|
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?
Sometimes a GM has to be a Jerk, as you call it. If I tell a player to leave the table because he is unwilling to not disrupt the game, and you think that makes me a Jerk or a bad GM, so be it, I am happy because I know the rest of the players will have a better time without that disruptive player. Once again I am not going to let 1 player ruin the game for others, to me that is being a Good GM. A GM needs to be allowed to control that.
*Disruptive player in a broad term, not necessarily what the OP was talking about.
Edit: To me a GM who lets 1 player ruin the game without trying to fix it, being it have a talk or if the last resort having to kick the player, needs to learn to be that person who is willing to kick someone.
|
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?Sometimes a GM has to be a Jerk, as you call it. If I tell a player to leave the table because he is unwilling to not disrupt the game, and you think that makes me a Jerk or a bad GM, so be it, I am happy because I know the rest of the players will have a better time without that disruptive player. Once again I am not going to let 1 player ruin the game for others, to me that is being a Good GM. A GM needs to be allowed to control that.
*Disruptive player in a broad term, not necessarily what the OP was talking about.
Edit: To me a GM who lets 1 player ruin the game without trying to fix it, being it have a talk or if the last resort having to kick the player, needs to learn to be that person who is willing to kick someone.
I can see your point, however, the impression I've gotten from your posts in this thread; is that you'd autmatically dismiss the player from your table without finding out the bones of the character to see if it would truely be disruptive.. based on the experience that you have had in the past.
I don't think anyone has specifically stated that you have to let the player sit at your table, you can be in control -- within the context of where you're at -- however, what if you don't have the option of kicking player off your table and you HAVE to have the player sitting at your table?
|
|
however, what if you don't have the option of kicking player off your table and you HAVE to have the player sitting at your table?
If it was extreme enough, I mean really extreme, and the player really, really pissed me off and they would not let me kick him. I would walk away from the table and never volunteer for that Con again.
|
|
How do I say this. In this particular case, Roleplaying is not an excuse to be a jerk.
How is keeping your faction a secret being a jerk? This is the way we're supposed to play! It just doesn't happen that way in practice, mostly because it's easier to work together.
I also don't have a problem with some being factionless and I can't see why it's a problem, unless they're interfering with someone else's faction mission.
A factionless person (which is the IDEAL Pathfinder btw) should be treated as a character with a faction other than your own. They could help you, but don't expect anything. And they can't interfere with you.
If anything, "factionless" should perhaps be a faction!
I'm just throwing this out there, but I think it would almost be better if factions weren't in Pathfinder Society. I'd rather make a number of challenges for the Pathfinders to complete, as a group, that would determine how successful they are as Pathfinders. I'd rather foster a team spirit and track them on their successes with that, rather than have 10 factions which means 20 mini-missions per scenario.
|
How do I say this. In this particular case, Roleplaying is not an excuse to be a jerk.How is keeping your faction a secret being a jerk? This is the way we're supposed to play! It just doesn't happen that way in practice, mostly because it's easier to work together.
I also don't have a problem with some being factionless and I can't see why it's a problem, unless they're interfering with someone else's faction mission.
A factionless person (which is the IDEAL Pathfinder btw) should be treated as a character with a faction other than your own. They could help you, but don't expect anything. And they can't interfere with you.
So what's the problem?
If anything, "factionless" should perhaps be a faction!
If someone truely wants to be "factionless" they can always play a pregen, they never have a faction.
Nate
NYC
|
|
If someone truely wants to be "factionless" they can always play a pregen, they never have a faction.
Most people don't want to play pregens. But they might want to play a factionless Pathfinder that levels with them. So that's not really a solution.
The entire faction discussion is moot anyway, it's illegal in society play (as of today).
|
|
however, what if you don't have the option of kicking player off your table and you HAVE to have the player sitting at your table?
Also, I am mostly talking in hypothetical’s *is that a word?*, I have never actually kicked a player, but I have had twice had players leave my table, once because I could not let a group add their friend to the table because we reached the 7 cap, and another because a player got pissed at me because I would not agree with him in his interpretation in a rule. Though I have uninvited someone from our in store game locally, but I won't bring up the reason why here.
|
|
How is keeping your faction a secret being a jerk? This is the way we're supposed to play! It just doesn't happen that way in practice, mostly because it's easier to work together.
That is not what I was talking about...you missed that part of the conversation. What I was talking about was someone using the Excuse of keeping their Faction secret so they can use that excuse as a reason to screw up a faction mission for someone in the same faction, that is being a Jerk.
|
|
Also, I am mostly talking in hypothetical’s *is that a word?*, I have never actually kicked a player, but I have had twice had players leave my table, once because I could not let a group add their friend to the table because we reached the 7 cap, and another because a player got pissed at me because I would not agree with him in his interpretation in a rule. Though I have uninvited someone from our in store game locally, but I won't bring up the reason why here.however, what if you don't have the option of kicking player off your table and you HAVE to have the player sitting at your table?
ahhh .. ok .. more bark than bite .. gotcha
*wanders away*
|
|
Don't Be A Jerk applies to everyone, and more so to GMs than to players, if you ask me. People look to GMs and experienced players for guidance.
I choose how to design and play my character. It's my responsibility to not be a jerk. I can control my choices; I can't control the reaction of others. If my choices are reasonable, it doesn't make me a jerk if someone else has unreasonable reactions. What seems to be at question is whether some choices are reasonable.
|
|
What seems to be at question is whether some choices are reasonable.
This is true, and some will have different opinions on certain things. But I am sure we can all agree on certain ones.
I have been lucky, I have not GMed a player who went that far they needed to be kicked, but I have a few times played in games that the GM should have kicked the player, and I personally will not let a player do what happened those times in those games I played if I am GMing. Those GMs let those players walk all over them and those players ruined that game for all the other players at the table, though the GMs tried to reason with the players to control them they refused not to be disruptive and the GMs refused to kick the player.
If it gets that Far that after everything else a player needs to be kicked, the GM should and needs to be allowed to kick that player.
|
|
The orgs have clarified in the past that you must take a faction. (ex. here, posts from both Josh and Mark)
Thanks Shackleton thats exactly what I was looking for.
I've finally found some people locally to play PFRPG with and got curious about organized play. I downloaded all the books and was making a character until I hit the faction area. Personally, I don't like any of the factions but more than that I dont want to be a part of any faction(And the character I was working on wouldn't want to be either).
I stumbled across this thread and well after checking the responses I don't think i will be joining the society simply because of it.
Lifetime loyalty to some group? Just not my (or the fun character idea I had thought up) sense of style or play which seems sad. I think the factions business is limiting.
Azigen,
Even though I have been reading these forums and reading the books since about when the PRPG Core Book came out in 2009, I have not yet made a PFS character. It is for two reasons, not having had a chance to play a PFS game yet and not liking any of the current faction choices. So needless to say, I am looking forward to the five new factions being introduced later this year and I am hoping that one of them will appeal to me more than the current batch. There will also be rules for changing factions introduced with the new factions, so if I find the chance to play before then and make a character with a current faction, I will be able to change it in a few months. You could do the same thing if you want. Also, as has been pointed out in this and other threads, even though your characters must belong to a faction, you do not have to actively participate in what the faction does.
|
|
I've finally found some people locally to play PFRPG with and got curious about organized play. I downloaded all the books and was making a character until I hit the faction area. Personally, I don't like any of the factions but more than that I dont want to be a part of any faction(And the character I was working on wouldn't want to be either).
I stumbled across this thread and well after checking the responses I don't think i will be joining the society simply because of it.
Lifetime loyalty to some group? Just not my (or the fun character idea I had thought up) sense of style or play which seems sad. I think the factions business is limiting.
I think you should try a session or two before dismissing it. The faction play is the favourite part of PFS for many players. And it can be less of a factor in some games than others. Further, there will be 5 new factions introduced this summer which may be more to your taste (and your character's).
And as far "lifetime loyalty to some group"... you are a member of the Pathfinder Society :)
|
|
For those that are hesitant about factions, I was that way with my first character. I still roleplay him as being a little more hesitant on some faction missions. My second character I choose to be more loyal to his faction.
Through playing and allot of reading of source material, factions have really helped me imagine and realize the scope of Golaran.
What really amazed me is how much I have grown to like the Pathfinder Society. I would like to see an AP where the central idea is people working for the Society. Unfortunately there is only so much time to game.
+1 to Paizo for the Inner Sea Guide, while I am at it. It is such a mindnumbingly large book.
|
|
WOW, miss a few days of the boards and civil war breaks out :-)
The key is related to the player's ability to separate character knowledge and not intentionally sabotage any missions. Regardless of what faction you belong to, or not, it is bad form.
IMO, there is no issue with what the OP presents as long as the player is doing it for the right reasons. I would recommend a conversation with the local organizer/venture captain to ensure his/her intentions are neutral. If, after a few gaming sessions, the player is shown to be non-disruptive, then let it go. Otherwise, negative action may be required.
Think I'll create a gunslinging, under-optimized, non-faction participator, and head down to Texas. Beware Dragnmoon, beware ;-)
|
Telling someone they can't play a character concept because it does not fit in the campaign world or is against the rules of the campaign, doesn't make the GM a jerk. The player insisting on such a concept is being intransigent.
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.
I'd like to say that if someone told me my character concept didn't fit the world, but broke no actual rules in either RAW or OP, then that GM IMO is being a jerk if he kicks me. It isn't his right to decide what does and does not fit the world. Last I checked, that's Paizo's job, and they do so by blocking it in OP rules (Intelligent Monkeys RAW can use weapons, OP says no).
The only way a GM isn't being a jerk there IMO is the player IS breaking a written, referenceable, and known rule. Even then, if it's not a balance issue, I'd probably ask them to fix it before their next session and notate their chronicle (essentially a fix-it ticket).
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Telling someone they can't play a character concept because it does not fit in the campaign world or is against the rules of the campaign, doesn't make the GM a jerk. The player insisting on such a concept is being intransigent.
"Because it is against the rules", I quite agree. That's the GM's responsibility.
"Because it does not fit the campaign world", I disagree. People come up with characters that don't fit Golarion all the time, from crazy names that don't fit any of the established race or cultural conventions, to cultured and dignified half-orcs, to female dwarves with beards, to backstories involving Khelbin Blackstaff and Waterdeep, to hints that the PC is actually one of the Decembrivate, incognito.
Feel free to disagree, but I don't think it's any business of the GM to evaluate any errors in the PC's fluff and perhaps deny those players seats at the table. Should the GM counsel the player to the best of the GM's own level of Golarion-lore? Sure. But fluff errors shouldn't keep somebody from playing the scenario.
Smurfs never die!
It seems it still all just boils down to the basic rule of D&D generally, that existed long before PFS came around.
Do Not Be A Jerk. Writing, or not writing, something on your character sheet does not and hasn't ever given you the right to be a jerk to the DM or other players at the table. That this specific conversation is about whether or not someone chooses to align with their own faction is actually irrelevant to the actual issue.
Don't be a jerk. Don't use something on your sheet to be a jerk. Don't create a character who is a jerk.
If you are a jerk you can expect to be removed. This is true in PFS and home games in any and all rules systems.
-S
I can fully see why a character wouldnt want a faction in tersm of flavour, and just wants to do well for the Society.
Be an Indiana Jones type who doesnt yield to any particular political influence
I think you are society first, faction 2nd
The way I look at it is, people in the factions don't get invited to do missions like the ones in the senarios. You pull some kitchen duty instead.Try it this way... if you don't have a faction, than the Society doesn't want you. A person alone is just a nobody... but a faction member, they're a possible link to power and influence that extends far beyond that one individual. And any who think that the Decembervirate do not hold an overriding interest in power are truly naive.I can fully see why a character wouldnt want a faction in tersm of flavour, and just wants to do well for the Society.
Be an Indiana Jones type who doesnt yield to any particular political influence
I think you are society first, faction 2nd
which seems very odd when the faction missions are often at odds with the society mission, and ive been at a fair number of tables where people are way more keen to do the faction mission than the societys mission
When you play in The Pathfinder Society Campaign you take the part of any one of those. In the paneled halls of the Grand Pathfinder Society Lodge your Venture-Captain will give you a briefing on a mission that furthers the aims of the Pathfinder Society. Often that means braving dangers and suffering tribulations in some of the most hostile locations to recover a powerful arcane item or investigate a strange happening.
Always the goals of The Pathfinder Society come first, but you may find the opportunity to further the ambitions of the faction to which you lend your personal support.
Not every member (NPC) of the Pathfinder Society belongs to a Faction, but it just so happens that every PC does.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The background of the Pathfinder Society suggests that very few Pathfinders are actually double-agents for other powers trying to control Absalom, in fact. It's just that, as Enevhar suggests, we keep being put together in the same missions. (Well, us and a few generic 1st, 4th, and 7th-level colleagues.)
It's always felt like the old PARANOIA game to me, where being a member of a secret society is a capital offense, but every PC is a member of such a thing.
The factions are the one thing that turns me off from PFS play. I feel pigeon holed in to being a double-agent or dishonest some how. Why can't I be loyal to the Pathfinder Society? Let me take them as my faction and I'm willing to be limited to only one PA a game.
Can we not take a faction is the question not who is a jerk. Give us an option that we don't have to be a secret agent.
@LazarX
My loyalty to The Pathfinder Society is not the same as the societies loyalty to me.
My PC can choice not to do faction missions but that makes him dishonest in his relation with the faction. If that is not how I want to play my PC then what?
I'm not the first player on this message board who says that factions are a turn off for the system.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
My PC can choice not to do faction missions but that makes him dishonest in his relation with the faction. If that is not how I want to play my PC then what?
I don't think that's how you have to play your character's relation with the faction. It might well be a business relationship: the Sappphire Sage offers me something (faction prestige) in return for a service. I'm free to accept or decline.
Indeed, one of my characters in inimicable to his faction. House Thrune and the Paracountess have kidnapped Gennadi's family, and every time he fulfills one of their damnable missions, he is rewarded by knowing that his family goes one more day with food.
Choosing not to accomplish a faction mission isn't 'dishonest' in those cases.
The setting of the campaign mandates those choices because that's the kind of campaign the Paizo folks choose to run. That choice may turn off a lot of people but allowing non-faction players would turn off a lot more.
I'm not sure it would turn other people off, so much as it would give player characters, strangers before they were all called to order by the venture captain, fewer ways to bond as companions.
|
|
That choice may turn off a lot of people but allowing non-faction players would turn off a lot more.
To anyone who wants to play a PC who is without faction: please, for the love of whatever God I pray to: do it and do it well. Choose one for paperwork reasons, but never ever act on it nor read missions: play your character as you would and enjoy the game.
Take the faction mission and put it aside, never read. Tear it up. Eat it. Just smile and go with it. Then roleplay the heck out of your character and have a good time.
If other players have issues with it, that's their problem, not yours. They are acting selfishly and foolishly.
To any GM/local coordinator who has players who choose to play without factions: if you're not as welcoming and understanding of that play choice as you are every other viable concept, you're probably playing wrong and doing a dis-service to the community.
PFS can accommodate a variety of playstyles...and 'factionless' is a fair choice.
-Pain
|
|
PFS can accommodate a variety of playstyles...and 'factionless' is a fair choice.
I promised myself I would not post in this thread again..
But please make sure you make it sound like this is your opinion..
I disagree with you on this... I do not consider myself a Bad GM coordinator because of that.
|
|
Tear it up.Please don't do this. I hate having to print and cut out replacement hand-outs.
agreed .. as a GM that puts a lot of time, effort and moneies into prepping mods, I personally would take it as a slap in the face if someone destroyed something -- I take the same issues with my maps, books, etc.
There are ways to politely decline doing or taking a faction mission that don't destroy someone else's property and hard work.