|
Hi
Can GM's ban classes from games they advertised on open forums?
I'm not talking where players got together privately, but open forums where a GM states they're running a game online at certain time, and openly asks for players. Then adds "Summoners need not apply"
This goes against the inclusiveness idea, and has started a heated debate.
Thanks
Paul H
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, if it is an official PFS game, a GM cannot ban anything at all that is legal for play. It does not matter if it is a private home game, a game in a store or at a convention, on being run online or play-by-post.
Now, in your situation, maybe he just knows nothing about the class and would be uncomfortable with one in his game. But if that is true, then he should say so and players should honor his request rather than risk ruining the game.
|
Hi
Can GM's ban classes from games they advertised on open forums?
I'm not talking where players got together privately, but open forums where a GM states they're running a game online at certain time, and openly asks for players. Then adds "Summoners need not apply"
This has been answered. Yes, someone can limit the game further than the PFS guide; this is true if it in a private venue, and continues to be true even if they advertise it, at this time. Advertising such limits to a wide audience would be divisive and that makes doing so somewhat questionable from a social standpoint.
What may be of question is what constitutes a private game. Is it private only in a private home? Only if not advertised? How about if someone runs SummonerFreeCon? This probably needs some clarification.
Note: This thread should be in the PFS forums and has been flagged for relocation.
|
Provided that the issue we are talking about specifically concerns Pathfinder Society Organized Play, before anyone gets going too far down the "In my opinion..." ladder, please read the second-to-last post by Michael Brock in this thread before commenting further. I believe Mike's ruling applies to online games, but he may wish to clarify his stance further. Apologies to Mike & Mark for distracting you once again with this issue...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Provided that the issue we are talking about specifically concerns Pathfinder Society Organized Play, before anyone gets going too far down the "In my opinion..." ladder, please read the second-to-last post by Michael Brock in this thread before commenting further. I believe Mike's ruling applies to online games, but he may wish to clarify his stance further. Apologies to Mike & Mark for distracting you once again with this issue...
Seeing that post, that makes it all very confusing. That can have broad interpretations.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
What broad interpretations do you have in mind? Because if the rule isn't clear enough, we need to clarify it.
Seems clear enough to me. He says that in a private game you can add extra restrictions but can't repeal existing restrictions.
I think the only thing needing clarification is what constitutes a "private" game, as Howie mentions upthread:
What may be of question is what constitutes a private game. Is it private only in a private home? Only if not advertised? How about if someone runs SummonerFreeCon? This probably needs some clarification.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If an online game is advertised publicly, such as on a messageboard or Google group (like the Pathfinder Society Online Collective), then it's a public game. If you email four of your friends and offer to run them through Mists of Mwangi over D20Pro on Friday night, and don't open it up for signups by anyone not already invited, then it's a private game and the fact that it's online doesn't matter.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If an online game is advertised publicly, such as on a messageboard or Google group (like the Pathfinder Society Online Collective), then it's a public game. If you email four of your friends and offer to run them through Mists of Mwangi over D20Pro on Friday night, and don't open it up for signups by anyone not already invited, then it's a private game and the fact that it's online doesn't matter.
Mark beat me to it. This above is 100% and he and I have already discussed. Also remember, you can uncheck public game on the data entry when registering a new event so it will not show up on the event listing. It appears as:
Event is Public
Check this if this event is open to the public or you are looking for players. Uncheck it to remove this event from search results.
If you check the box, it is a public game. If you uncheck the box, it is a private game.
|
|
This particular situation deserves a little more explanation.
The GM in question runs for a regular group of four players. Recently he has been kind enough to extend an open invitation for the other 2 seats on the PFS Online Collective. Their group prefers not to include summoners among those they are inviting to an ongoing private game.
It is possible that I have missed it, but at no point have I seen this GM belittle summoners or people playing them. Rather, each sign up clearly states at the bottom summoners need not apply. After being hounded by the OP through multiple threads he admitted that he thought the class was broken.
So Paul- you pursued this all the way here to get a ruling. Congratulations? You cannot force any GM to allow you and your character. He will most likely stop offering public postings for those games or privately invite those from the collective he has already gamed with previously. Good job.
|
I'm a bit confused by this. Mike and Mark's definitions don't necessarily work together.
For example, you can have events created as private events that you advertise on a message group.
With my local group we created a yahoo group to save the trouble of emailing 10+ people every time there's a game. These games take place at people's home (sometimes my own). Are these public or private events? Do we need to disband our yahoo group and go back to mass emailing to retain our private status?
|
|
I'm a bit confused by this. Mike and Mark's definitions don't necessarily work together.
For example, you can have events created as private events that you advertise on a message group.
With my local group we created a yahoo group to save the trouble of emailing 10+ people every time there's a game. These games take place at people's home (sometimes my own). Are these public or private events? Do we need to disband our yahoo group and go back to mass emailing to retain our private status?
When you create an event here in our database, do you check the public box or leave it unchecked? If it is checked, it is a public event. If it is unchecked, it is a private event.
If you broadcast open seats for a game on a public site, such as the yahoo group you mentioned, it is a public game because you have opened it up to a wider group of people and have told them, "hey, we are having a game, and any of you are invited."
If you email people individually to invite them to your home, and only those people you emailed are aware of it, that is a private event because you have only extended the invitation to and made the game known to the select few people you have invited.
|
|
So broadcasting about the game overrides the event's creation status?
Nope, they work hand in hand. If you are making a public announcement on a public forum, advertising a game open to anyone, the event, when created in the database, should be listed as a public game.
If you are creating an event for a small group of friends, that only they are invited to and it is not listed or published for the general public to see, that is a private game and the box should be left unchecked.
|
|
Mike, I'm not trying to be a pain in the rear. I'm just trying to figure out where my group's games stand.
We create all our games as private events.
We talk about and organize said games on our message group.
Are our events public or private?
Can anyone get onto your message group and read the postings for the games coming up? If so, are those postings worded in a way that anyone who reads can just show up and play? In other words, do you have an open invitation to the general public to come out and enjoy your game day? If you have a private yahoo group, with only people you have invited to be a member of that yahoo group, and only those people can view your yahoo group, then that is a private group, private message board, private events, and therefore a private game day.
Look at it like the Super Bowl parties. This year it is in New Orleans. Champions Square has several parties this year scheduled for the general public. Anyone who can get there, is welcome to come to the parties at Champions Square. These parties are listed publicly and for all who want to attend to come on down.
Then you have the private parties that are sponsored by Budweiser, Playboy, Hennessy, etc... People know about them, but unless they have a specific invitation from the company sponsoring the party, anyone who doesn't have an invitation is not invited or welcome to join the party.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think people are overanalyzing things.
Use a little common sense:
A private game is people you invited. A known quantity. An existing group. No surprises. It's, you know, private.
A public game is open for someone you didn't explicitly invite to join. Chance of new blood. Surprises could happen. Meeting people you didn't already know. It's, you know, public.
Two key points to remember, people:
Don't try to disguise your public game as a private one.
Don't try to pretend that your private game is getting labeled as public so you can complain about restrictive rules.
Those are the only two issues I predict arising from this. M&M's statements are sufficiently clear for those without an agenda.
|
|
Another example....
When I was VC in Georgia, I would broadcast on the Georgia PFS website that I was running four tables of PFS at my house on the third Saturday of each month. This event was listed in the database as a public event, and any player with a legal PFS character was welcome to join.
Then, there were holidays, like Halloween, were I wanted to run a private, Halloween-themed game for a close group of six friends. So, I didn't post it on the message boards inviting every PFS player to join. I invited, via private email, the six players I wanted to enjoy a game with at my house on Halloween night. Other people in the Atlanta area knew that I was having a private running of Mists of Mwangi in my living room. However, they did not receive an invitation to play and therefore were not welcome to show up on my doorstep for the game.
|
|
The group is public in that anyone can read our posts but we usually don't word things in such a way to suggest that literally anyone can show up.
So it sounds like both my group's games and the Online Collective are still private games.
Ithuriel, you guys just have to be careful about how you word your DM offerings.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think people are overanalyzing things.
Use a little common sense:
A private game is people you invited. A known quantity. An existing group. No surprises. It's, you know, private.
A public game is open for someone you didn't explicitly invite to join. Chance of new blood. Surprises could happen. Meeting people you didn't already know. It's, you know, public.
Two key points to remember, people:
Don't try to disguise your public game as a private one.
Don't try to pretend that your private game is getting labeled as public so you can complain about restrictive rules.Those are the only two issues I predict arising from this. M&M's statements are sufficiently clear for those without an agenda.
Thanks Jiggy. Very well said. This above 100%
|
|
This is from the online games group and it is unenforceable.
If you get what you're after, and Mike or Mark say 'You must allow Synthesists to play in the games you offer to GM' you can ignore them and keep happily GMing the games you like. Just private message your player base who don't have synthesists.
Do we really expect Paizo staff to have the time to block the GM in question from reporting their sessions?
Furthermore, if the ruling is, 'Hey online GM, you have to accept all those synthesist players' the GM can easily just stop publicly offering to GM online. There's not enough people offering to GM online as it is. I know, because I've been waiting to get in on a game.
So IMHO, online GMs can say they will not accept synthesists/master summoners/gunslingers to their leisure, and there's not one darn thing we can do about it.
|
|
The group is public in that anyone can read our posts but we usually don't word things in such a way to suggest that literally anyone can show up.
So it sounds like both my group's games and the Online Collective are still private games.
Ithuriel, you guys just have to be careful about how you word your DM offerings.
Then word your postings so it is clear.
"If you are viewing this posting about this game, and you have not received a personal invitation to play via email (or whatever form of communication you choose to utilize), then we do not have any available seats. Please check the event listings page at paizo.com for other play opportunities near you for a public game to participate in."
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Thanks Jiggy. Very well said. This above 100%I think people are overanalyzing things.
Use a little common sense:
A private game is people you invited. A known quantity. An existing group. No surprises. It's, you know, private.
A public game is open for someone you didn't explicitly invite to join. Chance of new blood. Surprises could happen. Meeting people you didn't already know. It's, you know, public.
Two key points to remember, people:
Don't try to disguise your public game as a private one.
Don't try to pretend that your private game is getting labeled as public so you can complain about restrictive rules.Those are the only two issues I predict arising from this. M&M's statements are sufficiently clear for those without an agenda.
Glad to be of help. :)
|
|
It seems kind of silly to need to include disclaimers in emails I'm sending to my group...
Perhaps disbanding the yahoo group would just be easier.
The message group is our form of communication.
I believe you can make Google Groups Private. Why not just switch your Yahoo group to a Google group?
Just turn your Google Group to the private setting, invite only the people you want playing with you, and you have no worries about whether your event is public or private at that point.
|
|
If you want better functionality to schedule private games for a select group of limited players, as it sound you want, then there are plenty of places you can pay for nice forums as well, such as private-forums.com. Those are as low as $4.95 a month.
|
|
Perhaps disbanding the yahoo group would just be easier.
It's 'easier' to disband or close and lock the doors to an initiative that is currently the only option for people to play PFS online, for people who don't have any PFS society nearby?
That is a bad idea.
Think about how we're scaring away potential GMs and players here, people.
Wow. I'm with Jiggy. People are over analyzing stuff. Let's let Mike and Mark get back to improving PFS Society and off this topic.
|
|
Another option, that we instituted on Pathfinder Society of Georgia is we have the option to create private forums for our members. At one time, we had four private AP games with their own forums that only invited members could see. This allowed the players in the Legacy of Fire AP, for example, to discuss their game, but only those six players and the GM could see or post anything on that particular, private forum. If you have an established website for gaming in your area, you could always ask the moderator or website manager to add a private board for just your group.
|
|
Making it private is troublesome.
Some of the people in our group access from work or other public computers and don't want to log in to view it. We've had our share of troubles with google documents.
There are other options. I have listed quite a few. All the options I listed, I investigated personally because I needed to be able to access them from my old job, and the city had blockers for many, many websites. So, I know those work from just about everyone's work computer because they worked using a small city government owned computer.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It's 'easier' to disband or close and lock the doors to an initiative that is currently the only option for people to play PFS online, for people who don't have any PFS society nearby?
That is a bad idea.
Think about how we're scaring away potential GMs and players here, people.
You lost me.
|
|
Perhaps disbanding the yahoo group would just be easier.
It's 'easier' to disband or close and lock the doors to an initiative that is currently the only option for people to play PFS online, for people who don't have any PFS society nearby?
That is a bad idea.
Think about how we're scaring away potential GMs and players here, people.
If they are private games that players and GMs aren't invited to, then they aren't able to be scared away, because they were excluded in the first place.
|
|
All these 'Can I ban X' topics have come about specifically because of the current debates within the yahoo group Pathfinder Online Collective about GMs who don't like Summoners or Gunslingers.
This yahoo group, is to my knowledge, the only publicly available portal for people to play PFS online without having to hold pre-existing knowledge of, or a direct invitation of some PFS private club.
If we rule that GMs on the yahoo group must accept every class and everyone, they will likely get pissed off and either:
a. Stop GMing.
b. Go private and lose contact with potential new players.
Why are we supporting exclusion instead of GM rights?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is not that difficult and does not require an "official" ruling. The fact of the matter is that, public or private, the GM has the right to refuse to seat anyone s/he chooses to using whatever criteria s/he feels is appropriate. It really does not matter if the reason is the player is a douche, or the GM restricts certain character builds, or maybe the GM just doesn't want to play with girls. Whatever, it doesn't really matter.
That being said, we all have the right to boycott that event because the GM is being a jerk to exclude legal play options. If we force the GM to redact the restrictions, then s/he'll may just choose not to GM. Either way, someone is missing out. IMO, as long as the GM gives advanced notice of what additional restrictions are being placed on the event, there is no reason to call him/her a cheater. Feel free to consider them a jerk, however, and avoid said game.