RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
This morning was the last slot at GenCon. A nice couple came and sat at my table, where I was running Frostfur Captives. The lady introduced her character as being a 2nd-level halfling cavalier with a pig mount.
I asked her where she had found justification for a Small cavalier having a pig mount, since the APG requires a character to be 4th level before taking a boar. She was flustered and the gentleman besides her said, "It's a pig, but use the stats for a war dog."
I apologized, but I said we don't re-skin creatures in Pathfinder Society play. She can call her mount a pig, if she wants, and her character can think it's a pig, but everyone else will know it's a war dog.
They were notably unhappy. She spent the next several minutes with her iPad, looking through d20pfsrd.com
Then I asked her what tricks the dog knew. She was flustered, and told me that her mount didn't know any tricks; it was her mount.
Shortly theeafter, they made their excuses and left the table and the room. (Given the nature of "Frostfur Captives", I suspect that she would not have had much fun with her new war dog.)
So, a question, and a gripe:
Question: Was there a better way for me to handle things? Granted, time was tight with four other players at the table, and I could have been chattier with them if it'd been just the three of us.
Gripe: Her character was 2nd level. That means that she'd probably played at least 3 sessions with a halfling calavier on a pig mount that did whatever the player wanted. It would have been much easier if her first GM had corrected her choice in mounts and enforced the Animal Handling rules.
|
|
I would probably have asked into the off-game history of her mount. When did she get it, what was the source and taken time to correct the situation there. It would probably have been apparent that she had previosly winged it with the pig.
Then as you point out you could tell her she can first have a pig/boar mount at 4th level and explain to her the general rules for animal companions. I would also let her relocate skill ranks to Handle Animal if necesary.
With time constraints and the con-hazzle going on I understand that you did as you did. You should not blame your self.
|
At a certain point, a player has to have the responsibility to build their character as per the rules. That said, it is what Diego said is accurate.
I'm not certain if I would ask a player them their justification, but I might ask them if they had a boon to allow the special mount. Once I learned that they didn't have the boon, I'd ask them to correct the issue.
Sometimes when people get called on their mistake, there is no recovery for them. I'm sure that you didn't try to embarrass her.
As for your gripe, for all we know, she played that character at home with just her family and honestly we know that private games don't get the scrutiny that public games do. Even still, you brought the error to light and made the correct call.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is an interesting situation with two people showing up, and one player having a halfling cavalier with a small pig mount. I happen to have a different opinion. I have to admit I find the whole idea charming.
I am not a venture captain, I just organize and I GM a weekly game at my local gaming store in southern Vermont/ NH. Last year while I was living in North Carolina, I GMed for Steve Miller in Raliegh, and I have on occasion GMed a game here and there for the NYC pathfinder group where Art Lobell is the Venture captain. I have just earned my second star GMing. Enough about myself.
I would hazard a guess, that the "gentlemen beside her" was probably her boyfriend/husband. I would find this a case where If I were presented with this situation, I would need to balance the benefits of a completely strict interpretation of the rules against the need to be inclusive.
I would first ask myself if the the player is getting any extra benefit from having a pig as a mount. If they are simply using the statistics of a war dog, something readily available, then my answer would be no she isn't getting any extra advantage. The pig is just "fluff".
I would have most likely allowed the couple to play at my table, with a halfling cavalier and her pig. If my mind was working at the moment, I might ask her if she was inspired by Hen Wen of the LLoyd Alexander books "The book of Three", "Black Cauldron" etc. or if she was inspired by the movie Babe.
But then again i realize running a game at a game store is different from running a table at a convention. At a convention you often barely have time to introduce yourselves let alone sign and hand out the chronicle sheets. At a gaming store, you don't necessarily have a set time slot, and you often have the luxury of players who are regulars. With a game run in a game store, if you want your group to grow, you do need to be inviting, and welcoming. I also realize it is much easer to see a situation in hindsight.
So in short, I would have let the couple play with their pig.
|
|
I also would have let it slide. For me, the #1 rule is that my players have fun. As long as the person isn't powergaming/breaking an obvious rule, and is having a great time with her little halfling/pig duo, I say, go for it. For me, this is true regardless of whether or not it is a Society game.
After the game I would have asked her to stay and asked her more about her pig, and warned her that the next GM might not be so flexible as me.
She can call her mount a pig, if she wants, and her character can think it's a pig, but everyone else will know it's a war dog.
This is probably where she got annoyed - this is basically you telling her what her fantasy is. In her mind, it's a pig, it has always been a pig, and by telling her that everyone else is going to know its a dog, you are breaking her fantasy. Another tact would have been to tell the table "Ok, everyone, its a pig. Afterwords we'll look up what the exact rule on skinning is, but for now, let's run with her awesome halfling cavalier pig idea!"
The improv crowd has a important rule about this, which is that you should always run with someone else's idea, to keep the collaborative storytelling running along at full speed. I think the same thing is true for Pathfinder/RPGs in general, provided, of course, that the idea isn't a rule breaker.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Considering the animal change was just in name and appearance, as long the stats are the same than the ones for an "official" creature like a dog, it has no impact on the game, so I don't see any problem with that.
It is just a cosmetic change, reskinning, as you said, Kris.
It could have been a dog, a pig, a miniature horse or an anteater, it doesn't really matter.
It's like a player saying "So my elf has blue hair and only four fingers on each hand, due to her fey heritage".
There should be no reason to refuse that, in Pathfinder Society or in a convention.
On the contrary, it recognizes a little bit of imagination and creativity from the player and allows her to have some fun. That's what the game is supposed to be about.
By ruling this out, it frustrates the player and even causes her to leave. That's too bad.
|
|
I also would have let it slide. For me, the #1 rule is that my players have fun. As long as the person isn't powergaming/breaking an obvious rule, and is having a great time with her little halfling/pig duo, I say, go for it. For me, this is true regardless of whether or not it is a Society game.
After the game I would have asked her to stay and asked her more about her pig, and warned her that the next GM might not be so flexible as me.
I also come down slightly on the just have fun side, however, to Chris' point, it is breaking a pretty obvious rule. Namely:
A Small cavalier can select a pony or wolf, but can also select a boar or a dog if he is at least 4th level. The GM might approve other animals as suitable mounts.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
"It's a dog. Well it's a dog that has short bristly hair, a curly q tail, and likes truffels.
Oh yeah and his bark sounds more like *oink* but it's a dog, honest."
I understand the concern at society play, but I guess, yeah, if it has stats as a dog, then does it really matter?
If I take a wizard with a 'rat' for a familiar and I fluff it as a chihuahua, does it matter? (Yes, insert Chihuahua jokes here. I've grown attached to Rocky.)
|
I agree with Mark and others that its breaking an obvious rule point. I probably would have cautioned her that its breaking a rule and let it slide unless she tried to do something funny with it.
I DM'd Living Greyhawk for a long time and a few times at GenCon. I've also DM'd PFS at GenCon and for cons in our area. At larger cons there tends to be a lot of new players. I think if you come down too "hard" on newer players it detracts from their PFS experience. So unless they continue to break rules, like I mentioned before I'd just let it slide.
Mike
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I've looked for the ruling about re-skinning things on the boards, and --while I enjoyed the trip down memory lane, re-reading old discussions-- I didn't find what I was looking for.
But the issue of re-skinning has come up a couple of times, both with Josh Frost at the helm and more recently. Someone wanted to present himself as an ogrekin, with the stats for a half-orc; another player wanted to re-skin his horse as a rhinoceros. In each case, the rule from the campaign managers was "no go".
--
Here's my personal opinion: it sounds charming to me, too. And I laugh at claims that a world can have gnome samauri and magical flying goats, but certainly can't have a gnome samauri using a flying goat -- or even a mundane goat-- as a mount, because that would be too weird.
But I'm not writing the rules here.
|
This morning was the last slot at GenCon. A nice couple came and sat at my table, where I was running Frostfur Captives. The lady introduced her character as being a 2nd-level halfling cavalier with a pig mount.
If she was at least 2nd level, then she could have easily earned the 150gp it takes to purchase a riding/war dog. Who's to say she didn't obtain the dog that way, as opposed to getting one for free via the cavalier class feature?
|
|
we don't re-skin creatures in Pathfinder Society play.Didn't know that. Citation?
Look for animal companion posts from Josh Frost from about two years back. This was pretty clearly spelled out. Reskinning is not allowed in order to prevent GM confusion of how to adjudicate things.
To me though the whole reskinning issue is pretty minor. Getting angry when asked about tricks is. Players need to understand their characters. Tricks are a huge part of running any animal companion class. It also exemplifies why the rules rely on consistency (back to the point of the reskinning) , because GMs at table 1 may allow X where table 2 may not. Having some kind of standardization makes it easier for everyone.
|
|
I don't see much of a problem with her dog being flavor-fully re-skinned as a pig so long as it was in all ways still a dog underneath. Heck, the Disguise skill could be used in game to actually make a dog look like a pig and so forth. You don't have to pay for the dog as a cavalier after all, though you do have to be 4th level to have one. I'd assume she meant wolf?
Her having no idea what her mount class feature actually works is a bit more of an issue when you've only got so much time for a game at a major convention. It doesn't take that long to actually do a little reading and see what the mount does (it's a type of animal companion (which uses the handle animals rules)) so at least to me there isn't much of an excuse for that.
I dub thee lawful!
As for the question, nothing wrong with reskinning, when it is pure RP related and sounds like a lot of fun and has no powergaming aspect to it. I wouldn't have blinked an eye in allowing it, quite the contrary, might have incorporated the pig into the overall fun of running a scenario.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, here's part of the trick regarding pigs and dogs:
The party assignment deals with goblins, which the party has to deal with diplomatically. The VC giving the mission briefing specifically notes: don't bring any horses or dogs, because the goblins wouldn't suffer such creatures to live."
So, let's say she has a war dog, and we re-skin it as "a pig". Goblins don't hate pigs. (Dance with Squealy Nord) But these goblins would be all over that "pig", trying to kill it. Why? Because it's really a dog.
If they don't try to kill the pig, then there's game mechanics advantages for re-skinning.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Well, here's part of the trick regarding pigs and dogs:
** spoiler omitted **
Ah, there's the rub
Likewise my example of chihuahua-as-familiar-using-rat-statistics would be ignored by the Goblins
|
|
Chris,
Thank you for that example. Situations like those are exactly why there is consistency in the rules. Even if you had ignored the description and just ran it as a dog without notifying her, the player would have been just as upset when you killed her pig-dog and couldn't figure out why.
Players can get very upset when things aren't working their way, especially when it's already been allowed three times. I wish in a convention setting we had more time for vetting, and that all GMs were on top of things as much as you are, but alas that is unlikely to happen anytime soon.
|
|
Chris has pointed out the biggest reason to not allow this re-skin. Although allowing her to ride a wolf wouldn't have been a problem, or checking to see if she purchased the dog (or even the pig) with cash from the previous 3 scenarios the character was on, it doesn't sound like an event at a Con really allows the time to do that, and that she wasn't fully up on the rules for the mount anyway.
Huh. I didn't know that Golarion pigs had the Trip special ability. And a vicious bite attack.
|
Question: Was there a better way for me to handle things? Granted, time was tight with four other players at the table, and I could have been chattier with them if it'd been just the three of us.
Gripe: Her character was 2nd level. That means that she'd probably played at least 3 sessions with a halfling calavier on a pig mount that did whatever the player wanted. It would have been much easier if her first GM had corrected her choice in mounts and enforced the Animal Handling rules.
There is no right or wrong, only opinion. :)
At Gencon, I saw several PC mistakes. Some were corrected by the GMs (like the cleric of Asmodeus that was chanelling positive energy) and many were not (I guess the GMs were too stressed to notice or ask questions?). Lots of rules mistakes as well (especially with letting PCs fire into melee with ranged weapons). Did I mention that almost every player still had the old Heirloom weapon trait?
Even when mistakes were caught, GMs let the PCs continue with the mistake. During 8 slots, there were absolutely no questions asked by any GM, and not even the briefest character check, even when we had time mustering. Public scrutiny? Whatever, I scrutinize 10 times more during home games. I actually wish the GMs paused to ask the odd question sometimes (like why does your 1st level wizard have a +8 attack bonus with a longbow).
Having said that, if I was GMing, I would have let them away with their "re-skinned" war pig. Who cares, it's cosmetic only. It makes no sense to penalize a "fluff" change when even the most basic of character build problems weren't penalized or caught.
|
|
Great idea and topic, I think you did the right thing.
I did not review chronicle sheets at my slots at gencon, but I did catch allot of character mistakes during gameplay like a 2nd level spell with a DC of 20 etc.
Perhaps next year we could have some sort of area to go over characters, and chronicle sheets, clip the badge for proof.
I agree with Jason S. It's not about whether you were right or wrong; Of course you were technically correct. It's about whether being right concerning something so small was worth the cost of slowing the game and ruining the player's fun. Personally... I can't see how it would be.
Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads
|
This GenCon I really did not look over PCs that much for legality, which is sooo unlike me.
This is a system based on the Honor system. If I can't trust the players when they sit down it can make for a hostile environment.
I have GM'ed A LOT over the years and playing many different systems and I know the game mechanics of the Pathfinder / 3.5 system pretty well.
I also pay attention to dice rolls from the players and see if there any inconsistencies. If there is that is when I asked questions.
PC's using Herolab helps reduce math errors. Granted Herolab is not perfect but Herolab mistakes are +/- 1 for most part and isn't game breaking.
I usually allow re-skinning but it can't be an animal on the lists. As pig is on the 4th level list I would have said no.
Good Call Chris IMHO.
|
|
This is a system based on the Honor system. If I can't trust the players when they sit down it can make for a hostile environment.
It's not that people were trying to cheat, it's just they didn't know what they were doing a lot of the time, especially in subtier 1-2. At subtier 4-5, in general people knew what they were doing.
|
|
Great idea and topic, I think you did the right thing.
I did not review chronicle sheets at my slots at gencon, but I did catch allot of character mistakes during gameplay like a 2nd level spell with a DC of 20 etc.
Perhaps next year we could have some sort of area to go over characters, and chronicle sheets, clip the badge for proof.
A 2nd level spell could easily have a DC of 20 if the character in question was, for instance, a Fey Sorcerer with Spell Focus casting a compulsion spell.
On the pig in question--I actually played with that couple at Michael Brock's table of Shades of Ice Part I. I thought the pig was weird, but I knew that I hadn't read Ultimate Magic or Combat 100% of the way through and that pig was introduced in the former, so I just figured they made pig a new level 1 Cavalier mount that was weaker than boar. The player in question used the fact that it was a pig purely for flavor description and roleplaying--in fact, she never tried to attack with her mount, as an example, even though she clearly had enough Ride skill to do it successfully. As for the tricks, she may have assumed that the mount was trained for the general purpose 'for riding'. As far as I saw, she was always mounted on the pig and never asked it to perform any of the other tricks--just moved it around.
She was generally friendly and was fun to have at the table. That said, I understand Chris's concerns, and in the end, the GM is the final arbiter. I think that realistically, had these been players at my table, I wouldn't have asked them about it, but only because the player was quite conservative about it (in other words, if the pig was attacking an unnatural creature or doing other non-basic tricks, I would have asked if it was on the list of tricks). It was unfortunate that it was the last slot, as that can sometimes be a capstone for the whole con.
In Chris's position, I might have let them play with the pig for now but told them that they should change it to any other legal companion after the session, keeping any tricks that she taught it so far, and note as such on the chronicle sheet. Then, if another GM saw this note and she was still playing the pig, you have willful ignoring rather than just not knowing and wanting to play something she thought was cool.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
In Chris's position, I might have let them play with the pig for now but told them that they should change it to any other legal companion after the session, keeping any tricks that she taught it so far, and note as such on the chronicle sheet. Then, if another GM saw this note and she was still playing the pig, you have willful ignoring rather than just not knowing and wanting to play something she thought was cool.
In your experience, Rogue Eidolon, do GMs look through players' chronicles before a session starts?
|
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will put it bluntly. Chris, not only were you wrong but you owe that player an apology. It was also so easily handled.
When you get to the goblins, it turns out these goblins love bacon. They go into a bacon! frenzy and react the same way to the pig the same way they would otherwise react to the dog/horse, with only a slightly different motivation. More importantly, your players are delighted.
As for the reflavoring, it's done all the time and sometime is even REQUIRED. For example, I had a an eight year old boy playing the Cheliax faction and his mother sit down last convention for Murder on the Throaty Mermaid. The Cheliax contact in that module is
I did the same thing with the zombie wolf in Among the Dead, simply because had a better mini for a giant bird. Stats did not change and the gaming was enhanced.
As a player, I have a paladin who is from Minkai, now 9th level, who uses a glaive she calls it a Naginata, and a bastard sword which is a 'katana'. She worships her divine ancestress, Lady Sun, who the 'gai- I mean inhabits of Avistian call Sarenrae.' She is changing from Andoran to Lantern Lodge for season three but gee, I can't change my feats because the rules don't allow that even though there are NOW stats for the Katana and Naginata. Which is a better? Allowing the the retoactive grandfathered in reflavoring (which won't be repeated with a new character) or lecturing me as a player in front of other players or asking me to gimp my character in in the name of accuracy.
Basically, not going along with cosmetic reflavoring is nothing other than bad GMing, period. I cannot be polite about how strongly I feel about this.
That is totally different from a mechanical mistake like a summoner who took reach multiple times. In those cases, the onus is the player to get their character right and if you have to gimp them at the table, too bad.
|
|
In your experience, Rogue Eidolon, do GMs look through players' chronicles before a session starts?In Chris's position, I might have let them play with the pig for now but told them that they should change it to any other legal companion after the session, keeping any tricks that she taught it so far, and note as such on the chronicle sheet. Then, if another GM saw this note and she was still playing the pig, you have willful ignoring rather than just not knowing and wanting to play something she thought was cool.
You're right, of course--they usually do not, and I do recognize that taking this choice in such a situation would possibly mean that the player simply gets away with ignoring the ruling for a good number of more games. On the other hand, explaining the situation, giving the player the chance to deal with it after the last Gencon slot, and then having it written there on the last chronicle might be a strong enough deterrant, even if the next GM wouldn't have checked. I mean, other than the fact that there's now a thread about that board-going GMs might remember, they can probably still get into other PFS games after walking out of Gencon too.
I guess I just like to be optimistic about people, and I would hope the player would be on the up-and-up for later sessions, assuming so unless presented with the incontrovertible proof of a previous GM who wrote such a note on their chronicle. You may be right that there is a greater likelihood that they'll ignore the warning and hope that future GMs don't check, but I guess even if there was a 75% chance of that being the case, I'd rather let 3 players get away with something like this than to sour one honest but confused player to PFS (the fact that she was frantically searching on d20pfsrd I would see as a sign that she really thought she was picking a legal option at the time).
Caveats to the above--First, if you were the GM and I was just another player, I would back you up 100% on your call, no questions asked. You were acting well within your rights as GM, and even moreso, you were executing your duty as a PFS GM in a way that is reasonable and fair, even if it might not be the way I would have done it myself. Second, my leniency would disappear if the player in question was using the inconsistency to powergame. I'm happy to see characters that are optimized and consistent within the rules, but breaking the rules to gain a super-powerful character would merit an instant swap from me.
|
|
In your experience, Rogue Eidolon, do GMs look through players' chronicles before a session starts?
No. In my home game until recently all chronicles have my signature anyhow. At CONs it seems sometimes tough to do ahead. Probably I should.
I do question issues if I feel something is odd. And I did correct at least one player of a major flaw/misinterpretation in the rules after the game.
But apart of one situation these have all been mistakes done through misinterpretation / not knowing the rules. I will have to comb through my group in regard to Heirloom weapons as I know there are a few in circulation and the players are unware of the changes.
Back on topic with the pig. I did GM the Frostfur captives and due to my situation (see my post elsewhere) I was doubly glad to learn not a single character had any animal with him.
I think what really is unfortunate is that in this adventure the proposed fluff/reskinning actually matters a lot. This was a botched roll of a nat 1. The stars just aligned in the worst possible manner.
Could it be done better? With hindsight off course - starting with the player who should know the rules, other GMs who could have corrected it after the game in a less problematic matter (as the reskinning wouldn't have mattered in their game).
Kudos to bringing this up. It shows you feel uncomfortable with the decisions and you gave it a lot of thought.
Players can't ask for much more. You are the GM - you did a decision. Not all decisions can always be done in a way that the players like them. Don't flagelate yourself - move on.
Thod
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I will put it bluntly. Chris, not only were you wrong but you owe that player an apology. It was also so easily handled.
When you get to the goblins, it turns out these goblins love bacon. They go into a bacon! frenzy and react the same way to the pig the same way they would otherwise react to the dog/horse, with only a slightly different motivation. More importantly, your players are delighted.
Kerney, I appreciate your opinion.
I say wryly that I cannot imagine that the player would have been delighted that the goblins would have maniacally attacked and killed her "pig". (Or else forced the PCs to kill the goblins, failing the assignment.)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I will put it bluntly. Chris, not only were you wrong but you owe that player an apology. It was also so easily handled.
When you get to the goblins, it turns out these goblins love bacon. They go into a bacon! frenzy and react the same way to the pig the same way they would otherwise react to the dog/horse, with only a slightly different motivation. More importantly, your players are delighted.
Kerney, I appreciate your opinion.
I say wryly that I cannot imagine that the player would have been delighted that the goblins would have maniacally attacked and killed her "pig". (Or else forced the PCs to kill the goblins, failing the assignment.)
No more than I'd appriciate it if they went after my hypothetical reskinned chihuahua/rat familiar. :-)
Honestly the more I read it, The more I see it's a tough spot. The 'easy' solution would have been (IMHO) to let her know at the beginning that the pigdog (pog?) is going to be treated as a dog in all aspects for the scenarios, since that's the stats it uses. (again, just like how my chihuahua is treated as 'rat' for the scenario, even if he's slightly bigger, cuter, and barks).
Still, I don't envy you.
|
|
I will put it bluntly. Chris, not only were you wrong but you owe that player an apology. It was also so easily handled.
Kerney
I undertand you feel strongly about this. How do you feel about the following:
I will put it bluntly. Not only was the player wrong, but the player owes the GM an apology. It was also so easily handled.
At a table you don't need to walk. Just accept a GM call and talk to the GM afterwards if you disagree. You could have just reskinned your pig for a single session as a wolf - where is the problem.
If you really had been right you would have reverted to the pig. If you where wrong - as it turned out - you should be thankful for a GM to pick it up and correct it for you.
Basically not following the rules or a GM call is nothing else as bad playing, period.
Kerney
Please - before you answer in strong language to my post re-read your message. I could have written the above in a completely different (nonconfrontational) manner. And I think in your post you mention several issues that I agree with.
But in the end - there was an issue on both sides - the GM and the player. Both could have avoided the situation. And it is so much easier afterwards ...
Thod
|
|
I will put it bluntly. Chris, not only were you wrong but you owe that player an apology. It was also so easily handled.
When you get to the goblins, it turns out these goblins love bacon. They go into a bacon! frenzy and react the same way to the pig the same way they would otherwise react to the dog/horse, with only a slightly different motivation. More importantly, your players are delighted.
Kerney, I appreciate your opinion.
I say wryly that I cannot imagine that the player would have been delighted that the goblins would have maniacally attacked and killed her "pig". (Or else forced the PCs to kill the goblins, failing the assignment.)
Have the venture captain mention in the briefing 'Oh by the way, these goblins love bacon, so you might not want to leave your pig outside the sewers' and go with what Mathew said.
If the player asks questions pass them a note to explain. Unless the person is a total pain in the butt (who I admit exist in PFS, but these people don't sound like they were) they'll go along.
Also, after thinking about a bit more I can see that it was a bit more challenging then I first thought. It's just one of my pet peeves is people who object to reskinning because their minds object to going there. I appologise if I came of as too harsh.
|
|
I say wryly that I cannot imagine that the player would have been delighted that the goblins would have maniacally attacked and killed her "pig". (Or else forced the PCs to kill the goblins, failing the assignment.)
I really dont see a difference between that an if she had been using a pony and the goblins going straight for it. Same end result.
I think I would have allowed her to play it, inserted the bit about goblins loving bacon, and made her promise once she hit level 4 she would get aa boar, and stop using a reskinned dog. Maybe make some note of it on her chronicle or something, too.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
As mentioned above, I did have this couple play at my table for Shades of Ice. I spoke to her away from other players and felt comfortable her pig was for flavor purposes. Was it against the rules to allow her to use it as such? Yes. However, since it had little effect on this particular game, and since she was a fairly new player, I advised her to make sure to read the rules after the game was over so she would be more familiar with them. I may have violated a rule but I thought fostering goodwill with a new player when there was going to be no affect on the game was the way to go. I was also able to direct her to the Core Rulebook to hopefully learn more so she could grow as a new player. Had she gone above the intent of roleplaying flavor, I would have addressed it at that time.
I think it is every GMs decision and I would never back-seat drive another GMs ruling. As long as the DM can justify their decision, I will always stand behind them. I guess I relate it to my real life job as a police detective. There are many things I could arrest people for everyday. Sometimes it is better to inform them of their mistake, use it as a learned lesson, and it usually sticks with them longer than if I just slapped handcuffs on them and said good luck.
|
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm officially renaming this thread "The Dumpling Incident"
I am the "he" component of the couple in question. My name is Kevin. My wife's name is Desi. Hi!
First things first. We didn't walk out because of the pig.
Now, here's the deal with the pig (named Dumpling): Although she's slowing coming around to playing RPG's on her own, Desi started playing, and mostly still does play, just to humor her gamer husband. I'm sure you have seen the type before. We mostly only play together at conventions. My wife having fun is /required/ for her to play with me at conventions, and consequently what it takes for me to be able to play PFS at conventions, and so on. This rule trumps every rule in every book and guide Paizo publishes. Period. End of story.
Fluff stuff like a pig as her cavalier's mount is what it takes for my wife to have fun playing RPG's. She was /really/ in love with this particular idea, which was approved by the GM of the first mod she played this character. "Can I have a pig?" "Sure." At the end of the con, while waiting for our turn at the final paint-and-take, I have a video interview with her where she said her highlight for the convention was, "Charge! Snort, snort, snort." You will pry this pig from her character's cold dead hands, is what I'm saying. And I wouldn't want to try. She's so cute when she's having fun and it takes so little to make her happy.
In our home campaign (still Savage Tide actually) there was a magical mishap I used as an opportunity to have her character's skin turn purple. She loves purple. She was delighted. So much so that in the aforementioned paint-and-take she was excited to find a mini to use as her character in our home campaign and plaster it with purple paint. It has zero game impact, but HUGE impact on player satisfaction. It's exactly the kind of tweak a good GM loves to grant.
If you need a RULES justification for accepting it I will refer back to:
I also come down slightly on the just have fun side, however, to Chris' point, it is breaking a pretty obvious rule. Namely:
A Small cavalier can select a pony or wolf, but can also select a boar or a dog if he is at least 4th level. The GM might approve other animals as suitable mounts.
The bold is my emphasis and I interpret as leaving the matter in the hands of the GM's discretion, and as such is not breaking the rules at all. Since the pig is, in terms of game mechanics, less than a wolf or a pony (not to mention much less than a boar), but still suitable for riding in a fantasy environment, especially for a gnome ... this should have been a non-issue, which it hasn't been for any of the five previous GM's who ran with it when Daisy (the gnome) was introduced at the table.
If that still doesn't satisfy you, then as was also pointed out, she could just as easily have bought the pig and trained it. The limitation of which animals can be used are just part of the Mount class feature of the cavalier class, not of the rules as a whole. There's nothing in the rules that says that no character can under no circumstances ride a pig, is there?
If that /still/ doesn't satisfy you, then what's the harm in reskinning, really? We're not playing a tournament game here. It's not competitive. If it has negligible impact on the power level of the character (or, as in this case, where it would actually fix a companion nerfed in the interest of flavor) what is the harm? How does that compare to the impact on player fun? How do you weigh the two? For me the answer is clear. You let the player have their fun.
I only told the GM that it was a pig with dog (I should have said wolf) stats because from the tone he was setting from the outset I could tell he might be a stickler and might need a justification to allow it. It didn't occur to me that he would go so far as to not allow the pig-shaped-dog with a wink and a nod, even given what little I know about the module. A pony or a wolf wouldn't have been any better, and treating the pig as a dog behind the screen would have been fine. A cavalier needs a mount. Period. Any cavalier that shows up to Frostfur Captives is going to have issues. Period. Cavaliers are already difficult to play, are hindered really, in PFS. Why do you have to make it harder still by being such an extreme stickler for the most severe interpretation of the rules? Or, in the case of reskinning, rules that aren't even real rules?
WHY WE LEFT
No, we didn't leave the table because of the pig.
We left, honestly, because we could tell that we were not going to have fun playing at this GM's table. From the moment we sat down we started getting lectures (word used advisedly) about the proper way of filling out the 3x5 cards he provided, asking for every spell we had to be listed on the back of the card for instance. That's where the animal companion's tricks thing came into play: they had to be listed on the card too. It was trained for general purpose, combat (which comes automatically with Mount class feature) and she hadn't given it any bonus tricks because she never used her pig that way. She never used it to attack, defend, or anything, either. She just always used it to charge, and ride. That's it. She's getting better, but doesn't know the rules thoroughly and forcing too much on her makes the game less fun: see the #1 rule above all else from the beginning of this post for more details.
But he gave us a stern talking to about even how our names appeared on the 3x5 card, that if we didn't readily answer to our character names then we were to instead put our real names because he didn't want to have to repeat himself when he called on us.
Not unreasonable requests, if a bit extreme and more than any previous GM in all my experience at gaming has ever required -- but the tone and insistence on every little thing being just so was really off-putting.
We literally had to sit through a half hour of rigorous player training and paperwork before we could get started.
THEN, he was offended that we were looking at our iPads instead of at him. We got done with our paperwork, whispered to each other to make sure we wanted to go on even without the pig (which she was willing to do), and got the /look/ from the GM. I looked him in the eye, said we were ready, and we're listening, go ahead. He just kept giving us the /look/. I eventually glanced up at him again to see why he was quiet and nothing was happing, and he'd just been looking at us and then said, "I"m waiting," and gave a significant look again at our iPads. Mind you, the rest of the players at the table were looking at their character sheets and looking through books. But it was us with our iPads that seemed to be the problem.
THEN, when I again insisted that despite looking at our iPads we really were capable of following what was going on if he would just go ahead and begin, he did begin. It was, and I wish I could say this more gently, a conspicuously drab presentation. A purely mechanical recitation. It was the kind of beginning that makes people look at each other and say, "Oh boy, it's going to be a long day."
The final straw was once we had gotten through the introduction and it was time for us to act, the GM broke the cardinal rule of DM'ing. He directed player action. At first he kept saying, "I strongly advise against that," and "you shouldn't do that," and finally, "you can't do that." We wanted to address the problem of the captive goblins not liking dogs of a dog-sled by tying them up and stuffing them in sacks and put them on the dog sled. We were told in so many words that wasn't going to happen.
I can put up with a lot. Desi was willing to put up with a lot for me. But we thought that we're at this big, wonderful convention, it's the last day, and we don't have to sit and suffer through this if we don't want. So we made up an excuse and left. No hard feelings. It's not necessarily that he isn't a good GM, just not good for us. No harm done, and we had five really great experiences with other GM's at the convention.
It worked out fine for us. We went back to the room and finished packing so we wouldn't have to rush later, went back to the dealer hall for the last bit of our shopping, went and played some D&D Miniatures League (and I won a new mini), went around and took pictures in front of all the big sculptures, and then did paint-and-take. It was a wonderful conclusion to our convention.
A FINAL THOUGHT
I appreciate all the GM's, good and bad, who volunteer to judge games at a convention. Without you we wouldn't be able to play at all, I know that. I know it's not easy dealing with the grab-bag of players at every new table. I have nothing against how this GM runs his games, per se. Maybe he isn't so strict outside the convention environment, either. It's hardly fair to judge a GM on convention play alone. As it was the last slot of a long con, maybe he was just tired. I choose not to apply such judgements to this GM that go further than this one experience.
But just as much as GM's have say over what happens at their tables please realize that players have a say in who they choose to play with. We have a choice when we sit down at a table -- to stay or go. This is a good example. If you don't let my wife have the pig, we can just get up and go, and the next GM will. Daisy the gnome cavalier will go on the Frostfur Captives adventure with her pig Dumpling, eventually, even if I have to GM it.
|
|
I say wryly that I cannot imagine that the player would have been delighted that the goblins would have maniacally attacked and killed her "pig". (Or else forced the PCs to kill the goblins, failing the assignment.)
I know you think that's terrible, but man, that would have been a great roleplaying moment if her pig were torn apart!!!! I bet she would have never forgotten that scenario! lol.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Hey, Kwixson. I've seen you on the boards, and it's nice to get your input here. I'm sorry it's under these circumstances.
There's nothing in the rules that says that no character can under no circumstances ride a pig, is there?
I don't believe so, no. However, mounts (of all sorts, from a class ability or simply purchased) need to be at least one size caegory larger than their riders, so that would make it a wild boar (Medium) instead of a domesticated pig (Small). Which is, unfortunately, not available until 4th level.
We left, honestly, because we could tell that we were not going to have fun playing at this GM's table. From the moment we sat down we started getting lectures (word used advisedly) about the proper way of filling out the 3x5 cards he provided, asking for every spell we had to be listed on the back of the card for instance. That's where the animal companion's tricks thing came into play: they had to be listed on the card too.
Thanks. That's very useful feedback. I apologize for my tone; I can chalk some of it up to having very little voice and straining to be heard, so I ...was...enunciating, but you were taking it the wrong way, and I'm sory that was the case.
And yes, I ask for players to write down the spells they're choosing, and things like tricks for animal companions. If nothing else, I can look those over and imagine how they'll interact with the adventure.
But he gave us a stern talking to about even how our names appeared on the 3x5 card, that if we didn't readily answer to our character names then we were to instead put our real names because he didn't want to have to repeat himself when he called on us.
I apologize for sounding stern.
We literally had to sit through a half hour of rigorous player training and paperwork before we could get started.
Well, I try to make sure that the PFS folks have seated the generic ticket-holders before starting the adventure. By pre-rolling things like initative, I hope to be able to use that wait-time to speed up play once the adventure begins.
THEN, he was offended that we were looking at our iPads instead of at him.
During the Venture-Captain's briefing? You bet, and for that I will happily not apologize. I've had players pull out little gaming consoles, decks of Magic cards, and other incidentals. That's insulting to everyone else at the table. We're there, spending our time, to tell terrific stories together.
It sounds like we got off on the wrong foot. I look forward to another opportunity to play Pathfinder with you.
|
|
KerneyI undertand you feel strongly about this. How do you feel about the following:
I will put it bluntly. Not only was the player wrong, but the player owes the GM an apology. It was also so easily handled.
It is the GM's job to create a comfortable, welcoming playing situation first and formost. If it's playing fast and loose with a reskinned riding dog, something obviously non disruptive, you should deal. I have not gone through the new PFS rules yet, but in the previous edition I do not recall anything about not reskining. Therefore it should be allowed by both players and GM's.
At a table you don't need to walk. Just accept a GM call and talk to the GM afterwards if you disagree. You could have just reskinned your pig for a single session as a wolf - where is the problem.
The GM should not even ask the question. 'The Pig' is using riding dog stats. Therefore, mechanically it's a riding dog. No rules are broken. In game, on roles etc, you should accept the ruling and I agree. But this is a cosmetic detail of the character and in that the GM has no right to touch or disrupt.
And if a GM is obnoxious, it is your right to walk. I have almost walked once. I took my complaints to the coordinator at the store. As a result that person no longer GM's at that location (I wasn't the first to complain about this GM). I also discreetly asked a few people if I could help. I'm pretty sure he has a learning disablity that was making his GMing painful, because I recognised the symptoms from my own (and do things in preperation to make sure they are not a problem).
If you really had been right you would have reverted to the pig. If you where wrong - as it turned out - you should be thankful for a GM to pick it up and correct it for you.
No, you should not be thankful to the GM. He was being obnoxious and nit picky. Mechanically it was a Dog.
I come across players who do minor flavoring all the time, be it the summoner who builds his Velcioraptor eidolon on a quadraped base because it mirrors the light fast creature better than the biped stats, or characters with titles of nobility (which they'll now have to buy) or ninja or samurai rogues and fighters built before the new classes were concieved of.
This is no different and as long as there is no mechanical breakage of the rules, they should relax and not make an issue of it.
BTW, Chis, even though I strongly disagree with your ruling and opinion. I greatly respect how you are handling this online.
All the Best,
Kerney