|
Another factor might be that some characters just don't work in some scenarios. Let's say that your cleric of Sarenrae has a birthmark or a tattoo of her holy symbol on her face. "Among the Living" or "Dalsine Affair" will be very difficult scenarios to play, and I'm surprised that the venture captains would send her on such a mission.
I would stress to the player that having a facial tattoo holy symbol is not the best idea. If they insist, I would warn them that I will not be hand-waiving or overlooking said feature. Do not be surprised when your character is arrested or worse.
|
|
The job of the GM in this situation is do their best to educate their players to the world of Golarion. If a particular concept doesn't fit the world, explain why to the player, but accept that it's their concept. Do your best as a GM to incorporate their character's concepts into the story without being a jerk or having a significant impact on the success or enjoyment of the entire table.
Kyle, this is a great point, and it's why I early said that the best I could think of was to just alert the player and then not bring it up.
What would you recommend, though, if one or more of the other players are being actively bothered by the jarring concept, and thus it actually harms the enjoyment of the table to include it. This isn't hypothetical--I have a player who told me that one of the other PCs, who had a concept that was basically out of a cartoon show and flagrantly violated Golarion canon, was causing them to have a notably worse time playing when that other character was around. The player of the canon-violator was, other than that, a good player, though he simply didn't care about the canon or world lore at all.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Another factor might be that some characters just don't work in some scenarios. Let's say that your cleric of Sarenrae has a birthmark or a tattoo of her holy symbol on her face. "Among the Living" or "Dalsine Affair" will be very difficult scenarios to play, and I'm surprised that the venture captains would send her on such a mission.I would stress to the player that having a facial tattoo holy symbol is not the best idea. If they insist, I would warn them that I will not be hand-waiving or overlooking said feature. Do not be surprised when your character is arrested or worse.
And, of course, an explanation that they could use a turban, kerchief, or even a bad haircut to conceal such a tattoo might let them get through
|
Another factor might be that some characters just don't work in some scenarios. Let's say that your cleric of Sarenrae has a birthmark or a tattoo of her holy symbol on her face. "Among the Living" or "Dalsine Affair" will be very difficult scenarios to play, and I'm surprised that the venture captains would send her on such a mission.I would stress to the player that having a facial tattoo holy symbol is not the best idea. If they insist, I would warn them that I will not be hand-waiving or overlooking said feature. Do not be surprised when your character is arrested or worse.And, of course, an explanation that they could use a turban, kerchief, or even a bad haircut to conceal such a tattoo might let them get through
** spoiler omitted ** alive, too.
Players are always going to use the excuse that the rules don't specifically state they can't do something -- even if the rules were written before the class -- such as taking cross-blooded sorcerer, using the draconic and X bloodlines and wanting to use dragon disciple.
We can argue the nuances of every little aspect and the players are always going to come up with something different. No matter what we as judges decide, players are always going to be upset and come to the boards to post about it so we can have another huge discussion thread about the little nuances all over again.
As a judge, my job is to make sure that the player understands that I cannot prevent what is going to happen if he does something that is going to conflict with cannon -- such as a religious symbol proudly displayed in Rhadadoum. If I have explained to the player that there could be negative consequences to his actions and he continues those actions, I feel free as the judge to follow cannon.
Now if the player changes his actions; say puts a wrap around his face to hide a tattoo, then I don't see where he's coming into conflict with cannon and the NPCs wouldn't target him for heresy.
|
|
Kyle, this is a great point, and it's why I early said that the best I could think of was to just alert the player and then not bring it up.
What would you recommend, though, if one or more of the other players are being actively bothered by the jarring concept, and thus it actually harms the enjoyment of the table to include it. This isn't hypothetical--I have a player who told me that one of the other PCs, who had a concept that was basically out of a cartoon show and flagrantly violated Golarion canon, was causing them to have a notably worse time playing when that other character was around. The player of the canon-violator was, other than that, a good player, though he simply didn't care about the canon or world lore at all.
It's no different than if one player doesn't like another player's socks. It's not your job to make other players like each other. If someone draws a line in the sand and won't game with another player for WHATEVER reason, it is not your responsibility to resolve it.
(that said, I usually try to mediate these things, but that's more me as a person, not a GM)
|
Another factor might be that some characters just don't work in some scenarios. Let's say that your cleric of Sarenrae has a birthmark or a tattoo of her holy symbol on her face. "Among the Living" or "Dalsine Affair" will be very difficult scenarios to play, and I'm surprised that the venture captains would send her on such a mission.I would stress to the player that having a facial tattoo holy symbol is not the best idea. If they insist, I would warn them that I will not be hand-waiving or overlooking said feature. Do not be surprised when your character is arrested or worse.And, of course, an explanation that they could use a turban, kerchief, or even a bad haircut to conceal such a tattoo might let them get through
** spoiler omitted ** alive, too.
Sure it would. But how do you cast spells that require a Divine Focus or channel that require you to display your holy symbol, if you are obscuring it?
|
|
Sure it would. But how do you cast spells that require a Divine Focus or channel that require you to display your holy symbol, if you are obscuring it?Another factor might be that some characters just don't work in some scenarios. Let's say that your cleric of Sarenrae has a birthmark or a tattoo of her holy symbol on her face. "Among the Living" or "Dalsine Affair" will be very difficult scenarios to play, and I'm surprised that the venture captains would send her on such a mission.I would stress to the player that having a facial tattoo holy symbol is not the best idea. If they insist, I would warn them that I will not be hand-waiving or overlooking said feature. Do not be surprised when your character is arrested or worse.And, of course, an explanation that they could use a turban, kerchief, or even a bad haircut to conceal such a tattoo might let them get through
** spoiler omitted ** alive, too.
to me this is a situation that is variable depending on what is going on at the table at the time the spell is cast ... If you're the GM at the time I guess you get to *gasp* make a decision w/out the benefit of the collective.
|
|
Kyle, this is a great point, and it's why I early said that the best I could think of was to just alert the player and then not bring it up.
What would you recommend, though, if one or more of the other players are being actively bothered by the jarring concept, and thus it actually harms the enjoyment of the table to include it. This isn't hypothetical--I have a player who told me that one of the other PCs, who had a concept that was basically out of a cartoon show and flagrantly violated Golarion canon, was causing them to have a notably worse time playing when that other character was around. The player of the canon-violator was, other than that, a good player, though he simply didn't care about the canon or world lore at all.
It's no different than if one player doesn't like another player's socks. It's not your job to make other players like each other. If someone draws a line in the sand and won't game with another player for WHATEVER reason, it is not your responsibility to resolve it.
(that said, I usually try to mediate these things, but that's more me as a person, not a GM)
Surprisingly, the socks analogy got me thinking--if a player had socks that smelled so horrible that it reduced the enjoyment of all others at the table, even after repeated talkings to by the GM and players, that would probably fall under 'being a jerk'. Do you think that a sufficiently flagrantly canon-breaking player would also count as being a jerk if it was made clear that it was reducing enjoyment for the other players? My instinct is that the answer is 'No', since the bad-smelling socks would be a universal negative, while the canon-smashing would be something that is only offensive to a smaller subset of players.
|
|
to me this is a situation that is variable depending on what is going on at the table at the time the spell is cast ... If you're the GM at the time I guess you get to *gasp* make a decision w/out the benefit of the collective.Sure it would. But how do you cast spells that require a Divine Focus or channel that require you to display your holy symbol, if you are obscuring it?Another factor might be that some characters just don't work in some scenarios. Let's say that your cleric of Sarenrae has a birthmark or a tattoo of her holy symbol on her face. "Among the Living" or "Dalsine Affair" will be very difficult scenarios to play, and I'm surprised that the venture captains would send her on such a mission.I would stress to the player that having a facial tattoo holy symbol is not the best idea. If they insist, I would warn them that I will not be hand-waiving or overlooking said feature. Do not be surprised when your character is arrested or worse.And, of course, an explanation that they could use a turban, kerchief, or even a bad haircut to conceal such a tattoo might let them get through
** spoiler omitted ** alive, too.
True, and in certain countries that hate certain religions, certain scenarios present circumstances where folk from said country that hate said religion would accept the help of said religion they hate with no questions asked.
In other countries that hate certain religions, scenarios may never put a character in a dangerous position to begin with, so obfuscation may not be necessary.
|
|
to me this is a situation that is variable depending on what is going on at the table at the time the spell is cast ... If you're the GM at the time I guess you get to *gasp* make a decision w/out the benefit of the collective.Sure it would. But how do you cast spells that require a Divine Focus or channel that require you to display your holy symbol, if you are obscuring it?Another factor might be that some characters just don't work in some scenarios. Let's say that your cleric of Sarenrae has a birthmark or a tattoo of her holy symbol on her face. "Among the Living" or "Dalsine Affair" will be very difficult scenarios to play, and I'm surprised that the venture captains would send her on such a mission.I would stress to the player that having a facial tattoo holy symbol is not the best idea. If they insist, I would warn them that I will not be hand-waiving or overlooking said feature. Do not be surprised when your character is arrested or worse.And, of course, an explanation that they could use a turban, kerchief, or even a bad haircut to conceal such a tattoo might let them get through
** spoiler omitted ** alive, too.True, and in certain countries that hate certain religions, certain scenarios present circumstances where folk from said country that hate said religion would accept the help of said religion they hate with no questions asked.
In other countries that hate certain religions, scenarios may never put a character in a dangerous position to begin with, so obfuscation may not be necessary.
Exactly .. we cannot know all the situations that we're going to face at a table. My mother has always used the phrase "don't borrow trouble". Meaning don't create a problem where this isn't one. We can sit at our computers and postulate all we want about what could happen. We can argue back and forth (essentially saying the same freaking thing with different words) all we want. But we cannot know how we are going to react to any situation until we are presented with it. And no matter what situation we're presented with it's never going to 100% fit into what's been beaten to death on for the forums ...
|
|
Do you think that a sufficiently flagrantly canon-breaking player would also count as being a jerk if it was made clear that it was reducing enjoyment for the other players?
Does it matter? We don't need to define what a jerk is. In the previous example, the player who it bothered decided to leave. That goes back to the other two-hundred million threads that highlight the fact that everyone, including the GM has the right to just walk away if they aren't enjoying themselves.
If the canon-breaker some how made it so the majority of the table was upset to the point they'd actually leave over it, the canon-breaker needs to go.
It really isn't THAT complicated, and quite frankly it's such a corner case that we really don't need a 200-post thread.
As PFS participants, we just need to remember that we're people and we all have a duty to not be d-bags.
|
|
That goes back to the other two-hundred million threads that highlight the fact that everyone, including the GM has the right to just walk away if they aren't enjoying themselves.
It may be that I'm weird, but I'd have to go pretty far below the level of 'not enjoying myself' before I would walk away from a table I signed up to GM. I consider signing up as a GM to enter myself into a responsibility to both the organizer and the players, as it is pretty likely that if a GM walks on gameday (unless it's a big convention), 4 or more players lose the game they signed up to play.
Occasionally someone can save the day on this--I've done that before when another table was needed with no possible GMs, so I stepped up to GM at the last second. But if you can't find a GM, those situations are bad enough for everyone else that I personally would run through a bad experience to prevent them from ever happening unless the experience was truly horrific. I would never force that on any other GM, of course, it's more of my personal approach, as you mentioned above that your approach would be to try to mediate if possible.