the PA.
Dragonmoon, we've said repeatedly that we understand that someone deliberately sabotaging faction missions, whether for his own faction or others, is engaging in Player vs. Player.
Hey, by the way, would you seat a gal playing a paladin at your table? I ask because she's not going to poison the merchant, either.
As Stormfriend suggests, if the character isn't interested in engaging side-jobs for a faction, then don't even have him pick up the faction missions.
|
|
Dragonmoon, we've said repeatedly that we understand that someone deliberately sabotaging faction missions, whether for his own faction or others, is engaging in Player vs. Player.
Hey, by the way, would you seat a gal playing a paladin at your table? I ask because she's not going to poison the merchant, either.
As Stormfriend suggests, if the character isn't interested in engaging side-jobs for a faction, then don't even have him pick up the faction missions.
The Paladin or Alignment restrictions I see as a different thing and something I see as an issue with Paizo for making missions that don't work well with those restrictions. There is a difference between that and Choosing like the OP.
And it is not really sabotage is it? The OP decides to ignore faction missions in my example that is exactly what he is doing, ignoring his faction mission. If the player is willing to say that he will use Metagaming not to get in the way in the above example I could except that with what Aberrant Templar talked about. But if that person just played on ignoring not thinking about the consequence, then I would have problems.
|
|
Dragonmoon, we've said repeatedly that we understand that someone deliberately sabotaging faction missions, whether for his own faction or others, is engaging in Player vs. Player.
Hey, by the way, would you seat a gal playing a paladin at your table? I ask because she's not going to poison the merchant, either.
As Stormfriend suggests, if the character isn't interested in engaging side-jobs for a faction, then don't even have him pick up the faction missions.
The Paladin or Alignment restrictions I see as a different thing and something I see as an issue with Paizo for making missions that don't work well with those restrictions. There is a difference between that and Choosing like the OP.
And it is not really sabotage is it? The OP decides to ignore faction missions in my example that is exactly what he is doing, ignoring his faction mission. If the player is willing to say that he will use Metagaming not to get in the way in the above example I could except that with what Aberrant Templar talked about. But if that person just played on ignoring not thinking about the consequence, then I would have problems.
In your example, if the player knows the faction missions and choosing to ignore them to the point that he is guaranteeing the failure on the poison attempt. It's sabotage.
He knew killing the guy outright stole FP. He chose to do it anyway.
If he did not know the missions and did it, then it would be no different than any other faction doing it and accidentally losing the FP for them.
.....
It looks to me like you had a very bad experiance at a table. In general, we are all saying the same thing. The main difference is you have chosen a hardline stance on it that is not supported by the spirit of inclusiveness in the game. Not everyone who does this is deserving of your derision. Those that do it in a manner where they know better are.
|
|
Dragonmoon, we've said repeatedly that we understand that someone deliberately sabotaging faction missions, whether for his own faction or others, is engaging in Player vs. Player.
Hey, by the way, would you seat a gal playing a paladin at your table? I ask because she's not going to poison the merchant, either.
As Stormfriend suggests, if the character isn't interested in engaging side-jobs for a faction, then don't even have him pick up the faction missions.
The Paladin or Alignment restrictions I see as a different thing and something I see as an issue with Paizo for making missions that don't work well with those restrictions. There is a difference between that and Choosing like the OP.
And it is not really sabotage is it? The OP decides to ignore faction missions in my example that is exactly what he is doing, ignoring his faction mission. If the player is willing to say that he will use Metagaming not to get in the way in the above example I could except that with what Aberrant Templar talked about. But if that person just played on ignoring not thinking about the consequence, then I would have problems.
Is your example any different than say...
1) Paladin of Taldor who has 3 other Taldorans at the table, who is tasked with poisoning... Does the Paladin let the poisoning happen even while not participating in it? Does the Paladin kill the merchant (cause the merchant needs to die to win the module anyways?) before the poisoning, because he is morally opposed to even just letting it happen?
2) Player A tells you he doesn't want a mission. Is this any different from him being an Andoran who doesn't know that the Taldoran's need to poison the merchant before he dies, and so they just kill him?
I agree, that if a person is just going to try to sabotage missions and be a jerk, then that is wrong. That's an entirely different issue though. That's an issue with the player and his personality problems.
|
|
As the player I would tell the GM "I don't want to see the faction mission" so I could treat requests to hold back like any other in-character request.
For me, that would depend on who else at the table was part of what is technically my faction. If I was the only faction member at the table then I wouldn't bother reading the faction goal. If there was at least one other member seated then I would at the very least read the goal carefully so I can avoid fouling it up for them. Depending on how far out of my way it is, I might even help them achieve it. I'd just decline PA at the end, or take it and not spend it. Whatever.
|
|
Wow, everyone is so worked up over one of the most non-issue threads I've ever read. He doesn't want to do faction missions, so what? Just don't give him a faction mission sheet.
He can possibly kill someone who needs to be killed in a specific way by a faction. Guess what? 4 (or 9) other factions can do exactly what he does and do ruin PA for players. And you know what's better? In the future you're going to want to keep your faction missions like this hidden because there will be incentive for folks to not see you complete your mission (AKA kill the guy before you can poison) if you decide to put it out there in the open.
Besides, most of the time this is going to be a huge non-issue anyway because most PA is gotten from doing some associated skill checks. Big whoop.
Now that this has wandered into the "just don't read the faction missions" area, I need to point out that while the player may not care and not want to read the missions, the character will have been briefed on the details of the missions when they were chosen by their faction before being sent out. Sure, it is the Society that picks the members who go on the primary mission, but your faction knows who you are and will make their goals clear to your character and what they want done while on the Society mission.
|
stuffSkill checks are the kind of faction missions that the OP would not make much of a difference, One that require actions other then skill checks are a different story.
as a quick example, the faction mission is to poison someone before he dies, player A refuses to do faction missions Player B and C are of the same faction. Player A in combat with target goes before player B and C but chooses not to do the Posion because he refuses to not do that faction mission and out right kills the guy before player B and C could poison him and B and C lose out of the PA, not it would be one thing if it was all a random thing that another player randomly of a different faction killed the guy but Player A who choose not do do the Faction mission cause those of his same faction to lose out of the PA because of a Choice not just random dice rolls.
Sense when did player "A" have to tell players "B" and "C" what faction he is in?
|
|
My main character is of the Andoran faction. I have refused to take on a couple of the faction missions. I generally don't accept the assassination missions. While I find those missions compatible with a reading of the faction after I first experienced them, I didn't anticipate them and find them incompatible with the character. I didn't opt to do this. I envisioned my character, the character concept jelled through several adventures and then I found myself with a quandary.
The other area where I have declined to actively pursue my faction missions have been when playing with my daughter when playing a character in the same faction. She's a kid. She doesn't always participate fully. I've done this at times to get her out of her shell. "Ya know, this is the guy we're supposed to talk to...If you want the PA, you need to speak up...." It's a matter of player training as well as parenting.
If I sit down to play a mod with a mixed faction group and my faction mission is one that I don't opt to buy into, it hurts me only. It doesn't hurt the other Andoran members with respect to their ability to succeed at their mission, it is no different than if my character were from one of the other factions. Withholding from participation isn't actively preventing others from achieving their goals.
Were I to actively seek to stop a faction mission, whether my own or that of another faction, that's another story. However, I have yet to play in any session where anyone did anything in opposition to any faction mission.
as a quick example, the faction mission is to poison someone before he dies, player A refuses to do faction missions Player B and C are of the same faction. Player A in combat with target goes before player B and C but chooses not to do the Posion because he refuses to not do that faction mission and out right kills the guy before player B and C could poison him and B and C lose out of the PA, not it would be one thing if it was all a random thing that another player randomly of a different faction killed the guy but Player A who choose not do do the Faction mission cause those of his same faction to lose out of the PA because of a Choice not just random dice rolls.
I don't know if this is a real example or not. This isn't an example of a character failing to act on his mission. This is an example of a character preventing others from achieving their mission. Very different situation. Dragon outlined three types of problems regarding factions. This is type 3, not type 2. The player is intentionally screwing other players.
What I've experienced in not accepting missions has been either 1) I don't randomly attack the bad guy until he shows himself to be a threat or 2) I decline to make a Diplomacy roll or use some other skill; whenever this has come up. The game being what it is, 1) tends to be a matter of role play that quickly resolves to combat anyway. 2) This is no different than if I didn't have the skill, if I were of another faction and wasn't recruited to participate in the matter, wasn't even at the table to start with, etc.
If DragnMoon, or another, wants to provide an example that actually shows how failure to actively participate actually prevents others from achieving a goal, I'll be happy to reconsider my thoughts on this.
|
|
This was posted in the blog thread regarding Andoran supremacy in year 2. (ahem) I thought I saw some content in the current thread about wrecking success percentages, but can't find it now. I'm cross posting it to discuss this aspect of the faction mission discussion.
Up until now, we haven't been looking at more than total prestige, but beginning at the launch of Season 3, a faction won't be able to "win" simply by being the most popular. It may very well be that once we start picking apart success percentages, Andoran falls to the bottom of the stack.
Up until now, success has been total numbers. It's been a popularity contest. So, a character not completing a faction mission, or not accepting PA when a faction mission is completed by the party, has failed to augment the total, but in the same way as if the character never played the adventure.
In the future, failure to complete or accept missions will have a negative effect on the faction's success overall. This becomes a bit more dicey. However, it also means that characters have the ability to influence how their factions are opting to go about tasks. If my PC opts to not assassinate someone just because he's told to do so, maybe next time, they find another way of getting the job done to insure success. If that means other characters of the same faction are less likely to reap the benefit of their efforts due to a lower percentage, I'm fine with that. This is effectively politics within the ranks. It's good for role play. It adds depth to the campaign...maybe to the point of a splintered faction down stream. All (ultimately) good stuff.
As for winning or not winning, there are no penalties for failure to complete faction missions. Just a way for characters to directly interact with the world. The better a given faction does at their mission, the more likely that faction's plans will come to fruition.
Here's the key idea as it relates to the discussion in this thread: Lack of reward/success isn't the same thing as a penalty.
|
|
And that matters because?...In my example he is still being a jerk.
Sense when did player "A" have to tell players "B" and "C" what faction he is in?
It matter if the player doesn't wish to announce what faction he is playing for. He isn't jerkish but someone who trying to live up to the fact they are a pathfinder and just just a tool for some faction.
|
|
And that matters because?...In my example he is still being a jerk.
Sense when did player "A" have to tell players "B" and "C" what faction he is in?
It matter if the player doesn't wish to announce what faction he is playing for. He isn't jerkish but someone who trying to live up to the fact they are a pathfinder and just just a tool for some faction.
How do I say this. In this particular case, Roleplaying is not an excuse to be a jerk.
Edit: Screw that...Roleplaying is never an excuse to be a jerk in any situtation, If you have to make a Jerk to have fun, you should not be playing in a group game.
|
|
In your example that player is being a jerk. My point is that no player is required to reveal his faction other than to the GM. We supposed to keep it secret.
Granted most of us (me included) just don't care enough for that level of secrecy. Some players do. That isn't being a jerk.
In case you forgot from pg 9 of the guide to play under faction secrecy.
Faction Secrecy
The leaders of the Pathfinder Society generally frown
on their members participating in the shadow war for
Absalom, though so long as Pathfinders are completing
their missions and following orders, the leadership
turns a blind eye to the existence of factions within the
Society. Most loyal faction members inside the Society
keep their alliances to themselves, sharing information
only with other members of their own faction. Some,
though, don’t care who knows their loyalty and make
it quite clear who they work for and why they’re in
the Society. The latter are looked down upon and are
derided as careless and brash while the former are
almost completely ignored.
So players can keep to themselves, some with discuss matters within their own faction (most common) and some just don't care who know.
I think the OP has the spirit of the game in mind and what the additional challenge of less equipment. He/She could sit at my table anytime here in Norfolk, Va.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
As the player I would tell the GM "I don't want to see the faction mission" so I could treat requests to hold back like any other in-character request.
That's not a legal request to make. The characters ARE faction members and they will receive thier missions. Saying that you want to play a character with no faction is the same is saying "I want to play a Wookie Jedi Warrior in Golarion".
I can't speak to you about your tables, LazarX, but at my tables, player characters need to do something to find their written faction missions. Typically, they have an area where someone drops them a message, which they check after the VC gives them their Society mission. Most characters do this as a matter of course. But there's nothing to require the PC to retrieve the messages.
If you don't want to play the factions, then you don't belong in this campaign at all and are just going to make problems for those of us who are playing this campaign the way it was built to be played.
That's pretty harsh. And it's not supported in the rules anywhere. Faction missions help you get tailor-made loot, because the Pathfinder Society itself won't sell its members a stupid +2 dagger or potion of bear's endurance. And there are other benefits to having a high TPA and spending CPA. But decideding to be "a Pathfinder, first and foremost" is hardly going to violate the spirit of the campaign.
As someone with a very low TPA character (from GMing a lot during Season 0), I can testify that it's not disruptive at all.
|
|
In your example that player is being a jerk. My point is that no player is required to reveal his faction other than to the GM. We supposed to keep it secret.
Faction secrecy is an option, as you've cited. It is an option for PCs. It is only material for the players if the players don't understand the difference between role-playing and metagaming. Player secrecy adds a level of logistical complexity to the GM's job that isn't necessary.
Players revealing factions does nothing to undermine PC secrecy, and tends to allow more fluid role-play, even if it is by way of preconception and/or stereotypes. Those approaches, certainly, are a minimalist kind of role-play but sometimes in 4 hours (sure, 5, but that's another story), it's better than none.
|
|
I can't speak to you about your tables, LazarX, but at my tables, player characters need to do something to find their written faction missions. Typically, they have an area where someone drops them a message, which they check after the VC gives them their Society mission. Most characters do this as a matter of course. But there's nothing to require the PC to retrieve the messages.
So, if characters don't go to their drop-box, they don't get the mission? PCs are to expect that there is a faction aspect every time they get a Society mission?
I don't see it the same, but appreciate that your approach may encourage a given level of personal investment. "I actively went and found that this mission was given to me, not just something that was dropped in my lap."
I personally treat the faction mission deliver a bit abstractly, but then, I find the concept being implemented in a somewhat abstract fashion too. Doing something to make it more concrete, such as you are doing here, may help add to the sense of immersion.
|
|
That wasn't called for.Pot.... Kettle.... just wondering if ya've met?How do I say this. In this particular case, Roleplaying is not an excuse to be a jerk.
Edit: Screw that...Roleplaying is never an excuse to be a jerk in any situtation, If you have to make a Jerk to have fun, you should not be playing in a group game.
And not accurate, since I always make characters that work with the group.
|
|
And not accurate, since I always make characters that work with the group.That wasn't called for.Pot.... Kettle.... just wondering if ya've met?How do I say this. In this particular case, Roleplaying is not an excuse to be a jerk.
Edit: Screw that...Roleplaying is never an excuse to be a jerk in any situtation, If you have to make a Jerk to have fun, you should not be playing in a group game.
Explain to me the difference then, of being a jerk as as GM and telling someone that they can't play a character concept and being a jerk as a player?
Either way you're playing a role and you're being a jerk.