OK, BUT ONLY IF YOUR CHARACTER AM IN PARTY WITH BARBARIAN.
YOU CAN BE LEVEL 1.
BARBARIAN BE BARBARIAN.
EVERY SCENARIO.
No.
PFS does not use in-game solutions to out-of-game problems.
If a player is cheating, the other players should talk directly to him about it.
Your definition of 'healthy' is nowhere near mine.
+1
If I remember correctly it went:
Cheater: "I rolled a 33."
Me: "Wait you're what level?"
Cheater: "4th."
Me: "And with a 3 on the dice you got a 33 total on your roll? You are +30 on this check at level 4?"
Cheater: "I'm sorry I meant a 13."
Me: "Alright I thought I didn't hear right."
And I was just another player at the table.
|
I understand the basic idea behind no pvp in pathfinder society, it helps keep the piece and avoid chaos. However, to me it promotes an atmosphere of tolerance towards player characters who shall I say "fudge" on rolls ,character sheets, etc. what I mean is in my 30 years of playing D&D we used the pvp to police each other and to weed out the cheaters or "fudgers". Players must be able to call out other players when something doesnt seem right or at face value is way off the power base. Another benefit of the pvp is that it provides a healthy competition amongst players to build the best and most powerful character possible because you have to just to be able to hang with the group. player conflict has been and always will be a healthy part of roleplayn games, especially D&D (a.k.a pathfinder)and I would love to see that part return to pathfinder society. just sayn....
Let me see if I understand the position you are advocating.
1) Rather than addressing any suspected issues of cheating, you would rather have the satisfaction of killing the offender's character.
2) There should be an inherent competition among players to make their characters "the best and most powerful" instead of well-rounded, capable of filling multiple roles, or fitting a concept.
3) Conflict between players is healthy.
I am going to have to strongly disagree with all of those positions (which are just my interpretations of what you wrote). I see roleplaying games as cooperative, not competitive, endeavors. Likewise, I have found that players who believe that disrupting the game to serve their own agenda (by cheating, by "policing" other players) are not people I would ever invite to play in a non-OP setting. As a matter of fact, I try to impress upon potential PFS players that there is no place for bullying other players, causing undue inter-character conflict, or general unpleasantness.
Just to make it more clear, even though the standard term for pvp is "player versus player", in PFS it is really " Player character Versus Player character" that is banned from PFS play. If things that happen are truly player versus player and not character versus character, then that falls under the "don't be a jerk" rule and the GM should step in and deal with it quickly and firmly, yet hopefully fairly.
|
I understand the basic idea behind no pvp in pathfinder society, it helps keep the piece and avoid chaos. However, to me it promotes an atmosphere of tolerance towards player characters who shall I say "fudge" on rolls ,character sheets, etc. what I mean is in my 30 years of playing D&D we used the pvp to police each other and to weed out the cheaters or "fudgers".
It's not your job as a player, to make other players follow the rules. The best idea is to point it out to the GM or coordinator (because they're often too busy to notice), privately (so the guy can get caught).
Players must be able to call out other players when something doesnt seem right or at face value is way off the power base. Another benefit of the pvp is that it provides a healthy competition amongst players to build the best and most powerful character possible because you have to just to be able to hang with the group.
So let me get this straight. You want to kill other PCs, because "something doesnt seem right" or you think they're "way off the power base". So basically, you think they're too powerful and you're killing them because of that.
But then you go on to say that you should make your PC as powerful as possible, to "hang with the group". I'm guessing if your PC isn't powerful enough, those PCs are "weeded out" too?
Wow, this brings me back to my high school days. I think these are all swell ideas and should definitely be implemented. Just like in high school, I can pit my min-maxing skills against 2-3 other PCs while everyone else watches. lol.
And vice versa, if I think someone is stealing my thunder, BAM DEAD! Me and a friend or two will just drop on them. Or someone is using too much Diplomacy, DEAD, that's the end of your boring conversation! :)
We also have benefits like holding back your best spells on the BBG, because you never know when your party will turn on you! Whooohoooo!!!!!! It will make the "end of scenario" wrapups so much more fun then just doing paperwork! Monks will actually have an advantage now, they can outrun the rest of the party at the end of the scenario! lol
(Btw, thanks for taking me back to my backstabbing high school days, I really appreciate that. :) )
and I would love to see that part return to pathfinder society. just sayn....
Ummm, yeah, it's not going to happen. lol.
Monks will actually have an advantage now, they can outrun the rest of the party at the end of the scenario! lol
I fell out of my chair i laughed so hard.
|
Another benefit of the pvp is that it provides a healthy competition amongst players to build the best and most powerful character possible because you have to just to be able to hang with the group.
Pathfinder Society Organized Play is a constantly evolving mega-campaign played by thousands of players and the adventures you experience are shared by players around the world. So, even if I believed you were correct in your theory it simply isn't an attainable goal overall, especially through PVP.
PVP in an organization such as the PFS would just lead to a lot of angry strangers.
I would have to highly disagree that PVP has any real place in PFS, if a conflict in or out of game has devolved to that point the GM has failed his players. IMHO.
|
I was hoping to see 'AoEs damaging party-mates' asked and answered in the thread.
So I'll go off on a tangent and ask it myself.
How does the no PVP rule interact with AoE damage? Must a caster get permission of all players whos pcs will be hit by the fireball/negative energy channel/alchemist's fire in order to make the attack?
Must the caster get a majority or some percentage of yesses if unanimous consent is not required?
Must the caster forgo the attack if a single player is adamant about not being hit?
Does PFS OP allow the GM leeway to allow party-damaging attacks if he believes it is not maliciously intended, even if player(s) do not want to suffer damage to their PC and invoke the 'no PvP' rule? (seems best answer, but imo least likely, given the trend against letting GMs having any leeway..)
|
It's not your job as a player, to make other players follow the rules. The best idea is to point it out to the GM or coordinator (because they're often too busy to notice), privately (so the guy can get caught).
THIS.
PFS, with its faction missions often requiring PCs to slink around secretively, means you have plenty of valid reasons for sending notes to the GM without arousing suspicion.
(The exception, of course, is when the rule they're flouting is about to severely impact your character.)
Not about attacking allies, but falls in the PVP topic, I think: Does using the "Drag" maneuver on an ally to pull the ally away from enemy's reach count as PVP? If not, is that even allowed?
You can use any combat maneuvers on allies, and sometimes they are the best way to deal with a PC without damaging them. It's the intent that determines if it is PvP or simply trying to tactically help the PC.
How does the no PVP rule interact with AoE damage? Must a caster get permission of all players whos pcs will be hit by the fireball/negative energy channel/alchemist's fire in order to make the attack?
The rules don't cover this and it's not considered PvP. If you cast a fireball in the middle of the party and kill half the members, it would fall under the fourth invisible rule "Don't be a dick". If you wish to make a character that does AoE like negative channel, have the courtesy to take the Selective Channel feat or something similar. Remember, the point is to "Cooperate" with your fellow Pathfinders, not just accomplish the goal.
I understand the basic idea behind no pvp in pathfinder society, it helps keep the piece and avoid chaos. However, to me it promotes an atmosphere of tolerance towards player characters who shall I say "fudge" on rolls ,character sheets, etc. what I mean is in my 30 years of playing D&D we used the pvp to police each other and to weed out the cheaters or "fudgers". Players must be able to call out other players when something doesnt seem right or at face value is way off the power base. Another benefit of the pvp is that it provides a healthy competition amongst players to build the best and most powerful character possible because you have to just to be able to hang with the group. player conflict has been and always will be a healthy part of roleplayn games, especially D&D (a.k.a pathfinder)and I would love to see that part return to pathfinder society. just sayn....
I could say a lot of mean things about this, but I sense you (and the players you are used to) play the game for a different reason than me and my players. I doubt you will fit in well in Society play since it is not that competitive or survivalistic. I would recommend a good MMO if you wish to prove your worth by crushing other people. Hopefully I'm wrong and you can adapt to the community atmosphere of the Pathfinder Society, keeping your dominating urges to your home games. But at least I know now to watch my back should I ever find myself at a table with you.
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
I understand the basic idea behind no pvp in pathfinder society, it helps keep the piece and avoid chaos. However, to me it promotes an atmosphere of tolerance towards player characters who shall I say "fudge" on rolls ,character sheets, etc. what I mean is in my 30 years of playing D&D we used the pvp to police each other and to weed out the cheaters or "fudgers". Players must be able to call out other players when something doesnt seem right or at face value is way off the power base. Another benefit of the pvp is that it provides a healthy competition amongst players to build the best and most powerful character possible because you have to just to be able to hang with the group. player conflict has been and always will be a healthy part of roleplayn games, especially D&D (a.k.a pathfinder)and I would love to see that part return to pathfinder society. just sayn....
I can't agree with the idea that players should police each other by holding player characters to account. I don't feel that "thinning the heard" by killing sub optimal PCs has any place in PFS play.
Though while considering the issues I realised that I do feel that in society play PVP can be a little too precious. If a PC is acting like a jerk then some non lethal direct action is not out of order. Recently I had to rein in some behaviour that I felt was totally appropriate to the circumstances but was a technical breach of PVP. Again if a player places an AoE in the wrong spot due to player error or even just because the player feels that it is the lesser of two evils then I believe the dice should be allowed to fall and consequences taken. Usually non legal i.e. criminal behaviour is made up of two parts: the guilty act and the guilty mind. Normally you need both for something to be a crime and for me to breach the PVP rules it has to be a act that harms another PC done with the specific intention of materially harming them.
W
|
|
The point I am making is that if you take away my characters free will to do what he wants, even if its against another character then you diminish my free will and a part of the game that is fun as well as healthy.
And what make your "right" of breaking other player fun more worthy that those player right to have fun?
In your home game you can do whatever you want as people has the option to chose to play with you or not. In organized play you disturb the organization of the game playing your way, so the best for the many outweigh the interest of the single.So it is you in organized play that have the option to chose not to participate. If you decide to sit at a table in organized play you should abide to its rules.
In most cases you are correct! but if that doesnt work or you have a DM that is way too weak in enforcing rules or unwilling to police the players then my definition of "healthy" is the only way players can solve that issue. again, Im not advocating being a jerk, bullying, verbal or physical abuse of any kind. But by allowing character conflict you can eliminate bad behavior because the party will say hey we dont allow BS so straightn up or you die!
No? [raised eyebrow]
How I read it, you are advocating the "right" to be judge, jury and executioner every time you don't like something.
MORE IMPORTANT THING AM THAT THIS NOT WORK FOR CATCH CHEATERS.
THINK ABOUT IT. AM TRYING TO KILL CHEATERS. WITH DICE ROLLS. IN GAME WHERE THEY AM CHEATING.
IF AM CHEATER, AM GOING TO MAKE PERCEPTION CHECK TO SEE COMING, WIN UNITIATIVE, AND ROLL IMMEDIATE CRITICAL ON CHARGE WITH SCYTHE, AM DROPPING CHARACTER IN FIRST PLACE.
AM WHY THEY CALLED CHEATERS. DUH.
AND NOT SAY SOMETHING SILLY LIKE 'BUT IN PVP EVERYONE AM WATCHING DICE ROLLS.' IF THAT AM CASE, WHY NOT WATCH DICE ROLLS OUTSIDE PVP? PROBLEM AM STILL SOLVED, NOT HAVE TO KILL ANYONE OR RUIN KAYFABE FOR ALL.
...IF EVEN INT 7 BARBARIAN ABLE TO PICK OUT FLAWS IN ARGUMENT, AM PROBABLY NEEDING BETTER ARGUMENT. NOT GET BARBARIAN WRONG, BARBARIAN LOVE SQUISHING CASTYS. THING AM, BARBARIAN UNDERSTAND THERE AM TIME AND PLACE FOR THAT, AND INSIDE PFS AM NEITHER.
BARBARIAN POINT OUT DESTRUCITY BETWEEN SAYINGS AND ACTINGS.
Another benefit of the pvp is that it provides a healthy competition amongst players to build the best and most powerful character possible because you have to just to be able to hang with the group.
I dont advocate being a jerk, bully, or physical or verbal abuse.
BARBARIAN POINT OUT THAT KILLING PERSON JUST BECAUSE AM NOT ABLE TO HANG WITH GROUP BECAUSE AM NOT POWERFUL AS REST OF GROUP AM BEING JERK, BULLY, AND VERBALLY ABUSIVE. "BARBARIAN NOT LIKE CHARACTER, AM MURDER CHARACTER FOR BEING CRAPPY." PRETTY SOLID EVIDENCE OF ISSUE.
BARBARIAN MURDER CASTYS ALL TIME JUST FOR BEING CASTY. AM THAT MAKE BARBARIAN BULLY?
YES, BUT ONLY IF CASTY AM ALSO PC. AM OK THOUGH, BARBARIAN WILLING TO ADMIT BARBARIAN AM HATE-RIDDEN RAGE GUY. AM NOT ABLE TO HAVE BOTH WAYS. MUCH APOLOGIES, BUT GUYFACE MCFACEHAVER AM NOT THINKING POSITION THROUGH.
AM MORE EVIDENCE OF THINKING NOT-THINKING DESTRUCITY.
Im not quiet following your assessment, "it doesnt make it right" make what right? If you as a player doesnt want one or more players in a game to cheat or totally destroy party and game chemistry by being unrully and your character takes action, in game,to resolve the matter how is that wrong? Yes, you could choose not to play in that group again, which is what I would probably do. However, you guys seem to be defending the concept that other players are immune to being policed just because we should all hold hands and sing camp fire songs, LOL. Im am far from being a "Bully" in fact I always go above and beyond to make all players feel welcome and fully support the game concept of party unity makes for a much better campaign. However, if your definition of being a "Bully" is trying to maintain game balance by not allowing other players and their characters to get out of hand, whether in game or out, then yes I am a "Bully".
The reason PFS Gms are called Judges is because they are expected to mediate and maintain standards at the table. The problems you are talking about are in the realm of Judge power, not Player power. A properly trained PFS Judge would not allow such things at their table. The player would be asked to leave, and would eventually be banned from PFS entirely. The problem takes care of itself, and you can focus on making a roleplay focused character, rather than having to make an optimized PVP build.
Basically, it sounds like you're afraid of problems going unchecked. What you need to do is find a GM with a solid backbone, and a healthy understanding of the rules. You should find that your problems disappear.
Im sorry you feel that being able to have total free will in a RPG is a wierd concept but we will just have to agree to disagree in a calm and dignified way.
I see the point you're trying to make, but allowing everyone to have total free will, without restrictions does not work in an organized setting. The problem is simply by definition. Unrestricted behavior, not governed by any preconceived notions of civility, and without respect to law, is actually called anarchy. Anarchy does not work in an organized setting. Basically, what you're describing would actually create more instances of bullying. In turn, people would leave PFS in droves, because their roleplay focused characters are now simply walking targets for PVP min-maxed builds who feel like getting their way.
Faction missions could potentially fall by the wayside, since different factions disagree on missions. Silver Crusade doesn't like the Andoran mission? Silver Crusade barbarian one-shots the Andoran Sorcerer. The only option for the Andoran is to be so secretive that the Silver Crusade person doesn't even realize the Sorcerer is doing a faction mission.
This also opens up the door for all sorts of metagaming. Don't like how the player is acting OOC? Surprise greatsword to the head will take care of that. Don't like that the Szarni character is doing a faction mission, even if your character isn't there? You attack him when he gets back, because he was performing an evil action and you don't like that sort of player.
We have so many different people at the table. Some basic restrictions are a good thing. And, unfortunately, and I mean no disrespect to you, the same arguments you've made for being allowed to PVP are the same arguments I hear from anarchists IRL who say that they should be allowed to use vigilante justice to correct what they feel are problems. It all amounts to a lot of chaos, paranoia, and hurt feelings.
I understand where you're coming from, friend, but it looks like your feelings are different than the feelings of the people running PFS.
|
I agee you should be able to talk directly to another player and call him out if he is cheating or being difficult within the game Thats my whole argument!
Not from what I'm reading. You think a player should be allowed to take action against another player. This is wrong.
You're not allowed to beat a coworker with a tire iron just because you see him stealing pens or not pulling his weight. You go to a supervisor. And if that supervisor does nothing, you go to his supervisor.
In the same way, you go to the DM about the player. And if the DM does nothing then you go to the next higher coordinator in the chain, probably the local venture captain or whatever. If you're playing in a home PFS game, and the DM is unwilling to boot the player, your only option is to leave.
You do not have agency over your fellow players.
|
|
You cant attack other player characters, you cant steal (i.e. rogue)from other player characters just examples of too much control by game designers.
Yes... Brock and Moreland are definitely exerting too much control over us. Those crazy game designers, who do you they think they are, gods? Free will or death! We should definitely be able to steal from our fellow PCs!
For example, say I didn't get the maximum amount of gold for a session, BAM. It's time to take some gold from the weakest PC. That weak PC wasn't min-maxed, so it's not like he was going to make it to level 12 anyway. Maybe you should have contributed more to the party next time snow flake! :)
The point I am making is that if you take away my characters free will to do what he wants, even if its against another character then you diminish my free will and a part of the game that is fun as well as healthy.
QTF.
100% free will, especially if it results in PC deaths, is definitely fun and healthy! I don't know why everyone else can't see that. :)
PRETTY SOLID EVIDENCE OF ISSUE.Cheater Cheater!! That response was totally out of character. I didn't see even one "AM" in that sentence. I'm gonna kill your character now. Sorry weakling.
...
SQUISHY NOT BARBARIAN WANT ROLL INITIATIVE, OR JUST SKIP TO ROLLING NEW CHARACTER, CUT OUT MIDDLEMAN?
|
|
I understand the basic idea behind no pvp in pathfinder society, it helps keep the piece and avoid chaos. However, to me it promotes an atmosphere of tolerance towards player characters who shall I say "fudge" on rolls ,character sheets, etc. what I mean is in my 30 years of playing D&D we used the pvp to police each other and to weed out the cheaters or "fudgers". Players must be able to call out other players when something doesnt seem right or at face value is way off the power base. Another benefit of the pvp is that it provides a healthy competition amongst players to build the best and most powerful character possible because you have to just to be able to hang with the group. player conflict has been and always will be a healthy part of roleplayn games, especially D&D (a.k.a pathfinder)and I would love to see that part return to pathfinder society. just sayn....
First off, I call troll.
Secondly, different tack here - as the cleric I am working my butt off keeping the others alive, even the mildly evil but claims neutral guy in party. I'm pushing 1 HP due to lucky crit. BBEG drops, then "neutral" guy tags me for enough to put me out. Either everyone else let's me die, some try to heal and others kill the "neutral" guy or they all kill him but I die because no other heals. Either way, the game is ruined and any satisfaction is wasted.
This is why PVP is a bad idea. I've seen this enough times in old school D&D games that we kicked two players out of our group and ran scenarios short. Not fun for anyone.
|
|
A properly trained PFS Judge would not allow such things at their table.PFS Judges go through training?Fifteen years, in the Academy of Law, the harshest training programe known to man, before they get their white helmet and half-eagle shoulder pad.
If I pvp them for only having 15 years of experience and win do I get all their stuff according to the PFS rules?
|
|
The first rule of PFS is...
"You are here to help others have fun."
The second rule of PFS is...
"The GM is here to make sure everyone has fun."
The third rule of PFS is...
"Don't be a dick."
Characters with an automatic "I Win" button do not help other players have fun.
Arguing GM rulings every time there's one - and I've seen this happen - does not allow the GM to make sure everyone has fun. The GM isn't trying for a TPK.
Stealing from other characters, sabotaging their faction missions, killing them for "cheating", breaks the third rule.
unfortunately your wrong...
You mean 'fortunately your wrong'. I said that hopefully I was wrong about how you interact in Society play. I seriously am glad you are a mature enough player to adapt to the environment that is so different from what your home game appears to be. I see player that can't, and it gets under my skin.
Im sorry you feel that being able to have total free will in a RPG is a wierd concept
Not 'in a RPG', in PFS. If it were a home game, I'd say have fun and have done so myself before. But home games have a stable system of government since a single GM is running and knows the characters and their players. Society play, though, is a pot luck for both players and GMs. It would be difficult to allow the GMs to monitor the PvP against immature players when you don't know how mature the GM itself is going to be.
Being mean doesnt solve anything and as I have said I dont advocate being a jerk, bully, or physical or verbal abuse.
Never said you were being mean. I simply stated that my first response was to say something mean since we don't see eye to eye. But I chose to be civil instead.
|
I assume (hopefully) this is not a serious thread, but if so...
If I understand your point correctly, you are saying that PFS should allow attacks, theft, etc. vs. another character because the player is cheating? How does that solve the problem? I think society has proven that in most cases, vigilante justice or an-eye-for-an-eye, does not work. It just escalates. Besides, how does killing a character stop a player from cheating? They just roll up another one and keep on truckin' (or cheatin').
Do you have a social inability to call out the player? What happens OOC should not be dealt with IC, just as IC should not be addressed OOC. You wouldn't punch a player for something their character did, as least I hope not.
Does this apply to the GM as well? If s/he hates conflict and sees a player cheating, do they just max/crit them on the next turn and kill the PC? How does it solve the problem if the player didn't know that is what happened and just keeps doing it?
Character vs. character conflict, stealing from your party members, etc. can be fun when (1) is occurs very rarely, and (2) there is a specific reason for it supported by the story/plot/theme of the game. Anything else very quickly becomes a nuisance to the other players.
This is especially so in an OP environment where the players do not know each other and cannot tell if the player is just "playing their character" or is intentionally being a jerk.
Again, I hope this is not a serious thread, nor indicative of the direction RPG's are going. Based on the responses, I think not, but...
**SIGH**