|
Hi all,
the other day I had a pathfinder society experience where I wanted to walk away from the table - the DM in my view as a DM, wanted to 'teach the players a lesson' and Allowed the module to essentially be failed - (I checked the mod afterwards and the requisite skill checks had actually been met, the DM had 'adjusted them' and decided that one player had been too boisterous, and as such deserved 'to be shown that he has to have humility'.)
Long story short, the module was failed, the rest of the players (who were innocent regardless of whether the first offending player was too boisterous or not in the social encounter) received a chronicle with +1 xp, no gold, only negative boons and failed the mission.
I personally felt the GM failed in his obligation to:
1. Be an unbiased referee by attempting to 'teach' or impose his style on the player
2. Make sure everyone had fun
3. Work with the players to ensure they still had a chance to do the mission, even after the DM had taught the player his 'lesson'.
4. Work with the spirit of intent of Pathfinder play in allowing characters that may not be appropriate for the region to still have a CHANCE to play the module. (The Table variation rule)
5. Ensure that even if the player had stuffed up, and done something stupid, that one person cannot fail an entire module in the first encounter for the rest of the party.
This is the most important bit that annoyed me as a DM rather than a player, the DM failed to do this:
But what if your players accidentally or intentionally kill an important NPC who was supposed to give them a crucial piece of information in order for the scenario
to progress?This is a tough one for the GM and requires improvisation. Don’t decide the scenario is over just because the old man with the letter was caught in a magical crossfire and roasted alive, destroying both him and the important letter.
Reveal that the letter survived by some freakish miracle (it was in a fire-proof pouch in his pocket) or maybe that the old man had a lackey who was watching from a nearby alley and knows everything the old man did, and so on. Improvisation will keep your scenario moving forward and will help get you around unforeseen obstacles.
Unfortunately I am in a dilemma as I quite like the DM as a person, and frankly he normally does a good job so I am not sure how I want to deal with it on a personal level - but it raises an important question:
- When is it appropriate to get up and walk away from the table?
I understand that there is a lot of discussion about refusing a cert or getting one for retiring mechanical reasons, but what about just that you felt you needed to leave the table due to a DM or Player?
|
Hi _metz_,
I see a few questions here and I'm going to answer them on a personal level. Please help me out if I missed any questions you may have asked:
Do you say anything to the GM?
If you feel comfortable about it, yes. Be polite and friendly. Or just find out if the GM was having a bad game session.
When is it appropriate to walk away from the table?
Whenever a player or game master is no longer having fun would be an optimal time to 'excuse yourself'. Above all, the game is meant to played for fun. If you find the game is no longer providing a source of entertainment, then please either find what made you love the game in the first place or take a time out to recuperate.
|
|
When is it appropriate to get up and walk away from the table?It comes down to a personal feeling for me - but if you're not enjoying the experience then some might walk away, I look at my role or position in the party and if it was for a scenario or other players I would stay for balance (it's only a couple of hours out of my day).
Frankly, if I had known that it had failed the game effectively, I would have been more than happy to stop playing and moved on to another mod/called it a day. Much wasted time and anguish!
Just wondering if it has popped up much and if there is any consensus on what is the norm for such a situation.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think these types of issues are better resolved by talking to the people involved. I am sure there are details that we are not aware of. Did you consult the GM after the game? It sounds like you have played under this GM before and that he does a good job as a GM. What was different about this session? Maybe you could provide more details about what happened. In my experience, when issues like this occur, the players and the GM all have some responsibility as to the direction the action took and need to work together to resolve them.
And you can always escalate to your local Venture-Captain if you feel the GM or any of the players need to be "reported" for their behavior. Leaving a table during the game, whether that be GM or player, should always be the last resort, but in the end, it is a game and if you're not having fun, then why play.
|
|
And you can always escalate to your local Venture-Captain if you feel the GM or any of the players need to be "reported" for their behavior. Leaving a table during the game, whether that be GM or player, should always be the last resort, but in the end, it is a game and if you're not having fun, then why play.
It's not that kind of situation, but I do see that perhaps simply walking away might have been a good choice - I was a bit worried to do so as for me, I have always considered leaving mid session to be poor form, regardless of bad players/DMs (usually players!)
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry this is so long. This is one of those subjects I feel passionately about.
Please try to remember it is a GAME; it is supposed to be fun for everyone... and that includes the GM too. That said, I have a hard time seeing a point in a game where walking away is the answer.
As a GM, I have had many a game go completely off the page. Heck, some of my players do it intentionally; to them, this IS fun. As a GM who has spent hours preparing a scenario (a VOLUNTEER position, keep in mind!), and knowing I am expected to follow the scenario (including tactics I might personally disagree with), this is NOT fun from my side of the screen. Should I walk away when the players all come to the table with characters that have a +16 to hit, and a AC of 32 knowing that the none of the opponents in the scenario have better than a +6 attack or an AC of 19? Simply put, no. AS a GM, I made a commitment to try to run a PFS scenario regardless of who sits or what they bring to the table. Shouldn't players be expected to do the same?
If a player is derailing the adventure, and the other players aren't on board for that, they should do what they can to try to get it back on track. Many GMs will be thankful for the help. If the players are ALL for "jumping the shark", then they should expect that things are going to get just as out of hand as the GM tries to fill a 4-5 hour slot with encounters he is making as he goes. Either way, sometimes people forget this is a role-playing game, with the GM playing the part of... well everyone not the PCs! And sometimes that means that there are consequences IN GAME for the actions and decisions that your characters make. If your character kills the city guards, you might end up in jail... or you might end up simply executed, depending on where the adventure takes place. Them's the breaks!
In a recent scenario I ran, the PCs are trying to track down cursed items stolen from the Pathfinder vaults. In one encounter, a sword of berserking is triggered, putting the PCs against a fellow Pathfinder. One group I ran killed the Pathfinder... and then used Animate Dead on him and used him as a spare combatant through the rest of the adventure. Behind the screen, I adjusted ALL the interactive DCs the opponents by +2, making it harder to use Diplomacy or Gather Information as their reputations spread. I felt this was totally legit since the Pathfinder in question was kind of a local hero. This was not a punishment; it was a consequence.
I ask you, as a player, was there ever a time YOU could have helped get the adventure back on track? And, as a player (if you didn't participate in the ensuing carnage), did you say anything to the other PLAYERS, or just point a finger at the GM? Keep in mind, I am not accusing you of either; just asking you to look at your own actions and see if you could have helped.
Other than that, I'm sorry this was a bad experience. I hope this doesn't turn you off of Organized play.
|
|
This is a "role"-playing game.
If a player roleplays his character as a jerk, then a GM has every right to bump up the DC's for diplomacy and gather information.
Just because a player chooses a particular race, personality, regional affiliation, faction, religion, et. al. does not mean that he can do whatever he wants and an NPC will be like, "oh, he's just a Mwangi, so I totally understand why he's such a jerk, so I will ignore his jerkiness and become friendly because he rolled a 22 Diplomacy check."
Not gonna happen at my table, and I wager at not many others either.
|
|
Walking away from a game is always an option, but as I understand the rules, a chronicle sheet must be applied to your PC (unless it is a replay and you have already earned a chronicle for the adventure). This could result in 0 XP, 0 PP and 0 gold for the adventure if things went very badly.
If a player just got up and left, I think it would be within the GM's purview to report that PC as dead since the player apparently abandoned the PC and did not apply a chronicle sheet to the PC as required. Of course, if the GM knew how to contact the player and ensure they got a chronicle sheet this drastic measure would not be needed.
You say you like the GM as a person and normally they do a good job. Did you discuss the game with them afterwards? Usually GMs are glad to get feedback and have a chance to explain what happened in more detail than time allows for at the table. By posting to a public forum with some serious complaints it raises the issue to a much higher level very quickly.
There is a limit to what the GM can do to make sure everyone has fun. He has to play by the rules and respect the situations created by the adventure. PCs' actions must have consequences.
Every adventure can not be everything to every PC. We all have adventures that just don't fit our PC. The GM can only stretch the adventure so much without breaking its integrity. The GM may have had a lesson plan, but is it possible the player needed to be schooled?
Did the GM pick on the PC unfairly or was the GM just reacting to the circumstances? Skill checks can have circumstance modifiers.
Have you talked to the GM? Did he explain why he modified the DCs? What about the other players? Did they feel the GM was not being fair?
|
If a player just got up and left, I think it would be within the GM's purview to report that PC as dead since the player apparently abandoned the PC and did not apply a chronicle sheet to the PC as required. Of course, if the GM knew how to contact the player and ensure they got a chronicle sheet this drastic measure would not be needed.You say you like the GM as a person and normally they do a good job. Did you discuss the game with them afterwards? Usually GMs are glad to get feedback and have a chance to explain what happened in more detail than time allows for at the table. By posting to a public forum with some serious complaints it raises the issue to a much higher level very quickly.
Wait, so you're saying that if I get up and walk away from a horrible session, that the GM has the right to just kill off my character because he's sore at me, and we don't mesh as players? I can understand saying I can't replay that adventure if it's mid-adventure, but that seems a bit excessive IMO.
|
|
If a player is derailing the adventure, and the other players aren't on board for that, they should do what they can to try to get it back on track. Many GMs will be thankful for the help. If the players are ALL for "jumping the shark", then they should expect that things are going to get just as out of hand as the GM tries to fill a 4-5 hour slot with encounters he is making as he goes.
I don't want to go into the details of the situation, suffice it to say that the players through everything they had, including splitting the party to try and recover a plot hook.
I'm more interested in what situations you deem it worth getting up to leave. And the ramifications of that.
|
|
"oh, he's just a Mwangi, so I totally understand why he's such a jerk, so I will ignore his jerkiness and become friendly because he rolled a 22 Diplomacy check."
Not gonna happen at my table, and I wager at not many others either.
Totally agree about PCs actively being a Jerk.
Lets not assume the players were being Jerks, as that isn't what was happening. I've DMed long enough/run enough Cons myself to spot that ;)
On this note, how far do you take an interpretation of a module as 'racially intolerant' - would you arrest and eject a Mwangi PFS PC or not allow them to interact at all if the mod said Mwangi were out of favour in this city? Or would you simply increase DCs... I know I would go for the latter.
|
|
If a player just got up and left, I think it would be within the GM's purview to report that PC as dead since the player apparently abandoned the PC and did not apply a chronicle sheet to the PC as required. Of course, if the GM knew how to contact the player and ensure they got a chronicle sheet this drastic measure would not be needed.
That is a bit Drastic. Especially if it was the DMs fault!
Lets not assume that, as we start getting into abuse of power.
|
|
Wait, so you're saying that if I get up and walk away from a horrible session, that the GM has the right to just kill off my character because he's sore at me, and we don't mesh as players? I can understand saying I can't replay that adventure if it's mid-adventure, but that seems a bit excessive IMO.
In my opinion, if you didn't wait for the GM to fill out a chronicle sheet for you and he has no way of getting in touch with you later (at a convention, for example) then yes. Your PC has not exited the adventure properly and anything could happen to it.
By the same token, a GM should not make a player wait if they decide to leave - beyond a reasonable delay to finish a battle or social interaction. He should complete your chronicle sheet at the earliest break in the action.
Again, this is my opinion. I do not believe this is stated anywhere in the rules.
|
|
With the understanding that I was not there (tho some of the comments above make it clear which scenario you are talking about)...
While the quoted section of the Guide in your 1st post is important, sometimes the party goes so far off the rails of a scenario (and outside the expected behaviour of a Pathfinder in a social situation) that there is no bringing them back. Especially when the events of the scenario are on a strict timeline.
In those cases, a GM is still obligated to issue a Chronicle and report the session, as the players have still played the adventure. Prestige earned should still be awarded and the characters should still get XP, based on the scenario still being completed (even if unsuccessfully).
As far as a player walking away partway thru a session, while I disagree with Don's suggestion, as a GM I would still report the session appropriately and fill out a Chronicle (xp based on how much the player was there for, PP if earned, whatever gold they found).
While it may suck to play a game with a GM you don't see eye-to-eye with, walking away from a session is a pretty extreme step to take, and I think that many times it is suggested far too lightly.
|
|
When is it appropriate to get up and walk away from the table?
I'm not sure there are any hard and fast rules to this question.
Personally I would only get up and leave a table if:
1) The game just started and already I strongly dislike one of the players already (or I know them already). Basically I'd try to find another table. Otherwise, if we've been playing for awhile (and have a conflict), I'd just suck it up and ride it out.
I strongly avoid walking especially if it stops the game for everyone. It's not fair to the other players. Also, if the GM doesn't really know what's going on, it makes him feel terrible too (and he's already put significant effort into the scenario preparation).
2) I want to talk to the convention coordinator because the GM is a mess. At that point I would have already spoken to the GM for several minutes.
Both have never happenned. It would have to be really really bad. It's only 4-5 hours of your time and then you'll probably never see these people again. It's a good experience sometimes to ride out a bad situation. Most the time if you stay, it works itself out and it ends up being ok.
|
|
As someone who was at the table in question as a player I find this thread to be in poor form for the two following reasons
the DM in my view as a DM, wanted to 'teach the players a lesson' and Allowed the module to essentially be failed - (I checked the mod afterwards and the requisite skill checks had actually been met, the DM had 'adjusted them' and decided that one player had been too boisterous, and as such deserved 'to be shown that he has to have humility'.)
I don't want to go into the details of the situation,
The reason I say this thread is in poor form is because it makes assertions that cannot be refuted.
If the point of this thread is simply to explore
what situations you deem it worth getting up to leave. And the ramifications of that.
Then all that needed to be said was "I had a GM I consider a good friend who made decisions as GM that I feel was unfair on the other players at the table due to possible personal differences between him and I. I felt like leaving the table as a result, what scenarios have people found themselves in a similar situation and what were the ramifications."
Instead we got a thread where you are quoting rules and making arguments against the GM's actions in question, without allowing any counterpoints to be raised.
There are aspects of organised play that I dislike. I dislike the idea that all characters should be given an equal chance at fulfilling a mod. As a roleplayer I expect IC consequences for IC actions. One of those consequences for playing a half-orc (or similarly viewed character) should sometimes be (based on the fluff for the setting) exclusion from certain social scenarios. If we're not going to enforce this, why are we bothering to play in Golarion. Either don't play in a setting where half-orcs are almost universally reviled, don't play in nations where this distaste is particularly strong or don't allow half-orcs as a player race. Or accept that sometimes you'll encounter great difficulty in certain mods.
That said, another player did raise the good point that as GM it would have been a good idea for him to then say after giving a big speech about the difficulties the player will face "If you have another PC handy in the appropriate level range, it may be a good idea to bring that one instead." A mistake was made (IMO) by the GM for not suggesting that. (bolded because I'm sure this will be overlooked once the rest of my post is read).
the DM in my view as a DM, wanted to 'teach the players a lesson'
I did notice some oddity this weekend between said GM and said player. I think both of them need to have a discussion over that.
Allowed the module to essentially be failed
I'm new to organised play (only been around for 3 years), but IMO the GM shouldn't be allowing or disallowing mods to be failed or passed. The GM should be playing the NPCs and ensuring that the world interacts in a realistic manner to the PC's actions. If the realistic consequence is that the mod is passed, terrific. If the realistic consequence is that the mod is failed, it happens. At least, it SHOULD happen. If GMs are going to be bending over backwards trying to make sure the PCs succeed in the mission, what's the point of playing?
Battles are already too easy as it is. If the GM is actively going out of their way to ensure the players win, I see little point to actually play. I want a challenge, not to sit around talking about how awesome we are because the game world is designed to ensure the worst of players still succeeds.
- (I checked the mod afterwards and the requisite skill checks had actually been met, the DM had 'adjusted them' and decided that one player had been too boisterous, and as such deserved 'to be shown that he has to have humility'.)I do not agree that this was the case. By the rules
You can change the initial attitude of nonplayer characters with a successful [diplomacy] check....A creature's attitude cannot be shifted more than two steps up in this way.
Apparently helpful was the required step OR a bribe.
One of the plot-hooks you missed, I picked up on right at the very start. I also picked up on the GM's warnings about local reactions to particular PCs due to their monstrous appearance (or sometimes simply due to blatant racism). So I disregarded that avenue given we had a better chance at an alternate plot-hook. By the time it became apparent the main plot-hook wasn't available to us any longer, the previous plot-hook's opportunity had also passed and I was convinced the mod needed to be completed in one in-game night (as they often are).
I have tried not to get into specifics while making my points. I do not desire to get in a long and protracted argument about this. I've said my piece. I do think the GM could have behaved differently in a couple of areas, I do think there were personal differences at play that need to be resolved.
HOWEVER I do think we suffered IC consequences for IC actions and I enjoyed the mod right up until the end. Regardless of whether organised play is suppose to have the GM bend over backwards, I quite enjoyed failing. Sometimes the most memorable scenes or mods are the ones where you die horribly, or just mess up in the worst possible way.
Up until the argument at the end I had intended on writing up a player's perspective on the fun I had at how we managed to royally screw up a mod. I was disappointed that I wasn't getting negative boons because I feel my character deserves to suffer the consequences for what happened in that mod.
As for this thread's alleged purpose
what situations you deem it worth getting up to leave. And the ramifications of that.
When the GM and player started up a screaming match over what amounts to a bunch of people sitting around telling a story for the mutual enjoyment to be had by all. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it, but at the end I felt uncomfortable. After 30 mins of this I excused myself and left. The ramification of this was that many players followed suit and we didn't play a second game.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to me threads like this do a terrible job of capturing the moment and any answers made are filled with generally incorrect assumptions.
Talk to the gm, talk to the event coordinator, they are there and can address these sort of issues, the forums are a terrible place to vent because the inevitable information gap.
|
|
It seems to me threads like this do a terrible job of capturing the moment and any answers made are filled with generally incorrect assumptions.
Talk to the gm, talk to the event coordinator, they are there and can address these sort of issues, the forums are a terrible place to vent because the inevitable information gap.
This is a good point. Alright, lets leave it at that - interesting in that walking away remains an extreme step.
@John Lynch. As discussed offline the mod had set DCs, rather than using the normal rules - so perhaps some confusion there.
In any case I do like the DM,and he normally does a great job. Perhaps there is something weird personal going on there - I'll leave it at that.
Thanks for your input guys, it's always been a dilemma to me, (Been doing organised play since Year 2 Living Greyhawk Mods) so was interested in the Pathfinder views on walking away, rejecting a chronicle, etc.
Cheers.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Sorry this is so long. This is one of those subjects I feel passionately about.
Spoiler:In a recent scenario I ran, the PCs are trying to track down cursed items stolen from the Pathfinder vaults. In one encounter, a sword of berserking is triggered, putting the PCs against a fellow Pathfinder. One group I ran killed the Pathfinder... and then used Animate Dead on him and used him as a spare combatant through the rest of the adventure.
There have been threads on these boards as to what "an evil act" is, and what manner of things would make me as a GM consider that a PC would need to receive atonement to avoid an alignment shift to something unplayable. That's one of the clearest examples I've read.
|
|
@John Lynch. As discussed offline the mod had set DCs, rather than using the normal rules - so perhaps some confusion there.
I think you are misinterpreting something here. The standard is that you want to run a scenario exactly as written. So no changing DC's to make things tougher or easier just because.
But the misinterpretation comes in, where you feel the DC's must remain static despite character actions. If a CHARACTER is being a jerk, then the NPC isn't going to sway as easily as they might have if the character was just being at least neutral toward the NPC.
Adding (or subtracting) modifiers from a social DC is perfectly acceptable if the characters, in the GM's estimation, are being jerks towards the NPC.
@John Lynch. As discussed offline the mod had set DCs, rather than using the normal rules - so perhaps some confusion there.
I think you are misinterpreting something here. The standard is that you want to run a scenario exactly as written. So no changing DC's to make things tougher or easier just because.
But the misinterpretation comes in, where you feel the DC's must remain static despite character actions. If a CHARACTER is being a jerk, then the NPC isn't going to sway as easily as they might have if the character was just being at least neutral toward the NPC.
Adding (or subtracting) modifiers from a social DC is perfectly acceptable if the characters, in the GM's estimation, are being jerks towards the NPC.
How about if they are simply a 1/2 Orc, or a minority. Should the DC's change? (not trying to single out this particular example).
Of course, actual RP should change DC's, but not neccessarily what you bring to the table.
Although from the sounds of the game, I would have walked. If voices are being raised OoC (and even IC), then you have at least take time to make sure all parties are going to calm down.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
How about if they are simply a 1/2 Orc, or a minority. Should the DC's change? (not trying to single out this particular example).
Of course, actual RP should change DC's, but not neccessarily what you bring to the table.
Although from the sounds of the game, I would have walked. If voices are being raised OoC (and even IC), then you have at least take time to make sure all parties are going to calm down.
Hmm, interesting. I do think it's a GM purview to modify the DC on the fly (Talyn, for example is from a minor Taldan noble house, even though he belongs to the Shadow Lodge (yeah yeah I need to fix his icon/prestige). When we encountered the Andoran VC in First steps, I made a point of saying "I'm turning my signet ring around, so it doesn't scream. 'I'm a Taldoran Noble, you ass!'" If I'd gone in all Taldory "Ah, yes, Andoran, our once and future colony" I could see raising the DC of any diplomacy checks.) OTOH, if a module says "X character will be frakked" (ala the half orc, or the infamous reskinned pig) I think the GM does need to let the PCs know in advance. Society wise, are they really going to go "Yes, let's send a party of half orcs to meet the dwarven delegates?" If a player only has the 'wrong' character type, then that's life. It happens IRL all the time.
(Now can someone write a scenario where the Taldan, Scarzini and Chelish characters are loved and the Andoran, Silver Crusade and Osironi have problems?)
|
|
@John Lynch. As discussed offline the mod had set DCs, rather than using the normal rules - so perhaps some confusion there.
I think you are misinterpreting something here. The standard is that you want to run a scenario exactly as written. So no changing DC's to make things tougher or easier just because.
But the misinterpretation comes in, where you feel the DC's must remain static despite character actions. If a CHARACTER is being a jerk, then the NPC isn't going to sway as easily as they might have if the character was just being at least neutral toward the NPC.
Adding (or subtracting) modifiers from a social DC is perfectly acceptable if the characters, in the GM's estimation, are being jerks towards the NPC.
How about if they are simply a 1/2 Orc, or a minority. Should the DC's change? (not trying to single out this particular example).
Of course, actual RP should change DC's, but not neccessarily what you bring to the table.
Although from the sounds of the game, I would have walked. If voices are being raised OoC (and even IC), then you have at least take time to make sure all parties are going to calm down.
Yes, certain countries and peoples in Golarian have certain racial, ethnic, faction, or station biases. As such, even with a static DC listed in that particular encounter, the “stigma” modifiers should be taken into account, just like any other circumstantial modifiers, by the GM.
I am alright with stigma modifiers (especially in a AP like Carrion Crown), provided that the GM warns before hand about these. It is just that a core PC race, taking some negatives without other boni can be easily abused by the GM.
Alternatively, a PC getting bonuses without balance, could be unfair on all at the table and smack of favouritism. (Ie. PC= 'Hawt Elf', with low cha as cha=/=comeliness. Therefore gets lots of boni from GM.)
Basically to bring this back on topic. A GM consistantly playing favourites could make me walk. Especially if it over multiple games, as I understand some games may focus on a individual.
|
|
I think the GM does need to let the PCs know in advance.
I disagree with this on two fronts:
One, if you look at all the missions and faction missions that don’t discriminate what type of character is being sent (all fighters on a social mission?), why should the GM warn a player that an area might be racist vs his character’s race? If the character (or player) is concerned about it, they should ask questions, in character, and get the answer from the GM. It is not the job of the GM to make sure the players play the appropriate characters for the scenario. It isn’t the job of the player either. It isn’t something that should even be considered, out of character, by the GM or the players.
Two, some players may not have two characters that can play at the same tier as the other characters present. Then that change could require the entire table to play characters they would rather not play (which is why they chose the ones they chose in the first place) or cause the one player to play way up (or down). Playing down could break the game for the other characters (make it too easy) and they wouldn’t get much in the way of rewards and playing up could cause a character death when one could have been avoided by playing the right character for that tier.
|
|
I am alright with stigma modifiers (especially in a AP like Carrion Crown), provided that the GM warns before hand about these. It is just that a core PC race, taking some negatives without other boni can be easily abused by the GM.
Alternatively, a PC getting bonuses without balance, could be unfair on all at the table and smack of favouritism. (Ie. PC= 'Hawt Elf', with low cha as cha=/=comeliness. Therefore gets lots of boni from GM.)
Basically to bring this back on topic. A GM consistantly playing favourites could make me walk. Especially if it over multiple games, as I understand some games may focus on a individual.
You misconstrue my meaning here. Circumstantial modifiers may include penalties (or bonuses) for particular races, ethnicities, factions, sex, hair color, etc. based on how the NPC (or city/area) is written up in the scenario. Charisma bonuses are already covered under the Charisma modifier. If GM adds a bonus because they are a “hawt elf” that isn’t appropriate, unless that NPC is written up to specifically like “hawt elves”.
Fair enough and I would agree with minor penalties; but it could be that some races will be penalised more frequently than others due to the nature of the world. But the PF core book has them mechanically balanced, so it could just seem a bit unfair to the player of a specific race if the default society setting discriminates against particular characters.
Anyway sorry for the diversion, generally and in principle I agree with the stance. It's just it seems unfortunate that a scenario could be at a (non-minor) disadvantage before it starts just because of choosing the wrong PC.
|
|
There are aspects of organised play that I dislike. I dislike the idea that all characters should be given an equal chance at fulfilling a mod. As a roleplayer I expect IC consequences for IC actions. One of those consequences for playing a half-orc (or similarly viewed character) should sometimes be (based on the fluff for the setting) exclusion from certain social scenarios. If we're not going to enforce this, why are we bothering to play in Golarion. Either don't play in a setting where half-orcs are almost universally reviled, don't play in nations where this distaste is particularly strong or don't allow half-orcs as a player race. Or accept that sometimes you'll encounter great difficulty in certain mods.
I don't think it's ok at all for a GM to auto-fail a mission just because a PC in the party is Half-Orc, Half-Elf, or Halfling. These are all core races and as GM, my NPC will either bite his tongue and work with whoever he has to work with... or the McGuffin will come from somewhere else.
Now if he's getting lip from said Halfling, that's something else.
At a bare minimum, I'll spell it out for the PCs, so they at least have the chance to disguise the offending PC (or have him sit outside).
So far I haven't read a single scenario that stated NPC X is racist against race Y and will not work with them at all. Which location was this in?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I think the GM does need to let the PCs know in advance.I disagree with this on two fronts:
One, if you look at all the missions and faction missions that don’t discriminate what type of character is being sent (all fighters on a social mission?), why should the GM warn a player that an area might be racist vs his character’s race? If the character (or player) is concerned about it, they should ask questions, in character, and get the answer from the GM. It is not the job of the GM to make sure the players play the appropriate characters for the scenario. It isn’t the job of the player either. It isn’t something that should even be considered, out of character, by the GM or the players.
Two, some players may not have two characters that can play at the same tier as the other characters present. Then that change could require the entire table to play characters they would rather not play (which is why they chose the ones they chose in the first place) or cause the one player to play way up (or down). Playing down could break the game for the other characters (make it too easy) and they wouldn’t get much in the way of rewards and playing up could cause a character death when one could have been avoided by playing the right character for that tier.
I disagree with your disagreement, sir :P
The (imaginary) guy assigning missions to Pathfinders can't look at the character sheets and go "Aw crap, no one has any ranks in diplomacy. I'd better get someone else." He can look at the roster and go "Hmm, I'd better not assign a batch of Half-Orcs to handle the Dwarven Embassy job." This translates in game to GM telling players, "Do you happen to have a spare character you'd be willing to play? This isn't half orc friendly." If the player says no, our imaginary guy is basically saying, "Oh well, looks like I do the best with what I do."
Now not every society adventure starts out so simple. Silent Tide (for example)
But for scenarios that say "You are headed into X area, Y classes/races/whatever aren't treated as well" the Society had better know that, or they're more clueless. Things the characters can change? Yeah, that's something a player should consider (for example, Talyn's going to likely leave his ring in his room if the VC's mission brief starts "I'm sending you into Galt..."
I think your second argument falls under the first though. If a GM says "This is hostile to half orcs, do you have a non-half orc?" and the player replies "I have a 1st level human wizard, but it's an 8th level party" Then the GM should let him play the half orc, with the caveats that it's not going to be time for him to shine as a diplomat. Again using Silent tide as an example.
In either case, I'm not saying it's "You have a half orc, he smells funny, you lose." It's "You have a half orc, he smells funny, -2 circumstance penalty to your diplomacy check." (last I checked, circumstance penalties/bonuses are still GM fiat.)
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
There have been threads on these boards as to what "an evil act" is, and what manner of things would make me as a GM consider that a PC would need to receive atonement to avoid an alignment shift to something unplayable. That's one of the clearest examples I've read.
Normally I would agree, but the PC is a LN Gebbite Necromancer... especially with him (IC) asking the other PCs, "What is this problem? How is this wrong?" To him, using that spell is a common assumption (IC). I didn't feel right penalizing him too much based on what I deemed proper role-play of the character.
|
|
There are aspects of organised play that I dislike. I dislike the idea that all characters should be given an equal chance at fulfilling a mod. As a roleplayer I expect IC consequences for IC actions. One of those consequences for playing a half-orc (or similarly viewed character) should sometimes be (based on the fluff for the setting) exclusion from certain social scenarios. If we're not going to enforce this, why are we bothering to play in Golarion. Either don't play in a setting where half-orcs are almost universally reviled, don't play in nations where this distaste is particularly strong or don't allow half-orcs as a player race. Or accept that sometimes you'll encounter great difficulty in certain mods.
I don't think it's ok at all for a GM to auto-fail a mission just because a PC in the party is Half-Orc, Half-Elf, or Halfling. These are all core races and as GM, my NPC will either bite his tongue and work with whoever he has to work with... or the McGuffin will come from somewhere else.
Now if he's getting lip from said Halfling, that's something else.
At a bare minimum, I'll spell it out for the PCs, so they at least have the chance to disguise the offending PC (or have him sit outside).
So far I haven't read a single scenario that stated NPC X is racist against race Y and will not work with them at all. Which location was this in?
I don’t recall anyone saying that a certain race caused an auto-fail on a mission.
Incurring a -2 penalty to social skill checks because the town hates half-orcs isn’t auto-fail.
I believe this entire thing started, however, because the character in question got “boisterous”. I am not sure what the definition of “boisterous” is to the player in question (the OP), but apparently to the GM the player says he gave negatives to the social rolls because of it. So “boisterous” must have meant the GM interpreted it as being a jerk or insulting or something like that.
If a scenario doesn’t specifically indicate a hatred or love of some sort, then I will not, as a GM, take it upon myself to give any penalties because of race, faction, ethnicity, religion, station, et. al. That isn’t our place to incorporate penalties such as this based on our understanding of Golarion. That is the author and developer’s jobs to make sure that anything like this that they want as part of the scenario, to include it within said scenario.
However, if an Andoran freedom fighter, ex-slave, happened to be in Cheliax on a mission, or a Paladin of Serenrae was on a mission in Geb, and they started getting lippy with the locals because they were espousing their moral and ethical views on things, expect a GM to give a negative on social rolls.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When is it appropriate to get up and walk away from the table?
At this point, I think we can just put to rest the specifics of the recent session you attended, and focus on this question in the general.
It should always be the final step to get up and leave a table mid-game. Even moreso for a GM to do it. If another player is being disruptive or a GM has a style that is not fun for you, I recommend that you ask for a 5-10 minute break. Call it a restroom break, or food, whatever. Take the GM to the side and express your concerns. If there is no change, then by all means, excuse yourself (politely) from the table. Something to the effect, "Sorry, but this game is not progressing such that I am enjoying myself. I think it is best if I just leave so the rest of you can enjoy the remainder of the game." Avoid laying blame or being any more disruptive than necessary.
In my time with PFS I have encountered only one GM and two players whose style is significantly different than mine to the point that I will not play with them again, even if it means I need to ask for them to be re-seated at another table if I am the GM or I will leave the table as a player if they are present. I do not enjoy gaming with them, but they are entitled to enjoy the game any way they want to. Is that a harsh stance, sure, but I am entitled to have fun too. Playing with those players will result in a lack of fun for me and likely collaterally to other players as well.
The game is supposed to be fun and we are all playing for our own enjoyment. No one is required to continue if they are not enjoying the game. This is not a job. You are not required to "work together."
|
|
I don’t recall anyone saying that a certain race caused an auto-fail on a mission.
Andrew, I even quoted the offending text. Here it is again.
One of those consequences for playing a half-orc (or similarly viewed character) should sometimes be (based on the fluff for the setting) exclusion from certain social scenarios.
I don't think that certain PCs should be EXCLUDED from certain scenarios because of their race. Exclusion is saying the mission would automatically fail because of their race.
I agree with the rest of what you said.
|
|
While GMs need to run the scenario as close as they can to what is printed on the sheet, it is also well within the purview of the GM to make modifications as needed for their group.
I have to take liberties a lot when running Murder on the Throaty Mermaid. That scenario can be so open ended that you get derailed quite easily with some groups. One group might follow the flow of the scenario as intended, another might want to start a brawl with every member on that ship because they perceive it as being a boat of just sheer incompetence. Adapting to the table is necessary, whether those adaptations come from a very successful and cohesive group, or a group that just fails at every turn.
If anything, the benefit of the doubt usually goes to the GM - especially in cases that pop up on the boards and we're not around to witness and have more first-hand knowledge of. There's definitely always room for improvement with a 1 star GM or a 5 star GM, and mistakes do happen from time to time. But walking away from the table isn't going to help anybody and leaves a pretty sour taste in people's mouths.
If you have a problem with the way a GM ran something, talk to them and talk to the event coordinator. No one on these boards will be able to understand the situations like they can. And at least you can see where they were coming from and developing an understanding. You don't have to agree with it, but to know where someone else stands helps you give and receive constructive criticism that is essential to move things forward.
|
|
Stuff
It's fine to get skill penalties (especially if the PC is obnoxious), it's fine to "wait outside", it's fine to get racist remarks.
It's not ok for a GM to say "I'm sorry John the half-orc, you can't play in this scenario" (unless the scenario has that specific restriction).
My remarks were towards the theoretical remarks that John made and were not particular to your session with Metz.
If Metz's entire table was going to discuss this on the message board anyway, I'm not sure why you guys were unable to discuss it (in private) after the game. Sounds to me like a better way to handle it, especially if some of you are friends.
Even if the scenario had specific restrictions, they should be made clear from the very beginning. This kind of problem once caused a rift between me and the DM (then again, he had given me promises and then broken them along with other things that got me enraged) so I wouldn't be surprised if there's a big mess here too about an issue like this.
Oh, and I know I have no business here. I just wanted to give my unimportant perspective here that none of you are going to even acknowledge. *Sarcasm mode off* ...why did I write this post the way I just did? XD
|
|
I think the GM does need to let the PCs know in advance.I disagree with this on two fronts:
One, if you look at all the missions and faction missions that don’t discriminate what type of character is being sent (all fighters on a social mission?), why should the GM warn a player that an area might be racist vs his character’s race? If the character (or player) is concerned about it, they should ask questions, in character, and get the answer from the GM. It is not the job of the GM to make sure the players play the appropriate characters for the scenario. It isn’t the job of the player either. It isn’t something that should even be considered, out of character, by the GM or the players.
Two, some players may not have two characters that can play at the same tier as the other characters present. Then that change could require the entire table to play characters they would rather not play (which is why they chose the ones they chose in the first place) or cause the one player to play way up (or down). Playing down could break the game for the other characters (make it too easy) and they wouldn’t get much in the way of rewards and playing up could cause a character death when one could have been avoided by playing the right character for that tier.
I disagree with your disagreement, sir :P
The (imaginary) guy assigning missions to Pathfinders can't look at the character sheets and go "Aw crap, no one has any ranks in diplomacy. I'd better get someone else." He can look at the roster and go "Hmm, I'd better not assign a batch of Half-Orcs to handle the Dwarven Embassy job." This translates in game to GM telling players, "Do you happen to have a spare character you'd be willing to play? This isn't half orc friendly." If the player says no, our imaginary guy is basically saying, "Oh well, looks like I do the best with what I do."
Now not every society adventure starts out so simple. Silent Tide (for example)...
This is where I suppose we diverge on our philosophy of how the GM should control the assignments by the Venture Captains.
As a GM, I let the players make that decision. Players can read the appropriate text of the scenario blurb, and the initial intro boxed text pretty much describes the scenario. Usually you get a chance to ask any questions you might have of the Venture Captain, then you get a chance to purchase gear you think you might need.
I assume that if a player sits down with a Half-Orc, despite the scenario's NPC's hatred of half-orcs, that PC was the only one available for said mission, for whatever reasons.
In character, and after the boxed text, I would probably roleplay with the half-orc and let them know they might have some troubles, so plan accordingly.
I think it is overstepping a GM's bounds and/or helps break verisimilitude if you go out of character and ask the player if he might want to bring a different PC because this one's going to be tough for the one they've brought. I don't like the precedent that sets, and will not do it at my table. YMMV.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Stuff
I think this is something we can agree to disagree on. :-) From how I've read your posts you and I seem to have a common ground on how the offending character would affect the game (circumstance penalties, not "Your mother was an orc? you fail!")
There are some players who would look at playing the 'undesirable character' as a challenge, others who would look at it as unfun. I'm happy to cater to both.
|
|
StuffIf Metz's entire table was going to discuss this on the message board anyway, I'm not sure why you guys were unable to discuss it (in private) after the game. Sounds to me like a better way to handle it, especially if some of you are friends.
Yeah I wanted to avoid this situation, which is why I bowed out after a few comments made it game specific.
|
|
I didn't misquote you. As a matter of fact, I wasn't even talking to you until you quoted me, and then disagreed with me based on what happenned in your gaming session (no PC was excluded).
My response is that I wasn't even referring to your gaming session. Let me put it another way, I don't care about your gaming session, I was trying to answer the generic question on hand.
Your quote is below, emphasis mine.
In this case (and I am not so eloquent as John) no-one was excluded.
If I remember part of the introduction it included a warning to the effect of "You are going to Ustalav, land of mobs, fire and pitchforks)" two members of the party purchased hats of disguise in preparation as a result of the warning.
The frustrations of the OP aside, this was a very enjoyable game as things were going wrong...
I wasn't responding to the following paragraph, which I obviously agree with.
As for exclusion; some NPC's are racist just as others prefer the company of others [ Thank you Mrs Feathers ] If you are going to be a bullish half-orc in spiked hellknight armour, spouting Andoran prose (didn't happen in game, just an example) then expect in game consequences.. Don't expect to fit into a polite Taldane wedding without making an effort. The same orc will get an entirely different setting in the frozen north.
I used a half-orc example because all of the examples have been half-orcs. I wasn't making refernce to the paragraph above. OK?
I can see why there are problems at the table.
