|
I will continue to say it is a lame way to exploit the rules. No personal affront intended.
Personal affront taken.
The wizard is already using a lame rules exploit of the paladin not being able to punch him in the face, grapple him, or whap him upside the head with the sword. The No player vs player rule keeps the wizards actions above any in character consequences.
Its impossible to counter the wizards rules exploit without an exploit of your own, having a player to player chat, or having a DM to player chat.
Alternately, hand them all a silver piece and hire them to carry your stuff. They're now the paladins hirelings, hands off.
I will continue to say it is a lame way to exploit the rules. No personal affront intended.Personal affront taken.
The wizard is already using a lame rules exploit of the paladin not being able to punch him in the face, grapple him, or whap him upside the head with the sword. The No player vs player rule keeps the wizards actions above any in character consequences.
Its impossible to counter the wizards rules exploit without an exploit of your own, having a player to player chat, or having a DM to player chat.
Alternately, hand them all a silver piece and hire them to carry your stuff. They're now the paladins hirelings, hands off.
It can be used both ways if you want to - remember the wizard also cannot PVP, so if you stand in his/her way saying "You will have to kill me to kill them", then the wizard has to make the PVP decision and the GM is enabled to come down hard on them in that instance. I wouldn't use this straight away, it's a last resort move.
Also, think about your GM - is he/she aware that you feel so strongly about what is happening, that you are turning to message boards for advice - the very first place you should go is your GM!
It may be that your GM has not encountered this situation before and is simply not sure what to do so takes the easy path. Let your GM know you will back them up if they call the wizard on their actions. How do your other players feel? Will they back up your GM as well?
Also consider this, if they are trussed up - what does the region define as murder? Make a stated warning to the wizard, tell them that such actions will not be tolerated by your character. If they pursue, then you can do such things as ... Let the wizard think they have gotten away with something and next time you are in town, report them to the authorities. Since the exploitation of the rules are in game, then let the solution be in game.
If you end up shopping them to the authorities, you have done your duty - the rest of the party must then decide, do they lie to save the wizard, or do they tell the truth at the trial? Load and loads of role play opportunities :)
One of the greatest memorable sessions I have had the pleasure to be in was when a paladin shopped another PC for a similar act and we had the trial, PC's as witness for and against the actions being trialled and so on.
But in all things, whatever you do, keep calm, don't argue, don't shout, just state calmly what the consequences may be and if you need to act upon your warnings, do so via the GM and in game only.
|
here is my issue, if your only qualm with this player is that you are playing a pally, and he is playing a dumbass that is getting away with murder as a non evil act...
why not just change you character to fit with this gm's idea of non evil acts?
no seriously, play your character more of a judge dread "i am the law" type of character. if they can get away with coup de grace vrs bad mook npc's then you should also. i dont agree with it, but im not your gm. have fun, seriously have fun, and play your pally in a way that you get to enjoy the sessions, as long as your gm and you are under agreement as to what is evil, or not, then you can skirt that line all day (now be careful if you play on other tables though).
now on the other hand if you are just throwing a hissyfit because hes doing something you dont like as a player, well tough s#@# and get over it.
|
Not for nothing lads and lasses...but PFS sessions are mostly timed stand alone sessions. "Role playing opportunities" are like "teachable moments" - useful and sometimes necessary, but to a limit!
Thinking about far reaching consequences are not usually necessary because the GM has an agenda to guide the players along within the adventure path/script of the session or even a module adventure/campaign. Allowances for role-playing should be limited to the consequence relating to the event-with a consideration of what the character SHOULD or COULD do, not always what the player WANTS or WOULD do. Remember your character is in a place and time and of a mindset that you as a real person would not have. That's where GM/"DIVINE" intervention occurs for guidance in particular for those crucial life altering moments.
SO YES a GM can tell you how your character may act in certain cases when in conflict with the norms of the world they live in, especially when it conflicts and may interrupt the flow of a session that is timed in PFS.
IN an unregulated PF or any RPG game, then by all means the GM can go with whatever he and the players find acceptable and fun. In my last major 3.5 campaign, my group did exactly did that and what was a published adventure turned into a decade long diversion of unique adventure paths before the original goal was eventually(in the least expected ways)accomplished 10+years later.
But in a 4-6 hour PFS session, where a specific overall goal should be achieved- where the alignment/morality tone is already balanced with individual Faction goals, players and GMs should understand what these parameters are and not act in way that would divert the group from their overall goal.
So any experienced player should be able to accept a quick "No, your character wouldn't really do that because..." And any rookie would just take it as a "teachable moment " and try something else.
Savvy?
Venture-Captain, Arizona—Tucson
|
The root issue in this discussion is a failure to "play well with others". The wizard's player knows full weel that what he's doing isn't cool. He's being a jerk.
With more sensitive or reasonable players, such conflicts could produce cool roleplaying moments. A couple of my favorite game moments have come from moral conflicts between my character and others in the party. I once played a paladin in a session with another paladin. Despite our similar classes and alignments, we had diametrically opposed opinions about many situations. His character was idealistic and hopeful, while mine was grim and cynical.
I could see two characters having an interesting and engaging roleplaying moment over the sort of conflict you described. Unfortunately, the wizard preempted that with his summary executions, treating the paladin's wishes with gross disrespect.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, everyone take your seats...class is in session. Take notes, you will be tested!
Let's go over these posts and explain each point
"Telling a player what their character will do without something giving the GM control of that character? Not only no but HELL no."
Now, now, invoking the Abyss does not make this point any more valid than the next...
So in the context of running a TIMED GAME at a convention there are absolutely times you have to say "no" to what a players wants to do. Not because your a "GM bully" LMAO on that term- because the game must progress at a certain rate and entertaining every roleplaying action will only take away from the game and other player's actions.
"Taking away a players ability to control their character (when they are acting within campaign rules) is flat out bad GMing"
Again we are talking about timed PFS sessions or any timed game here- play with enough ego-centric players who want to hog up gametime with too much roleplaying and you will see its called EFFICIENT GMing. I have DM/GMd hundreds of convention games and allow for as much florish as I possibly can but there is ALWAYS a limit- just to get the game going- AND guess what, sometimes you gotta say NO and move on.
Let me break it down with your examples:
"Ding them an alignment infraction"- A rookie player playing a PFS paladin in a 1st level convention game wants to coup-de-grace a fallen enemy because to the player, it makes sense- Alignment infraction? Really? Would that player even know how to adjust to that without a good amount of wasted game time roleplaying which may result in a change of character class? After he spent all that time making that cool wannabe Sir Lancelot and now because he doesnt have the experience to really understand LG alignment precepts he gets dinged? Wouldn't it be easier to say , NO your character would not do that because...(explained in one minute)
"have the NPCs call out the city watch"- okay the experienced & theatrical player(complete with the bad Scottish accent) armed with the boisterous barbarian character wants to start a barfight in some seedy tavern in Absalom's Dock district (after his group met with their contact to finding out the goal of their PF mission) and then wants to fight the responding citywatch guards..what happens if he kills one of them? His character goes to jail or worse he dies at the hand of the guards? The player has just spoiled the experience of the others who wanted to stay on mission. A simply "No, your character would probably try to be less troublesome or just say he passes out drunk." Controlling the character, yes. Moving the game on, not only yes, but a hell yes!
"but give them a chance to think about their action and decide if they follow through, then hang them with the result." This works if the group AS A WHOLE does not care about the completing the game, gaining the experience or prestige points. But 99% of the time this not the case, and rarely only a few players are ever needed to be kept in line by telling them NO and controlling what the do at that very moment.
Play or GM enough convention games and you will see that I am right on point. Reread my post and keep it within the context of a "TIMED (4-5 hours) SESSION" and everything makes sense.
So endeth the lesson.
Ok, everyone take your seats...class is in session. Take notes, you will be tested!
No-one is arguing that GMs shouldn't be able to say No, whether it's because of time restrictions or to maintain group harmony. Indeed the PvP restriction is essentially the GM saying No in advance. But there's a difference between saying 'No' on the one hand, and telling a player what his character thinks, or what his character wants to do on the other. It may be a small distinction to a GM, but it matters to a lot of players. It's the difference between restricting someone's actions and dictating their thoughts.