|
OK, so here is a event that has occurred with one of my chars. I was playing a rogue. Our party had entered a city that we had been told earlier was a very military based city. The guards roam the streets and any issues or fights with them will lead to more guards coming, and then more guards since they are all over the city. They blow a whistle and then another guard squad comes and blows there alarm whistle. Etc...now we had no silence spells or such so that is not a possible solution to this issue.
Our party was sneaking around and had to make stealth checks to get from point A to point B. We failed and attracted the attention's of a guard patrol. Now we had some rping going on but I was fairly certain that our one char could use diplomacy to get us out of this. But some of the other chars started up and picked a fight with the city guard. (Unknown to me and 2 other players they had a faction mission that involved them killing guards or something along those lines)
So we fight them and these guards are rather tough since they also have a higher lvl commander with them. Our Gm informs us that the next squad will be coming in x amount of turns and the squad after that one will arrive in x-1 amount of turns etc..So we killed the first squad with like 4 rounds to spare. And instead of running they are lifting bodies and trying to do some intricate plot to hide the bodies at the location we will be going to or such. (That was not part of their faction mission it was just some weird stuff they wanted to do)
My char looks at them and goes..umm ok well you can fool around all you want, our job is not to fight guards in a city swarming with them, and im not willing to stay and fight and possibly die cause you are all being dumb. Bye..see you if you live at location B. He then used his rope of climbing, hopped on the roofs and sprinted away leaving the party. Who still did not run, right as they where leaving the second guard group came, saw them with the bodies and just attacked.
Long story short, one of the chars ended up being killed by the guards. He he was angry at me saying things like. Yeah we all got hurt cause someone left his friends to fight the guards. And I informed him, that despite me being his friend when did my char ever let anyone in this party thing they where friends and that he would be willing to die for them.
So thoughts on that?
You did nothing wrong: You didn't attack anyone (let alone without their permission), and it was out-of-combat with plenty of time for the others to wise up.
|
It's not PVP, but I guess your PC didn't "cooperate".
I wouldn’t say that it was a situation in which he didn’t cooperate with the other PC’s. In this situation, it was more that all the other PC’s weren’t being cooperative in an effort to solve the mission the Lodge sent them on. It’s rare that the lone individual is in the right rather than the whole in a situation determining cooperativeness or not. But in this situation, they were clearly being stupid, and thus were not being cooperative.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ultimately, there are an infinite number of possible PC actions in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. That means we can't make an exhaustive list of what is and isn't PVP. It's the reason we have GMs and not a computer running the game. At any given table, the GM can interpret, based on the story, the PCs, and the players' overall level of fun, whether an action constitutes PVP. Since malicious intent can be misinterpreted and certainly not codified, and because some players have different thresholds of what actions they consider to be PVP and ruin their good time, GMs have to make this call; we can't do it across the board for tens of thousands of players.
|
|
Ultimately, there are an infinite number of possible PC actions in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. That means we can't make an exhaustive list of what is and isn't PVP. It's the reason we have GMs and not a computer running the game. At any given table, the GM can interpret, based on the story, the PCs, and the players' overall level of fun, whether an action constitutes PVP. Since malicious intent can be misinterpreted and certainly not codified, and because some players have different thresholds of what actions they consider to be PVP and ruin their good time, GMs have to make this call; we can't do it across the board for tens of thousands of players.
Thanks Mark. If I am reading you correctly, you are saying essentially that each GM has the right to determine how to deal with this situation by the merits of the situation and how they apply to PvP.
Therefore, the GM’s that wish to run their table by making players ask other players if they can include their character in an AoE are correct in doing so.
Conversely, if I choose to let these types of things happen without forcing the act of asking for and granting of permission (of course taking the situation at its merits), then I am also correct in doing so.
|
Ultimately, there are an infinite number of possible PC actions in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. That means we can't make an exhaustive list of what is and isn't PVP. It's the reason we have GMs and not a computer running the game. At any given table, the GM can interpret, based on the story, the PCs, and the players' overall level of fun, whether an action constitutes PVP. Since malicious intent can be misinterpreted and certainly not codified, and because some players have different thresholds of what actions they consider to be PVP and ruin their good time, GMs have to make this call; we can't do it across the board for tens of thousands of players.Thanks Mark. If I am reading you correctly, you are saying essentially that each GM has the right to determine how to deal with this situation by the merits of the situation and how they apply to PvP.
Therefore, the GM’s that wish to run their table by making players ask other players if they can include their character in an AoE are correct in doing so.
Conversely, if I choose to let these types of things happen without forcing the act of asking for and granting of permission (of course taking the situation at its merits), then I am also correct in doing so.
If my character gets fireballed to death over my objections, the GM and the player *will* get reported to paizo for rules violations. If the wizard plans on parking a fireball somewhere and I run into it, thats me landing in don't be a jerk territory. Otherwise...ask first, lest ye get reported.
|
|
If my character gets fireballed to death over my objections, the GM and the player *will* get reported to paizo for rules violations. If the wizard plans on parking a fireball somewhere and I run into it, thats me landing in don't be a jerk territory. Otherwise...ask first, lest ye get reported.
As I said, as the situation merits. Mark has basically given the GM's to the right to make the call on whether it is PvP or not. Report away should this happen, but I doubt it would get you anywhere.
At my table, if it makes good tactical sense, and there aren't otherwise any extenuating or mitigating personality conflicts that I'm aware of, then dropping a fireball will not require your permission.
To clarify, if you are nearly dead and/or a fireball would likely kill your character on average damage, then it would likely not make good tactical sense to drop said fireball to where your character would get hit.
The whole point of this thread that I started, was to basically see if I had the right to rule my table as a GM, based on circumstances present, as I see fit, rather than having to follow a blanket rule of making sure permission is granted or disallowing said action.
Personally, as a player, I probably would not drop the fireball on a PC except in the most extreme circumstances. As a GM, I really don't want to start dictating what players can or cannot do because another player wants to be whiny.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
If my character gets fireballed to death over my objections, the GM and the player *will* get reported to paizo for rules violations. If the wizard plans on parking a fireball somewhere and I run into it, thats me landing in don't be a jerk territory. Otherwise...ask first, lest ye get reported.As I said, as the situation merits. Mark has basically given the GM's to the right to make the call on whether it is PvP or not. Report away should this happen, but I doubt it would get you anywhere.
...snip...
The whole point of this thread that I started, was to basically see if I had the right to rule my table as a GM, based on circumstances present, as I see fit, rather than having to follow a blanket rule of making sure permission is granted or disallowing said action.
Personally, as a player, I probably would not drop the fireball on a PC except in the most extreme circumstances. As a GM, I really don't want to start dictating what players can or cannot do because another player wants to be whiny.
To address the first point, I don't want to give the impression that we won't look into issues people send our way in which they feel the campaign rules have been violated, but adjudicating something like this when not present is near impossible. There are too many Pathfinder Society tables going on all over the world for us to micromanage each GM. Rather than get into "he said, she said" reports of what did and didn't happen at a table, I suggest players and GMs be aware of this rule's subjective nature and all do their best to avoid conflicts altogether.
To the second point, If a player is "being whiny", it's likely an indication that they aren't having fun, and the ultimate duty of all Pathfinder Society GMs is to give the players (and themselves) a good time. Each circumstance may be different, and with certain players, you may want to have situations avoided with a request for permission beforehand. Only you as a GM can make that call when the situation arises.
|
|
At my table, if it makes good tactical sense, and there aren't otherwise any extenuating or mitigating personality conflicts that I'm aware of, then dropping a fireball will not require your permission.
There seems to be great potential for variance.
perhaps all GMs should be making players aware of how they will rule pvp when they sit down, give thwm a chance to leave if they don't like it.certainly less awkward than a player who has always been asked if it is ok for his PC to be fireballed getting up and leaving half way through a session after his character is blasted halfway through.
|
|
At my table, if it makes good tactical sense, and there aren't otherwise any extenuating or mitigating personality conflicts that I'm aware of, then dropping a fireball will not require your permission.There seems to be great potential for variance.
perhaps all GMs should be making players aware of how they will rule pvp when they sit down, give thwm a chance to leave if they don't like it.certainly less awkward than a player who has always been asked if it is ok for his PC to be fireballed getting up and leaving half way through a session after his character is blasted halfway through.
We've had this type of request on other issues (how you'll rule "evil" actions, how you'll rule animal companions, how you'll rule, et. al...)
There is no possible way that a GM can cover all the issues a player may find unsatisfactory before they sit down at your table and then still have time to play the game. Unfortunately a GM cannot make everyone happy all the time. He or she can only do their best. The best way to deal with this, is if you find you don't appreciate that GM, just don't sit at their table again.
For the instance of PvP, I think almost everyone who's ever played at my table since 2003 when I was one of the coordinators for Living Dragonstar til present, in organized play or home games, will agree that I'm fair. I also do my best to err on the side of the players when ambiguous death might happen.
All I want is to reserve the right to make the call as I see fit for the best entertainment of the players in any given circumstance.
I feel that having certain "calls" I have to make, like not allowing someone to do something because they haven't gotten permission from another player, takes away some of my ability to ensure the most fun for everyone that I can.
Having the right to make the calls as I see fit in no way demonstrates my willingness to let stupidity or maliciousness happen.
|
|
All I want is to reserve the right to make the call as I see fit for the best entertainment of the players in any given circumstance.
I feel that having certain "calls" I have to make, like not allowing someone to do something because they haven't gotten permission from another player, takes away some of my ability to ensure the most fun for everyone that I can.
Having the right to make the calls as I see fit in no way demonstrates my willingness to let stupidity or maliciousness happen.
And requesting that your players, I don't know, coordinate, by a simple; "Hey, John, I want to fireball this area, and I noticed that your chatracter is going to be in the area of effect. That okay with you? Or should I move the center of the fire ball over, to exclude you, although that also means that uit will misss these four enemies?" is going to ruin anyone's fun?
More likely to ruin my fun when I get hit by avoidable in-party damage.
|
|
StuffI know exactly the scenario you're talking about and either more guards weren't supposed to come or my GM ran it differently. I guess that's the first problem. From what I understand, it was supposed to be an encounter (you couldn't avoid).
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with what you did. Did they even tell you their plan? Probably not.
It's not PVP, but I guess your PC didn't "cooperate". The question is as a PF, you have to decide when you should "cooperate" and when you should do your own thing if your party is crazy. It's kind of a grey line, especially since you also can't interfere with their business.
Btw, how did they survive with the cascading guard effect and a dead party member?
Interestingly enough, I was one of the other players in that party, and what I saw was not the same as what Ed saw.
Things did not cascade out of control until the party was reduced in size by a party member running away during combat.
And we got away by a strategic withdrawal, where the last party member running away was overwhelmed during the getaway.
That was caused by the last person going away being the lowest level in the party, and having a lower AC than the rest of the party thought he had.
In the same circumstances, my own PC would have survived and managed to get away. Then again, that one of my PCs is one of the ones that that GM doesn't like, because he tends to trivialize some encounters. That encounter actually qualified as trivializable, as well.
|
|
If my character gets fireballed to death over my objections, the GM and the player *will* get reported to Paizo for rules violations. If the wizard plans on parking a fireball somewhere and I run into it, that's me landing in don't be a jerk territory. Otherwise...ask first, lest ye get reported.As I said, as the situation merits. Mark has basically given the GM's to the right to make the call on whether it is PvP or not. Report away should this happen, but I doubt it would get you anywhere.
Which essentially means, if securing permission to attack your buds is NOT required, that (especially) casters are now given free license to murder as many PCs as they think they're able to get away with provided they can invent a good excuse every time (i.e., they have the Stone Face feat as a player).
Leaving it up to the GM? -- If that works such wonders, why bother having a no-PvP clause at all?
As I wrote yesterday:
Here's another interesting scenario: ...Party's facing a very tough battle.<groan> Look; this is just rationalization. I.e., attempting to devise an argumentative scenario in which the given of the scenario is that one PC has to be attacked. -- And for what purpose? Compiling a laundry-list of exceptions to the no-PvP clause?Caster has the opportunity to cast his only fireball, and if he doesn't do it now, it's extremely likely the party will suffer casualties....Situation: a wounded wizard is directly between the fighter (or an archer) and the monsters. The fighter smacks (or archer shoots) the wizard, drops him, 5ft steps into the spot he formerly stood, and wails the tar out of the monsters with the rest of his full-attack + Great Cleaving Finish (or archer Rapid Shots targets now sans cover). Unfortunately, the fighter (or archer) rolled a confirmed x3 crit on the wizard, and the sod goes to -40.
The wizard player looks at the other, and goes "WTF, dude?" and the attacking player shrugs and says, "Well, the odds I wouldn't kill you were no lower than 96% because an ordinary hit was only going to leave you at -3 to -10, and I couldn't think of any other way to effectively protect myself and the rest of the party. -- Besides, I was here last week when you fragged some noob player; and I wasn't looking forward to the same treatment. I'll bet your wizard was just waiting for my, big, brave, stupid fighter to step in and engage those monsters, and if I had a few lousy rolls, your guy would back out and Kablooey the whole room. -- This is what you're going to do, right? Oh, I also couldn't help noticing that the noob player didn't show up this week...I wonder why. Shame, that. He was such a nice guy and having lots of fun right up until you fried him."
I've gamed before with the "coldly logical" player (usually running a caster) who kills his allies (as described by Pickguy in the "such wonders" link above): they always have marvelous excuses because they're such excellent rules-lawyers. In reality they're on a mission to prove how superior they are, and god help anyone whose character interferes in their attempts to demonstrate perfection every round -- allies are just meat-shields for the blaster-caster who can't be troubled to prep Wall or Dim or Summon; there to soak hits and then be blown away in situations which could have been easily handled if the caster hadn't memorized all attack spells. -- Such players are experts at concealing that mentality (well, they seem to be from my observance of how easily their excuses are swallowed).
- - - - - -
I, for one, even if I'm the only one, think the existing clause is already too lenient; and would point to the sheer folly of anyone even supposing a GM is going to be capable of determining "malicious intent" in players he has not met before, with the GM even being in such a situation constituting evidence that the no-PvP clause is already too arbitrary.
Solution? I support replacing every instance of the word "kill" in the no-PvP clause with "attack". I.e., right now, it's hypothetically permissible for me to willfully bash all of my allies to 1hp ....so long as I don't actually "kill" them.
Alternatively, amend the existing rules to permit the other PCs at Pickguy's table to grab that wizard, beat him senseless, then pinch and pawn his junk in order to fund the Raise Dead + restro for their fallen friend.
-- I bet that'd make him think next time, watching that headband being sold for half.
|
|
"Look; this is just rationalization. I.e., attempting to devise an argumentative scenario in which the given of the scenario is that one PC has to be attacked. -- And for what purpose? Compiling a laundry-list of exceptions to the no-PvP clause?"
It isn’t a rationalization to attack the PC, when the PC is not being attacked.
If the PC takes incidental or ancillary damage due to AoE or the negative aspect of a class ability, that’s all it is, incidental or ancillary.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
"Look; this is just rationalization. I.e., attempting to devise an argumentative scenario in which the given of the scenario is that one PC has to be attacked. -- And for what purpose? Compiling a laundry-list of exceptions to the no-PvP clause?"
I'm not sure how that actually answers my question, so perhaps I wasn't clear.
In cases where a player shows reckless disregard for teammates (risking their lives by ignoring their protests against being caught in an AoE, for example), the situation is already covered by the "don't be a jerk" rule.
In cases where a player (or group of players) cause harm to a PC due to poor planning or other simple mistakes (like splitting the party and then panicking after some bad rolls and casting sleep), it's just an honest mistake and isn't really PvP.
My question, then, is this: do you have any remaining concerns about the PvP rules that aren't covered by the above?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Jiggy,
I don't have Mike's breadth of examples, but I can cite one instance, from years back.
A rogue was being run by a young player, who was making dangerous mistakes, usually without consulting the rest of the party. (Think of the kinds of stuff you did the very first session you ever played a role-playing game.)
In the middle of a combat, the rogue dropped one of the bad guys. Rather than move on to the rest of the opponents, the rogue looted the falled guy's body and found a magical scroll, which he then attempted to read. The fellow playing the party's wizard believed that the rogue was in the process of making another of those impetuous mistakes, and was going to inadvertantly make it impossible for the party to achieve its mission. So, he passed a note to the GM; he then cast magic missile but missed the bad guy, accidentally hitting the rogue and dropping him.
That episode has been my touchstone throughout this discussion: the wizard would not have considered himself a jerk; he believed he was stopping another player from making a serious mistake, and was doing so for the good of the party. But it was still PvP.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Jiggy,
I don't have Mike's breadth of examples, but I can cite one instance, from years back.
A rogue was being run by a young player, who was making dangerous mistakes, usually without consulting the rest of the party. (Think of the kinds of stuff you did the very first session you ever played a role-playing game.)
In the middle of a combat, the rogue dropped one of the bad guys. Rather than move on to the rest of the opponents, the rogue looted the falled guy's body and found a magical scroll, which he then attempted to read. The fellow playing the party's wizard believed that the rogue was in the process of making another of those impetuous mistakes, and was going to inadvertantly make it impossible for the party to achieve its mission. So, he passed a note to the GM; he then cast magic missile but missed the bad guy, accidentally hitting the rogue and dropping him.
That episode has been my touchstone throughout this discussion: the wizard would not have considered himself a jerk; he believed he was stopping another player from making a serious mistake, and was doing so for the good of the party. But it was still PvP.
My question was not so much "what else is PvP?" but rather "what other PvP concerns do you have?".
To me, that just seems to defeat the entire purpose of playing the game.So the entire purpose of the game is AoE spells that include your party?
I think that statement is a bit extreme. For the same reason I don't have to let someone stop my game to burn down every orphanage, I don't have to let this go through. But, at the same time, I can allow it. Every situation is different, and taking a table control away does not really strengthen roleplaying as much as it weakens the ability to reign in bullies.
I see where you're coming from, and most people on these boards know I'm no champion of tight GM controls, but at the same time this is not a home game. You see complete strangers with vastly different comfort levels, experience, and playstyles. You not only need to run the game, you need to keep it running by reducing the chance conflict will arise.
The ability to say "no" to an action does not ruin the game. It's no different than the ability to tell someone to get up and leave in the case of extreme disruptive play. It's no different than my ability to say yes to a situation the rules did not anticipate. It's part of being a GM - using your judgment.
The above gm calls all require judgment of the situation at hand. There is no magic formula, and Mark posting one won't improve things. Further, no one is saying all AoE spells are right out; there is no blanket ban.
We're GMs. We can look situation to situation and determine what's right. That's what makes this whole thing better than a simple video game.
Honestly, it's not a tool I would take away, and if you see a GM being overzealous in it's administration, do not play with him and perhaps mention it to the store liaison or your venture captain. Same as you would in a dozen or so other instances of bad GM behavior.
Once again, I fully agree with you.
Removing control from the GM would result in, as my circumstance shows, a weaker level of control on the table. I would argue that dead characters, murdered by PC carelessness, hamper roleplay far more than a GM telling a person, once in a while, that they should find a different action to perform.
|
|
As Mark Moreland has already pointed out enforcement of the pvp rule is left in the hands of an individual DM. I feel this is a good thing.
I am a DM that will ask the players permission before allowing am area of effect spell to be knowingly targeted on them by an ally. The reason why is simple. A lessor metamagic rod of selective spell is cheap at 3k and if AOE is your thing and you do not buy one then you are starting the mod intending to hit your allies.
Also if I think a player might be getting overly pressured or intimidated into agreeing I do not allow the action to happen for PVP.
I haven't decided how I will handle the wild rager. Most likely they won't have fun at my tables again due to the no PVP rule.
Funny story about a mod played back in 3.5 that involves PVP and the ask permission rule. The judge in question was pretty strict about it being a 6 second round and while speech is a free action he didn't allow it out of turn. A player with a crazy high movement rate runs up to scout and draws a ton of attention. He ends up surrounded 2 deep by foes before the end of his next round. As part of his action he yells "FIREBALL ME"
What he forgot is that 2 of the characters were capable of doing this. He failed both saves if I remember right and ended up at about 4 hit points. The good news for him is that all the nearby foes had fallen and he was able to make a fast retreat out of there.
Den
|
|
If the PC takes incidental or ancillary damage due to AoE or the negative aspect of a class ability, that’s all it is, incidental or ancillary
Yes, yes, I know; you've made it abundantly clear by now that you think casters (and Wild Ragers, which is whom you were referring to when writing the euphemistic "negative aspect of a class ability", per that other thread) are granted extra-ordinary license to thwack their pals for any ol' damn reason which isn't accompanied by malicious giggling.
In cases where a player (or group of players) cause harm to a PC due to poor planning or other simple mistakes (like splitting the party and then panicking after some bad rolls and casting sleep), it's just an honest mistake and isn't really PvP.
My question, then, is this: do you have any remaining concerns about the PvP rules that aren't covered by the above?
I am concerned by the concerted attempts to saddle no-PvP to arbitrary "malicious intent" determinations, or any kind of "intent" for that matter, when there are no campaign rule justifications for doing so in the first place.
-- "Intent" appears nowhere in the no-PvP clause:
No Player-versus-Player Combat
The goal of Pathfinder Society Organized Play is to provide an enjoyable experience for as many players as possible. Player-versus player conflict only sours a session....
That's the header and the first two sentences; and there isn't the least hint in it (or sentences following) that class abilities or "I didn't mean it" or "It was necessary" grant license to ignore it.
-- But here we are now, with some posters in the thread strenuously arguing that it's not PvP for a "foolish" player to lob a spell on the party, OR, alternatively, for a "smart" player to lob a spell on the party either. I.e., compare your example with the following one:
So, he passed a note to the GM; he then cast magic missile but missed the bad guy, accidentally hitting the rogue and dropping him.
Why is it always a caster who gets to do this? From Jiggy's and Chris' examples above, a caster is being granted license to end-run no-PvP under the rationale of being either stupid or smart.
I mean, I have tanks who would love to be granted the same special dispensation to take other PCs out of the game whenever I think they're being morons:
"Idiot wizard; you're endangering our lives with your inept selection of mostly AoE attack spells which you recklessly lob after spending two combat rounds getting your buffs off -- so I'm going to punch you in the tummy until you're unconscious and then leave you hanging in the bucket down at the bottom of this well. We'll pick you up on the way out. Gee, I hope a monster doesn't come along while we're away...that would be just terrible. It would weigh on my conscience for hours."
<...GM overrules, leading to protest by Union of Tanks Amalgamated...>
"Face-smashers demand ally-killing equal-opportunity!" <angry drunks beat sword-hilts on bar table in unison> "Casters always doing it to us!"
<...a late arrival joins the inebriated festivities...>
"Hey, everybody; I figured it out -- all we have to do is take a level of barbarian[wild rager]; and then we can do it because being murderously insane will just be a "negative aspect of a class ability"!
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Alright Mike, I'll amend my previous position:
The bit of the Guide you quoted references "conflict" and talks about souring a session. So yeah, if an (actually or perceivedly) innocent mistake would cause a ruckus due to players not being okay with getting blasted, then sure, the GM should intervene.
But doesn't that coincide just fine with what Mark said upthread?
|
|
Alright Mike, I'll amend my previous position:
The bit of the Guide you quoted references "conflict" and talks about souring a session. So yeah, if an (actually or perceivedly) innocent mistake would cause a ruckus due to players not being okay with getting blasted, then sure, the GM should intervene.
But doesn't that coincide just fine with what Mark said upthread?
Jacob, the (very slight) problem is that the no-PvP clause contains, variously, proscriptions against plavery-vs-player "combat", "conflict" and "kill"(ing) -- apparently this ambiguity has led some here to the frankly absurd conclusion that any of them are permitted if you can put up a good BS screen!
It boggles the mind.
This is supposed to be a cooperative campaign.
I am a DM that will ask the players permission before allowing an area of effect spell to be knowingly targeted on them by an ally. The reason why is simple. A lessor metamagic rod of selective spell is cheap at 3k and if AOE is your thing and you do not buy one then you are starting the mod intending to hit your allies.
Also if I think a player might be getting overly pressured or intimidated into agreeing I do not allow the action to happen for PVP.
I haven't decided how I will handle the wild rager. Most likely they won't have fun at my tables again due to the no PVP rule.
Hooray! Sanity!
|
|
Why is debate / complaining still going on after Mark's post? It's pretty clear that this is left up to the GM at your table. Don't like the GM style of some folks who don't agree to your view? Constructively criticism and consider to never play at their table again. Other than that, wake up and realize it's a game.
/Wish there was a way to vote a thread to be locked.
|
|
Jacob, the (very slight) problem is that the no-PvP clause contains, variously, proscriptions against plavery-vs-player "combat", "conflict" and "kill"(ing) -- apparently this ambiguity has led some here to the frankly absurd conclusion that any of them are permitted if you can put up a good BS screen!
It boggles the mind.
Oh please, do you think you could be any more over dramatic?
Nobody is suggesting anyone can do things willy nilly. And I'm pretty savvy to when someone is trying to pull some BS reasoning out of their pocket.
So lets not get so worked up over something that is likely to actually not really be a huge deal in the long run.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Mike, if your main concern is (as it seems to be) that "no PvP" can be undermined by people lying, then I think you need to understand something: that's why lying is bad. It undermines otherwise completely okay systems. That's what lying is for. No system of rules will ever be BS-proof.
|
|
Oh please, do you think you could be any more over dramatic?I could take-20 next time.
Nobody is suggesting anyone can do things willy nilly.
Of course they are -- the entire discussion has been shot through with various arguments that a PC can not only attack but kill another under any number scenarios which do not involve being hostile-controlled (that case being the only explicitly listed exception in the no=PvP text).
Mike, if your main concern is (as it seems to be) that "no PvP" can be undermined by people lying
That is not my concern it all.
If no-PvP is already being circumvented to the point that some are seriously arguing that it is up to GMs to ascertain player motivations before their PCs blow down their allies without their consent -- then it likewise already a given that the campaign has failed to sufficiently educate and enforce its own rules throughout the system.
|
|
Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!