|
So now this is about scene-stealers and spotlight-hogs, opposed to just Maguses...magi? That class.
No, I was just addressing Rubia's comment.
Personally, I think if someone asked another played to change what they were playing based purely on the 'i dont like the class' clause, Id probably ask them to find a new table.
As I mentioned at the beginning leaving the table would always be my preferred approach. I would only ask someone to change characters if I had to stick around to make the table happen. If the magus can't or won't play something else I would play a pregen.
|
If it was a convention I would go find another table to sit at or game to play. If the table somehow needed me to make it legal I would ask you to play something else or if you're in a situation where the magus is the only character you can play I might consider playing a pregen.
So let me get this straight. At a Con where you have to pay to play (and sometimes pay per game), you would ask the person playing a magus to play a pregen? They are paying money, like you, to sit at a table and get credit - yet you'd ask them if they were willing to receive no credit while you got credit because you have some vendetta against a class? I would ask you to leave my table, regardless of whether I was the GM or another player. That mentality just downright wrong.
This class isn't even out of playtesting and you're all doom and gloom about how it sucks all your fun out of playing PFS. I've seen a mid-level magus at a couple local gamedays and they are hardly worth shaking a stick at. Gunslingers are even worse in the damage category (sure they get to go against TAC if they are close enough, but they don't get to add a ridiculous amount to their damage). They, in no way, compete with the 2h fighters, who are going to town on things and being ridiculous with their DPR.
I don't see why someone will choose not to sit at a table if someone else is playing a particular class. That really just doesn't make a whole lick of sense to me and speaks volumes about the (lack of) maturity of the player. The guys and gals at Paizo have done a remarkable job of giving us powerful, yet balanced classes. And if something is overpowering, you can bet your butts they will errata it or update it entirely in an upcoming work.
Now I can understand not wanting certain classes in a home campaign setting. For example, if you've built your world to never have guns, I can understand not allowing gunslingers. But the world of Golarion is a different setting, and PFS takes place in that magical world.
It is never about the types of characters, but the people behind them that make or break a table.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I have to sit at a table with a player who will quit the game if someone plays a particular class, I'll quit the game.
I know several people that have said that if I don't quit the game when I sit a table with someone who will quit the game if someone plays a particular class, they'll quit the game.
I say to those people: I promise I'll quit the game if you quit the game because I don't quit the game because someone quit the game because of a particular class.
And so on.
(quoting Gallard Stormeye)
So let me get this straight. At a Con where you have to pay to play (and sometimes pay per game), you would ask the person playing a magus to play a pregen?
No, you just failed at reading comprehension.
He said he would ask the other person to consider playing something else (another character),and that HE HIMSELF would play a pre-gen as a last option. ...Not my choice, but don`t butcher his words.
Personally, I don`t have any thematic problems with Magus at all, it`s the same theme as Eldritch Knight after all. Classes like Gunslinger and Alchemist are actually the most problematic ones for me, but I`m much more likely to accept those in a PFS scenario than an ongoing game like an AP or whatever, just because PFS is such a pastiche to begin with.
Since nobody knows the final class abilities of the magus, gunslinger, etc, laying down ultimatums at this point seems silly. Of course, since people potentially face playing with them in their current beta-test state, I can see why people could have a bad attitude about them, and indeed have a personal policiy about playing with those BETA TEST classes.
And personally, I have a very mixed feeling about all of APG / Ultimate Magic / Combat (which we know the least of). Some stuff in there I think is very flavorful, and enabling of certain concepts, etc, and some stuff is just un-necessary, namely certain new Metamagics and even some Fighter Variants, etc. (Archer Fighters sucked so much before they needed an Archetype? REALLY?)
|
|
So let me get this straight. At a Con where you have to pay to play (and sometimes pay per game), you would ask the person playing a magus to play a pregen? They are paying money, like you, to sit at a table and get credit - yet you'd ask them if they were willing to receive no credit while you got credit because you have some vendetta against a class? I would ask you to leave my table, regardless of whether I was the GM or another player. That mentality just downright wrong.
Huh?
If it was a convention I would go find another table to sit at or game to play. If the table somehow needed me to make it legal I would ask you to play something else or if you're in a situation where the magus is the only character you can play I might consider playing a pregen.
|
|
Gallard is getting a bit of flack for being willing to talk about this openly, and some people are twisting his words a bit.
I know Gallard in real life. We've played a few times and talked about organizational matters, gaming culture, and game rules. He's gone out of his way to travel 100 miles or so to help me make a game day happen and try to get it off the ground. He's been an organizer for good sized regional conventions. He's a good player and GM.
Organized play appeals to be people for lots of different reasons. Some players are very open to play with lots of different people and characters and others are more interested in finding play of constantly high quality in however they define quality. While I wouldn't take the same approach that Gallard is expressing, I know where he's coming from. I've had games I have not played in due to the GM. I've had a few occasions in which I've chosen not to play based upon the players for various reasons.
The original poster asked:
What is so wrong with the Magus, that you will refuse to play PFS or play with one at a PFS table?
Gallard has provided some input, which is that he views the class as having overpowered features that can lead to table domination. He's also identified his thoughts that this appeals to certain types of players and that he prefers not to play with such players. Many of the problems that people experience in tables or play groups have to due with difference of opinion about play style. He's avoiding those problems. He's doing so in a manner than largely places the burden on him.
I disagree with asking someone to play another character for the reasons given. I would be offset by that request, were it made by a stranger, and it would negatively influence my participation in the table. It's easy to focus on that one aspect of how he's presented his thoughts on how to resolve the conflict. However, I also have confidence that, having laid out a flowchart of how he'd approach it, he'd also apply the context of the player he might ask that of, and when he'd move directly to his option to play a pregen for the reasons he's stated.
|
|
Well, I know I basically called Gallard Stormeye out onto the carpet for his declaration.
I want to thank him for answering my questions calmly and concisely.
I don’t want this to get into a flaming war over who’s mature and who isn’t. I was just curious as to what was so wrong with the Magus.
I don’t agree with his take or how he’d handle it, but at least he would take the onus on himself to take the hit if he felt it important enough to do so. I can respect a decision when someone wishes to stand by one.
All that being said, what I’ve taken from this conversation is this:
1) With the limited number of overall encounters in a PFS module, the use of daily resources as a limitation to an otherwise very powerful ability is not really all that limiting.
2) Any class can steal the spotlight, crush combat encounters, etc. if optimized.
3) The magus isn’t really the problem, although some see it so.
|
|
I want to thank him for answering my questions calmly and concisely.
I don’t want this to get into a flaming war over who’s mature and who isn’t. I was just curious as to what was so wrong with the Magus.
I don’t agree with his take or how he’d handle it, but at least he would take the onus on himself to take the hit if he felt it important enough to do so. I can respect a decision when someone wishes to stand by one.
Fair enough and thanks.
1) With the limited number of overall encounters in a PFS module, the use of daily resources as a limitation to an otherwise very powerful ability is not really all that limiting.
Yep.
2) Any class can steal the spotlight, crush combat encounters, etc. if optimized.
Some classes do it easier than others but yeah.
3) The magus isn’t really the problem, although some see it so.
See magus-specific stuff I mentioned earlier but otherwise yeah.
|
|
Stuff
Sorry, I was thinking / typing too fast. I should probably slow down some.
Scratch that whole other player playing a pregen business and replace it with asking another player to play a different character. It's still a ridiculous notion to me that you'd ask someone to play something other than a magus. What if it's 7-11 play Tier 10-11 and they don't have another character? If you're worried about them stealing the show, you're going to let them steal the show further by playing a pregen that's potentially 4 levels lower than everyone else?
Or better yet, the level 12 retirement arc you've been getting ready to play at the Con for months and so has someone else. You sit down all ready to play, and another level 12 player happens to be playing a magus. You're going to leave at that point if they don't have another level 12 to play?
I really don't see the sense in it. Something tells me this has more to do with a person you've played with versus the class they were playing.
/BTW I'd really like to see how Broad Study is overpowering. I can't imagine this coming into play where I'd be like "this is so broken." It seems by the time that it becomes useful, your main fighter will be doing at least 2x damage over the magus with much better attacks
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What happens when you sit at a table and someone says they're playing a "front liner" or "tank caster" or some other non-class? I've heard many people describe their PC not by the class levels they possess, but by the role they want to play. "I've a 4th level face" or "I'll be the party's healer" or "I'm your skill monkey." In each of these cases there are a number of classes that could meet that need. I'm not going to tell anyone who they should play with or what criteria they should use for whether or not they get up from the table, but consider that someone may say they're playing an eldritch knight and really have a magus under the hood; without looking at their character sheet, might you not find out until it's too late?
|
|
Scratch that whole other player playing a pregen business and replace it with asking another player to play a different character. It's still a ridiculous notion to me that you'd ask someone to play something other than a magus. What if it's 7-11 play Tier 10-11 and they don't have another character? If you're worried about them stealing the show, you're going to let them steal the show further by playing a pregen that's potentially 4 levels lower than everyone else?
Or better yet, the level 12 retirement arc you've been getting ready to play at the Con for months and so has someone else. You sit down all ready to play, and another level 12 player happens to be playing a magus. You're going to leave at that point if they don't have another level 12 to play?
I really don't see the sense in it. Something tells me this has more to do with a person you've played with versus the class they were playing.
Okay, I'll try spelling this out one more time.
When faced with playing with a magus I'm trying the following:
*Go somewhere else. Play at another table. Play a different module. Play a different game. Take an early lunch. Catch up on sleep.
If the table somehow needs me to make it happen I will try the following.
A) Talk to the magus player. If he/she is a veteran and has a handful of characters, like myself, see if he/she can play a different character for the scenario in question. If he/she cannot or does not want to change characters I will...
B) Play a pregen. Everyone loves Kyra.
/BTW I'd really like to see how Broad Study is overpowering. I can't imagine this coming into play where I'd be like "this is so broken." It seems by the time that it becomes useful, your main fighter will be doing at least 2x damage over the magus with much better attacks
I had a few fairly powerful builds written up with this in mind but I've chosen to not post them. Doing so will not address the OP's topic and I really don't want to be responsible for egging certain people involved in this discussion on.
I will say that overwhelming an encounter isn't always about doing the most damage. Often times 40 damage kills a creature just as well as 100 and the optimized save-or-die wizard does no damage and often ends encounters with a single standard action.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
I just don't get it. One thing I have learned being a local coordinator for PFS is to expand my "comfort zone" of who I'll play games with. I have gamed with people I would have NEVER let into a home game, all because I can't find ANY reason to turn a player away (outside of our host store's Code of Conduct). I have played sat a table with a Rogue with NO ranks in Disable Device in the most trap-eccentric scenario I have seen to date, watched a bard castigate her party members with insults to buff them (using Perform: Oratory), and (thanks to both the Adventurer's Armory and Advanced Player's Guide) created a shield-slinging Captain Andoran, much to the chagrin of my fellow GMs!
I can't see how "walking away" from a table, based on someone's class choice presents anyone in a positive light... or the Pathfinder Society Organized Play system either. It would be offensive to me to have a player say, "I won't play at a table with X because of X!" And I would probably suggest that Organized Play is not for you then. For me, PFS is about both gaming and tolerance!
YMMV!
I'm trying to work out how to play a "Gunslinger Magus Pregen" character for all con events. This way I can be assured the smallest possible tables at every venue and I don't have to play with "Those kind of players".
LOL! I would also politely ask everyone else at the table to play a Gunslinger Magus pregen because every other type of character offends me.
|
Okay, I'll try spelling this out one more time.
When faced with playing with a magus I'm trying the following:
*Go somewhere else. Play at another table. Play a different module. Play a different game. Take an early lunch. Catch up on sleep.
If the table somehow needs me to make it happen I will try the following.
A) Talk to the magus player. If he/she is a veteran and has a handful of characters, like myself, see if he/she can play a different character for the scenario in question. If he/she cannot or does not want to change characters I will...
B) Play a pregen. Everyone loves Kyra.
Make no mistake, I don't think anyone misunderstands what you're saying. I think most everyone here completely understands what you're saying. I think the part that's hard to swallow is how immature and petty this sounds and how it runs contrary to the entire idea of organized convention play. Honestly, it sounds like you're too good to play with "those people."
-Skeld
|
|
I just don't get it. One thing I have learned being a local coordinator for PFS is to expand my "comfort zone" of who I'll play games with. I have gamed with people I would have NEVER let into a home game, all because I can't find ANY reason to turn a player away (outside of our host store's Code of Conduct). I have played sat a table with a Rogue with NO ranks in Disable Device in the most trap-eccentric scenario I have seen to date, watched a bard castigate her party members with insults to buff them (using Perform: Oratory), and (thanks to both the Adventurer's Armory and Advanced Player's Guide) created a shield-slinging Captain Andoran, much to the chagrin of my fellow GMs!
I can't see how "walking away" from a table, based on someone's class choice presents anyone in a positive light... or the Pathfinder Society Organized Play system either. It would be offensive to me to have a player say, "I won't play at a table with X because of X!" And I would probably suggest that Organized Play is not for you then. For me, PFS is about both gaming and tolerance!
YMMV!
This is more akin to my attitude when I go into an organized play environment or a convention (or both simultaneously.)
I get to be discerning with the people I choose to play private home campaigns with.
|
This is a bit of reductio ad absurdum. Guns are beginning to become a part of the fantasy genre, with all the new literature that now contains them. I think we can all name a few books. I'm no expert, but I think this is a relatively recent paradigm shift in the fantasy genre. Whether or not people personally accept that guns are now a part of fantasy, there are going to be young, new players that read The Dark Tower series and want to play a Gunslinger in this awesome new table top RPG they've just heard has become all the rage (PF of course!).
As the genre changes, so does the RPG that is based out of that genre.
To leave the initial conversation on a quick detour, and at the risk of making everyone here feel the bite of time's passing, Todd's comment made me realize - The idea of a fantasy gunslinger is turning 30 next year.
[/sidecomment]
|
|
Make no mistake, I don't think anyone misunderstands what you're saying. I think most everyone here completely understands what you're saying. I think the part that's hard to swallow is how immature and petty this sounds and how it runs contrary to the entire idea of organized convention play. Honestly, it sounds like you're too good to play with "those people."
-Skeld
It is certainly what it sounds like. And it may be exactly that, an elitist attitude.
But it could also simply be that the man knows what he enjoys and refuses to put himself into a situation in which he knows he won't enjoy it.
I can't fault him for doing that.
However, I can fault him for putting others in the way of such an attitude by showing up at a convention or organized play event at all.
At least, however, he seems to be very polite about thumbing his nose.
|
|
To leave the initial conversation on a quick detour, and at the risk of making everyone here feel the bite of time's passing, Todd's comment made me realize - The idea of a fantasy gunslinger is turning 30 next year.
[/sidecomment]
I dunno, I'd go back a bit further than that.
;)
|
|
Make no mistake, I don't think anyone misunderstands what you're saying. I think most everyone here completely understands what you're saying. I think the part that's hard to swallow is how immature and petty this sounds and how it runs contrary to the entire idea of organized convention play. Honestly, it sounds like you're too good to play with "those people."
-Skeld
As much as I disagree with his reasons for leaving the table, I fully agree with his right to do so. When you play, you're giving up a 4-5 hour chunk of your life. Often you're paying money to do so. Why would you stay at the table and be unhappy for those 4 hours, when you could walk away?
|
|
To leave the initial conversation on a quick detour, and at the risk of making everyone here feel the bite of time's passing, Todd's comment made me realize - The idea of a fantasy gunslinger is turning 30 next year.
[/sidecomment]
I dunno, I'd go back a bit further than that.
;)
Well, I will take my young self and consider myself thoroughly berated for my whippersnappery*!
*Whippersnappery - The act of being a whippersnapper
|
|
As much as I disagree with his reasons for leaving the table, I fully agree with his right to do so. When you play, you're giving up a 4-5 hour chunk of your life. Often you're paying money to do so. Why would you stay at the table and be unhappy for those 4 hours, when you could walk away?
I have been following this whole discussion and I quite dislike what I'm reading here.
I sympathize with the reasons given. But leaving the table because (fill in reason here) starts to go down a very slippery slope.
What about the GM? Surely you should give him the same rights. I can't see any valid reason that would give the GM less rights as a player.
How did we end up here and what needs to be done that a GM isn't the next who claims the right to walk?
As soon as that happens we have a problem. And no - I don't think we are anywhere close yet - at least not at real conventions. A lot of discussions here seem much more heated as real life that seems much more welcoming.
Before I started PFS I banned the monk at my table. Since then I learned to overcome my prejudice. I don't like the gunslinger - but the three times one played at my table I actually enjoyed them a lot.
One of them failed his save and went around using his gun as a club. Hilarious.
The same player tried in a second game to blow up the brain cylinder using gunpowder in the Voices of the Void. Great theatrics - hardly a dent due to bad, bad dice rolls. So in the end the fighter with the axe achieved what the gunslinger didn't manage.
The other gunslinger got killed by me in Voices in the Void. Took me 4 rounds to eat up his brain and a player leaving the table talking about an epic death. I nominated him for the Golden Badger (most ridiciolous character death). No - I didn't target him specifically - unfortunately the rest of the group didn't manage to save him in time (and they had LOTS).
Thod
|
|
As much as I disagree with his reasons for leaving the table, I fully agree with his right to do so. When you play, you're giving up a 4-5 hour chunk of your life. Often you're paying money to do so. Why would you stay at the table and be unhappy for those 4 hours, when you could walk away?I have been following this whole discussion and I quite dislike what I'm reading here.
I sympathize with the reasons given. But leaving the table because (fill in reason here) starts to go down a very slippery slope.
What about the GM? Surely you should give him the same rights. I can't see any valid reason that would give the GM less rights as a player.
How did we end up here and what needs to be done that a GM isn't the next who claims the right to walk?
As soon as that happens we have a problem. And no - I don't think we are anywhere close yet - at least not at real conventions. A lot of discussions here seem much more heated as real life that seems much more welcoming.
Before I started PFS I banned the monk at my table. Since then I learned to overcome my prejudice. I don't like the gunslinger - but the three times one played at my table I actually enjoyed them a lot.
** spoiler omitted **
Thod
I understand what you are saying here Thod, but you can't force anyone to play or run either. Letting them walk away is preferable to having a player or gm ruin the game for all.
The important thing is to understand the repercussions of your choice. A GM walking from a table is an issue, especially during a con. There will be a price to play for making that choice. A player doing so, not so much (other than some of the other players thinking he's a jerk).
Everyone has a right to their fun, and trying to force it is asking for a problem. You always have a choice not to play.
I wouldn't make Gallard's choice, but I respect it. The big thing to remember here is that he would make it work if the table required him in order to make. He isn't ditching the table when they really need him.
|
|
As much as I disagree with his reasons for leaving the table, I fully agree with his right to do so. When you play, you're giving up a 4-5 hour chunk of your life. Often you're paying money to do so. Why would you stay at the table and be unhappy for those 4 hours, when you could walk away?Make no mistake, I don't think anyone misunderstands what you're saying. I think most everyone here completely understands what you're saying. I think the part that's hard to swallow is how immature and petty this sounds and how it runs contrary to the entire idea of organized convention play. Honestly, it sounds like you're too good to play with "those people."
-Skeld
Here is my problem with this hypothetical situation (in bold).
If it was a convention I would go find another table to sit at or game to play. If the table somehow needed me to make it legal I would ask you to play something else or if you're in a situation where the magus is the only character you can play I might consider playing a pregen.
If he moves to another table, I don't think anyone would complain. It would fully within his rights. My problem with this, and where I think it gets off the rail, is when he asks another player at the table to play a different character based solely on the fact that the player intends to play a Magus. And what if playing a different character makes the other player unhappy? It's their time and money too, right? Don't they have the same expectation to game and have fun with their character? Afterall, all they did wrong was show up wanting to play a Magus.
-Skeld
|
|
As much as I disagree with his reasons for leaving the table, I fully agree with his right to do so. When you play, you're giving up a 4-5 hour chunk of your life. Often you're paying money to do so. Why would you stay at the table and be unhappy for those 4 hours, when you could walk away?Make no mistake, I don't think anyone misunderstands what you're saying. I think most everyone here completely understands what you're saying. I think the part that's hard to swallow is how immature and petty this sounds and how it runs contrary to the entire idea of organized convention play. Honestly, it sounds like you're too good to play with "those people."
-Skeld
Here is my problem with this hypothetical situation (in bold).
If it was a convention I would go find another table to sit at or game to play. If the table somehow needed me to make it legal I would ask you to play something else or if you're in a situation where the magus is the only character you can play I might consider playing a pregen.If he moves to another table, I don't think anyone would complain. It would fully within his rights. My problem with this, and where I think it gets off the rail, is when he asks another player at the table to play a different character based solely on the fact that the player intends to play a Magus. And what if playing a different character makes the other player unhappy? It's their time and money too, right? Don't they have the same expectation to game and have fun with their character? Afterall, all they did wrong was show up wanting to play a Magus.
-Skeld
Yet he is just asking. I can see it being rude, but just asking isn't ruining it for anyone. I think even he would expect to be told no.
What if?
Well, he already answered that question. He would consider playing a pre-gen HIMSELF.
I don´t know how his purity ethos goes as far as refusing to allow his characters to be sullied by playing in a mod with a Magus/Gunslinger/Alchemist (pre-gens can´t carry the taint with them?), but there you go, that is his answer.
Yeah, I think it would be pretty crazy to ask somebody else to play another character, but he already stated that his ultimate solution DOESN´T impose on anybody else at all, even if he may have acted somewhat presumptive along the way.
Overall, there´s plenty of ways to ´play PFS´ while being more selective, way way way beyond what classes are involved, e.g. players who are all really into RP enactment, etc, that is more flexible than an ongoing campaign with set players, yet is more in-line with specific expectations (vs. a convention atmosphere). I think it´s wierd that Gallard so focuses on a specific class, given that´s the smallest concern of game-play experience in my own experience, but whatever. Yeah, if GMs start being equally selective that makes this dynamic even more intrusive, but so what? People are basically having a problem with Gallard´s approach, since it doesn´t match their own ´open´ approach, but all that is is insisting that Gallard follow their own approach, i.e. the mirror image of Gallard´s exclusivity. So this stuff happens... You have to deal.
I think what´s more interesting is when Maguses/Gunslingers/etc start showing up more as NPCs in adventures... They will be in the game no matter if any PC is one of them or not. HOPEFULLY the Magus is more balanced in it´s final form and that will help alot for concerns like Gallard. And as an NPC is a very different thing than as a PC (I´m more OK with Alchemists as NPCs than as heroic PCs for whatever reason).
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I have threatened to walk away from a table under certain specific circumstances -- someone playing a character not in compliance with PFS guidelines, someone cheating, someone deliberately trying for a TPK with reckless play that we can't stop because of prohibitions against PvP -- so I sympathize with Gallard's position.
And Skeld, if I knew you, and I knew you had multiple choices for characters to play at a table, I might indeed ask something like: "We already have three sorcerers in the party; are you sure you want to play your sorcerer? We could sure use your samauri."
|
|
I have threatened to walk away from a table under certain specific circumstances -- someone playing a character not in compliance with PFS guidelines, someone cheating, someone deliberately trying for a TPK with reckless play that we can't stop because of prohibitions against PvP -- so I sympathize with Gallard's position.
And Skeld, if I knew you, and I knew you had multiple choices for characters to play at a table, I might indeed ask something like: "We already have three sorcerers in the party; are you sure you want to play your sorcerer? We could sure use your samauri."
I think that threatening to walk away from a table when rules are not being followed or cheating is happening or just outrageous jerkishness is happening, is not really what we are discussing here.
If you have blacklisted a player because of such actions in the past, then by all means, take whatever actions you need to to make sure you aren't at the table with that player (by all rights, at least 1 of those reasons should be permanent expulsion from PFS altogether).
If you sit down at a table with a player you don't know, who happens to be playing a class you don't like for whatever reasons you may have (good or bad), and no matter how nice and polite you are about it, to me, makes the person who has the issue the jerk in that moment. It is like they are trying to force others to play certain character types, and I know nobody likes being told how to play the game.
Your example, however, I don't think would apply to this situation either. Saying, "Hey Fred, I know you really wanted to play your Sorcerer, but this table already has 4 of them, and we could really use some beef, could you play your Battle Oracle instead?" is not anywhere close to, "I don't like the Magus, so could you consider playing something else?" "No?" "Ok, I'll just not play this slot then."
Anyone see the difference there?
|
Anyone see the difference there?
I agree with you Andrew. And having being present at a situation like this, it really does create an abrasive, almost resentful environment.
That being said, how is organization being handled prior to gameday? Is the coordinator (aware of these play preferences) able to muster the tables to minimize the odds of having this sort of thing from happening? When we play, we've typically announced who/what we are playing well in advance, so seating a 'balanced' table is much easier. It could give a coordinator a chance to keep Player X from being at a table with Class Y (or Jerk Z), and eliminate the entire discussion we've had so far.
But the whole thing is going to come down to this: Is the person who has the issue addressing it with the right people ahead of time so that we can minimize the possibility of someone wanting to pack up/move tables/leave?
|
|
Anyone see the difference there?
I agree with you Andrew. And having being present at a situation like this, it really does create an abrasive, almost resentful environment.
That being said, how is organization being handled prior to gameday? Is the coordinator (aware of these play preferences) able to muster the tables to minimize the odds of having this sort of thing from happening? When we play, we've typically announced who/what we are playing well in advance, so seating a 'balanced' table is much easier. It could give a coordinator a chance to keep Player X from being at a table with Class Y (or Jerk Z), and eliminate the entire discussion we've had so far.
But the whole thing is going to come down to this: Is the person who has the issue addressing it with the right people ahead of time so that we can minimize the possibility of someone wanting to pack up/move tables/leave?
I can appreciate a game day or convention coordinator who will go to these lengths to make sure everyone is seated at a balanced table with only players or characters they wish to play with.
But I don’t think this should be expected and I don’t think the coordinator should actually spend time on something like this.
What if you are in a fairly new market and most of the players out there only have 1 character. There aren’t a ton of options for the coordinator, and someone wishing to play a particular class should not be made to feel stupid or wrong for picking that class.
|
|
Anyone see the difference there?
I agree with you Andrew. And having being present at a situation like this, it really does create an abrasive, almost resentful environment.
That being said, how is organization being handled prior to gameday? Is the coordinator (aware of these play preferences) able to muster the tables to minimize the odds of having this sort of thing from happening? When we play, we've typically announced who/what we are playing well in advance, so seating a 'balanced' table is much easier. It could give a coordinator a chance to keep Player X from being at a table with Class Y (or Jerk Z), and eliminate the entire discussion we've had so far.
But the whole thing is going to come down to this: Is the person who has the issue addressing it with the right people ahead of time so that we can minimize the possibility of someone wanting to pack up/move tables/leave?
I can appreciate a game day or convention coordinator who will go to these lengths to make sure everyone is seated at a balanced table with only players or characters they wish to play with.
But I don’t think this should be expected and I don’t think the coordinator should actually spend time on something like this.
What if you are in a fairly new market and most of the players out there only have 1 character. There aren’t a ton of options for the coordinator, and someone wishing to play a particular class should not be made to feel stupid or wrong for picking that class.
As Joe to the C's local coordinator, I expect my players to register on Warhorn, which also allows you to select what type of character you will be playing at my game days. With only 2-3 tables worth of players for two slots every game day, I know pretty much everyone and who plays best with whom. Warhorn allows me to build balanced tables and my own knowledge allows me to build tables where everyone should theoretically have fun. Takes an extra hour to do every Game Day morning, but it's worth it (I also am able to cherry pick my own table, muah!).
|
|
You present an interesting view that I hadn't considered.
Our group is fairly established, typically with 2 low level tables, and 1 high level table, depending on what mods are offered. However, given the number of judges in our area, we could certainly accommodate for higher turnout, if necessary.
That being said, it would be nice if all coordinators could be more like Todd Morgan. He definitely goes above what's expected, and it is definitely reflected in how well everyone 'plays well with others'.
|
As much as I disagree with his reasons for leaving the table, I fully agree with his right to do so. When you play, you're giving up a 4-5 hour chunk of your life. Often you're paying money to do so. Why would you stay at the table and be unhappy for those 4 hours, when you could walk away?Make no mistake, I don't think anyone misunderstands what you're saying. I think most everyone here completely understands what you're saying. I think the part that's hard to swallow is how immature and petty this sounds and how it runs contrary to the entire idea of organized convention play. Honestly, it sounds like you're too good to play with "those people."
-Skeld
Then he should just walk away quietly. Telling someone you are leaving because they are playing because they are playing a magus or asking them to play something else is just making spoiling the game for other people. Since Magus players are 'those kind' of players he won't have fun regardless.
At a con there are usually enough player that one player shifting here or there won't likely be a problem. At a game shop night it means Gallard might be going home.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I realize that Gallard opened this discussion by bringing his own view into the forefront, but at this point the whole thread has deteriorated into a debate on whether his play style (meaning his policy of not playing with a magus) is the right one and that's not what these boards are for.
As a result, I'm locking this thread. Feel free to start another about the magus—not about how Gallard or anyone else should or should not behave in relation to them—if you can stay on topic.
Thanks.