|
I recall this topic being discussed quite a while ago, but I am interested in the level of table variation that exists. So here is my question...
Would you allow a player to change their character at the beginning of the scenario after character introductions? If so, how far is too far?
With wide variety of PCs available now, it is inevitable that you will eventually encounter a character that your PC just would not travel with. It could be a zealot paladin, an undead master necro-voking death priest, or whatever. If you sat at a table with your polar-opposite, you have a few choices; be a jerk and embrace the conflict, suppress your character's morals/ethics/etc., leave the table, play a different character. IMO, the first three (especially the first choice) do not sound like they are encouraging GoodRightFun. None may be the "best" choice, but the last seems at least a plausible compromise.
Now, in my experience, often the character intros don't occur until after the intro boxed-text. Would you allow a player to switch characters that far into the scenario?
|
Huh, I never thought of this scenario happening. Every table I've been to, we've discussed what we're playing to try to have a rounded out party, so such conflicts would have been either cut off or accepted at the get-go. Of course, actual introductions are done in-game, but we always know who's playing what.
Okay, back to the point.
Personally, I'd think that if you have some conflict in game, it would be roleplaying, which is what we're all there for. No one gets to be a jerk, and everyone is doing the will of the Decemvirate (plus a little side work for their faction). So I'd say let it ride. Your characters don't have to like eachother or agree with eachother to do their job.
If it causes too much friction, I suppose it's up to GM discretion as to whether or not they'll let the player swap characters. Personally, I'd draw the line at the first check. Once anyone rolls a die, the cast is set.
I would hope players are mature enough to stick it out even if it gets a little uncomfortable for a few hours. (That was in no way meant to be offensive to anyone, and I apologize if it comes across as such.)
|
|
Now, in my experience, often the character intros don't occur until after the intro boxed-text. Would you allow a player to switch characters that far into the scenario?
Absolutely. Ideally everyone should discuss their character choices OOC before the session starts, but if that does not happen then this is really the only solution which encourages people to act like adults. If the option were not provided when I needed it, I would have to walk from the table and I honestly would judge the DM who made me do that poorly.
Also if there is a potential conflict between characters I would ask both players to choose another character.
I for one have asked "would the Society have actually asked my character to do this mission, with him being known for X, Y and Z tendencies?"
There's just some jobs they wouldn't send, say, a lawful good Silver Crusader paladin to do.
-k
|
|
be a jerk and embrace the conflict
Just because characters are fighting doesn't mean that the players are.
Some of the best PFS role playing I've had is with diametrically opposed characters bickering with each other.
But like any good action movie, even though the characters fight with each other, they either put it aside against a mutual foe.. or just keep quipping with each other while pounding on mutual foes.
It is not remotely being a jerk to expect grown adults (or mostly grown young adults) to be able to separate the character from the player.
With that said.. anything thats going to make for a better play experience for the people involved should probably be allowed. If someone can't play a paladin in a group with a cleric if Lamashtu without taking it too far, pulling a last minute substitution is probably best for everyone involved.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I for one have asked "would the Society have actually asked my character to do this mission, with him being known for X, Y and Z tendencies?"
There's just some jobs they wouldn't send, say, a lawful good Silver Crusader paladin to do.
-k
I think the humanoid resources department at the pathfinder society is run by the same gnome who came up with the fame system.
My 7 charisma druid keeps getting sent to fancy balls and functions.
The velociraptor goes along to show him how to hold the teacup.
|
|
It is absolutely not the GM's purview to decide which character a player will play. If, after the introduction, a player wants to change characters, that should be his right, barring extraordinary circumstances. Once actual post-introductory play has begun, I'd say the player is stuck with the character he brought to the dance.
|
The typical way that I start a session is to describe the PCs being summoned to the Grand Lodge, arriving in a meeting hall and sizing each other up. I ask the players not to identify their PC by class or combat role, but rather by their appearance on the outside. Even so, many players still say "I'm a 2nd level rogue" like that's on a placard around their neck.
Regardless, there's almost always a conversation that happens before all the players are seated. "What are you bringing?" is the common query. This is the best time for the players to identify potential conflicts.
Player A "How does your Pharasman feel about undead allies?"
Player B "Undead are an abomination to her. It is her duty to oppose those who create them, and return the bodies to a respectable place of rest."
Player A "My necromancer is built to use undead servants. If I can't do that, he won't be able to contribute effectively."
At this point there needs to be a mature conversation. If the two players agree that their characters could not cooperate then one of them needs to swap out a character before the game starts. What will likely happen is the players will turn to the GM to make a ruling, because they can't agree on a solution.
As a GM I would not have a problem with swapping a PC out prior to the Pathfinder getting to the adventure location.
I think the bottom line is if you have a PC whose behavior drifts into the extreme Good/Evil axis, you need to be prepared to play a different PC when you are going to be playing with a table of strangers, for instance at GenCon. You cannot expect others to always accommodate you. If you are playing with your friends it's different. If you constantly come to a table and refuse to show flexibility, you are being a jerk. "I'm just playing my character" is no longer a defense.
Everyone should be able to play their character, but there's a time and a place when that can be done. I have to question a player's intentions if they come to the table looking for a conflict with the other players. This is a game. It shouldn't sound like the guys arguing politics in the Off-Topic Forum.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the humanoid resources department at the pathfinder society is run by the same gnome who came up with the fame system.
My 7 charisma druid keeps getting sent to fancy balls and functions.
The velociraptor goes along to show him how to hold the teacup.
I did NOT come up with the fame system, and I resent the implication!!! That system is far too organized and logical for me!
--Yzarctihstab, Lord Baron Garblenarf, Sorcerer of the Vurduran Forest of Taldor, and part time HR Assistant for the Pathfinder Society (because actually going on missions myself is starting to really scare me, so I'm looking to switch to a desk job)
|
As a player I'd either switch or leave the table. I have a couple of controversial characters and before I play them I announce the following:
"Hi guys. Before we start my character is a Rahadoumi disbeliever meaning that he will utterly refuse to have a divine spell cast on him. I'm happy to play another character if you think that he will weaken the group."
Or:
"My character is a crusading Paladin that is an idiot on every level. He's a bit of a comedy character and I'm aware that some people don't like that. Do you mind if I play him?"
If you play a character that is at all controversial then it is your responsibility to make sure the group is cool with that.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just reading this thread makes me wonder if someday I'll sit down with my LG cleric of Iomedae, be next to a CN necromancer or other such PC, assure said player that my cleric can tolerate such an ally for the sake of the mission, and then be consistently antagonized by said PC all while having the GM warn me about playing a disruptive character.
Threads like these always make me wonder if that day is coming.
|
|
The typical way that I start a session is to describe the PCs being summoned to the Grand Lodge, arriving in a meeting hall and sizing each other up. I ask the players not to identify their PC by class or combat role, but rather by their appearance on the outside. Even so, many players still say "I'm a 2nd level rogue" like that's on a placard around their neck.
Regardless, there's almost always a conversation that happens before all the players are seated. "What are you bringing?" is the common query. This is the best time for the players to identify potential conflicts.
Player A "How does your Pharasman feel about undead allies?"
Player B "Undead are an abomination to her. It is her duty to oppose those who create them, and return the bodies to a respectable place of rest."
Player A "My necromancer is built to use undead servants. If I can't do that, he won't be able to contribute effectively."At this point there needs to be a mature conversation. If the two players agree that their characters could not cooperate then one of them needs to swap out a character before the game starts. What will likely happen is the players will turn to the GM to make a ruling, because they can't agree on a solution.
As a GM I would not have a problem with swapping a PC out prior to the Pathfinder getting to the adventure location.
I think the bottom line is if you have a PC whose behavior drifts into the extreme Good/Evil axis, you need to be prepared to play a different PC when you are going to be playing with a table of strangers, for instance at GenCon. You cannot expect others to always accommodate you. If you are playing with your friends it's different. If you constantly come to a table and refuse to show flexibility, you are being a jerk. "I'm just playing my character" is no longer a defense.
Everyone should be able to play their character, but there's a time and a place when that can be done. I have to question a player's intentions if they come to the table looking...
+1 to everything except what I bolded in the quote.
"That's just what my character would do." was never an adequate defense. The only difference now is that it's in the guide, and the GM can tell the player outright to stop being an jerk or leave.
On topic: I would probably allow a character swap up til the beginning of the first encounter, whether that be combat, roleplay, or a puzzle. But that would depend on the situation. Any mission involving being currently on or having gotten to your destination via boat is likely a no as would most/all of the Hao Jin Tapestry scenarios. Once those are started, the PCs arent readily reachable or easily able to leave and have someone else come in.
|
|
Just reading this thread makes me wonder if someday I'll sit down with my LG cleric of Iomedae, be next to a CN necromancer or other such PC, assure said player that my cleric can tolerate such an ally for the sake of the mission, and then be consistently antagonized by said PC all while having the GM warn me about playing a disruptive character.
Threads like these always make me wonder if that day is coming.
I hope that never happens, but if it does, you should talk to the coordinator or talk to your local VO about it. Though Im sure you already knew that. ;)
|
what if they don't have another character that could play that tier (sub-tier)?I believe that is what pregenerated characters are for.
So because people choose to make characters that really aren’t very good Pathfinders (Explore, Report, Cooperate), you are going to suggest someone play a pregen instead of their character?
I mean my Wife plays a Oracle of the Heavens who reveres Pharasma above all other deities. She is not prone to extreme roleplay, but has said she’d find it incredibly uncomfortable to roleplay with a necromancer who chooses to keep a pet skeleton, because she wouldn’t be allowed to kill the skeleton. Are you saying that to accommodate a character that doesn’t really fit the profile of a pathfinder, you’d suggest to my wife that she play Kyra or Ezren instead of Merga at Tier 10-11?
That seems to be punishing those who spend the time to create a character that would make a good pathfinder (along the cooperate tenet) rather than those who create extreme characters that don’t play well with others, doesn’t it?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So because people choose to make characters that really aren’t very good Pathfinders (Explore, Report, Cooperate), you are going to suggest someone play a pregen instead of their character?
*headscratch* why is it the necromancer who's not cooperating here ? Why is a necromancer who's not being a good pathfinder? Having your own army of disposable mooks that can set off traps and be fed head first to monsters without a second thought is damned handy when you're exploring. Sure, the venture captains might think that's their job, but who cares as long as the party comes back with the information they were sent to find?
|
|
Didn't we just have this debate in the necromancer thread last week?
I'll ask the same question I asked there: What's with all the paladin hate?
And again, as I mentioned in that thread, it's followers of Pharasma who seem to have an even bigger issue with necromancers than the paladins. And I will once again side with the followers of Pharasma.
If there's a dispute that really causes enough conflict that two PCs can't play together, I will always side against the PC who is doing something evil. Even though raising dead for use in non-evil ways is allowed in PFS, it's still a technically evil act under the rules of the game.
|
|
If there's a dispute that really causes enough conflict that two PCs can't play together, I will always side against the PC who is doing something evil
The pathfinder society is not a good organization.
You should sign with the character thats saying "I will work with ________" not with the player saying "I won't work with a fellow pathfinder"
|
|
You are taking me out of context and applying my statement to a concept I never used in what I said.
I mentioned extreme builds. Why would a Paladin who is so staunch and steadfast in his ways of goodliness even care to join the Pathfinder Society? Why would a necromancer who’s gotta have a zombie following him around all the time, be admitted to the Pathfinder Society?
For the sake of this campaign, if the character is legally built, the “Pathfinder Society” accepts them regardless of what the character’s personality is. As a world-wide organized play campaign we can’t adjudicate roleplay. It is impossible. It is the player’s responsibility to bring a character that would be a good fit into the Pathfinder Society.
If you build your character so extreme (whether that be the ultra conservative/fundamental Paladin or an undead creating necromancer) that they have a tendency to not play well with others, then you aren’t building a character that would be good at a being a Pathfinder.
This argument has degenerated into “badwrongfun” and all that. That’s not what I’m saying. Build what you want. But as a player, you gotta take some responsibility for creating a character that at least ostensibly “can” get along with others.
As players we should never build characters where it is either inherent in their build or the personality we’ve created for them, that they basically can bring a game to a standstill because of a moral argument.
And to tell my wife, who has a very easy going character, that maybe she should play a level 7 pregen in a sub-tier 10-11 game, because her Pharasma worshiping Oracle of Heaven would be uncomfortable around a zombie creating necromancer, is insulting and would likely cause her to never play again (certainly not with the necromancer, the GM, or any other player who suggested such a thing).
And if, as a player, you choose to shirk your responsibility to create a character that won’t bring a game to a standstill because of an inherent build or personality choice, then at the very least, that player should be the one who has a 2nd character available or should play the pregen. And this is regardless of whether it is a Fundamental Lawful Stupid Paladin or an evil-wannabe Necromancer.
|
|
If there's a dispute that really causes enough conflict that two PCs can't play together, I will always side against the PC who is doing something evilThe pathfinder society is not a good organization.
You should sign with the character thats saying "I will work with ________" not with the player saying "I won't work with a fellow pathfinder"
I disagree to a point.
You should side with the person who’s created a character who could reasonably get along with most anyone who was a Pathfinder.
And I’d wager there are a ton more character concepts who worship Pharasma, than those who summon or create undead.
And if you truly worship Pharasma, you will not work alongside an undead creature.
So the undead creating character is really not a feasible player character in this campaign. Its allowed, but it really isn’t feasible, and those who choose to do so, choose to take on the challenge that either their character will be gimped because they are adventuring with one or more characters who worship Pharasma, or they will have to play another character or a pregen.
Same goes for the uber strict Paladin. If you grind the game to a halt arguing on every moral choice another character might have to make, then you are not a feasible character for this campaign.
But simply being a worshiper of Pharasma isn’t an extreme character of the kind I’m talking about.
|
|
If there's a dispute that really causes enough conflict that two PCs can't play together, I will always side against the PC who is doing something evilThe pathfinder society is not a good organization.
You should sign with the character thats saying "I will work with ________" not with the player saying "I won't work with a fellow pathfinder"
First of all, you seem to have ignored the "if" portion of my statement. I would hope that any two players could work out their PC differences without having to switch characters. As I mentioned in the other thread, my paladin wouldn't like working with a necromancer, and would probably complain and keep a close eye on him, but that would just be RP, and we could have an entertaining time RPing our PCs hating each other.
But as for the Society not being a good organization, you are correct. But it is a neutral organization leans towards good. Evil members are explicitly forbidden, even if a few evil members/allies manage to slip in anyway (Paracountess Dralneen, for instance). Evil PCs are forbidden from PFS. So a player with a borderline evil character should be aware that they're likely to cause conflict when they bring that PC to some tables, and they should be willing to step back and play a different PC if that conflict can't be worked out.
It goes back to Andrew's comments above. The player bringing the conflict to the table needs to be ready to compromise.
|
|
One last comment, and as Seth suggested, I’ll leave it alone.
There is an entire faction (Andoran) that specifically hates undead, think they break the rules of freedom that they live by (undead is just a form of slavery to them).
If my NG Rage Prophet Sir Captain Eagle Knight who worships Cayden, said he wouldn’t adventure with someone who chose to summon or create undead during the mission, is my character the extreme character, the intractable one? Or is the one summoning or creating the undead, who knows that most good folk will think it incredibly distasteful, if not outright evil and wrong to do so, the one who is intractable if they choose to summon anyways?
|
|
I would love to drop Antagonize on one of my characters because I have seen it is so prone to DM ruling that it's nearly unusable with some. I wouldn't ask to drop it because I chose poorly. I don't think I did and I think it's incredibly useful. But some DMs hate it on principle for forcing their NPCs to act contrary to their nature. When a feat causes conflict, and is not used because DMs will decide it's not going to work because they don't want it to, I would like to have some recourse.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I would love to drop Antagonize on one of my characters because I have seen it is so prone to DM ruling that it's nearly unusable with some. I wouldn't ask to drop it because I chose poorly. I don't think I did and I think it's incredibly useful. But some DMs hate it on principle for forcing their NPCs to act contrary to their nature. When a feat causes conflict, and is not used because DMs will decide it's not going to work because they don't want it to, I would like to have some recourse.
ROFL
Someone stopped reading after the title... ;)
|
|
You should side with the person who’s created a character who could reasonably get along with most anyone who was a Pathfinder.
That would not be the paladin for two reasons.
Most scenarios involve some combination of subterfuge, lying, deception, law breaking, murder, unlawful abuse of farm equipment and mayhem. Thats problematic for the paladin. Not an insurmountable obstacle, but still problematic.
Secondly it doesn't ever seem like its the necromancer that says "I will not work with this person or his methods". Its always the paladin or pharasmite that thinks there's something wrong about the new party member.
And I’d wager there are a ton more character concepts who worship Pharasma, than those who summon or create undead.
Its not a numbers game. The one person playing the conscientious objector is trying to gain veto power over one other persons character.
And if you truly worship Pharasma, you will not work alongside an undead creature.
Given the typical lifespan of a summoned or controlled creature being used by a pathfinder society member they could just consider it a slow form of execution.
So the undead creating character is really not a feasible player character in this campaign. Its allowed, but it really isn’t feasible
Absolutely not.
Another players obstinacy and insistence on playing THEIR character so it won't get along with others does not in any way shape or form give them the right to declare a perfectly viable build not feasible.
What if a majority of players said that they'd had it with paladins?
and those who choose to do so, choose to take on the challenge that either their character will be gimped because they are adventuring with one or more characters who worship Pharasma, or they will have to play another character or a pregen.
This is giving the player that insists on there being a problem, rather than the one that is willing to work with the others, control. This is arbitrarily handing one player veto power over the other player's characters.
Players don't get that kind of control over other players. Everyone gets to bring their own character to the table.
But simply being a worshiper of Pharasma isn’t an extreme character of the kind I’m talking about.
If the pharasmite is insisting that that undead needs to die RIGHT NOW, rather than waiting until we can chuck it into the jaws of the next monster they are.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Secondly it doesn't ever seem like its the necromancer that says "I will not work with this person or his methods". Its always the paladin or pharasmite that thinks there's something wrong about the new party member.
It doesn't ever seem like its the wolf that says "I will not work with this person or his methods". Its always the sheep or pig that thinks there's something wrong about the new party member.
It doesn't ever seem like its the shady new boyfriend that says "I will not work with this person or his methods". Its always the father or mother that thinks there's something wrong about the new party member.
It doesn't ever seem like its the school cheater that says "I will not work with this person or his methods". Its always the A-student he's paired with for a project that thinks there's something wrong about the new party member.
It doesn't ever seem like its the child molester that says "I will not work with this person or his methods". Its always the parent or guardian that thinks there's something wrong about the new party member.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jiggy: and if the pathfinder society were the silver crusade, the shining crusade, heroes inc, the harpers, or the justice league you'd be right.
But the pathfinder society does include wolves. It does include shady boyfriends (some of the scarzini and Chelaxian stuff goes well past shady)and it does include cheaters, smugglers, poachers and grave robbers. It is in fact a society largely devoted to poaching things out of graves and then smuggling them back home without telling anyone.
If you want to play the big damned hero go right ahead. Most of my characters certainly qualify. But other people like playing anti heroes, combat pragmatists, and amoral social climbers and they have just as much right to play as I do.
|
|
Here's something I posted on a different thread a while back. It relates to "Changing Characters" ... for whatever reason.
This is a commonly overlooked tactic for the PLAYER, not the PC.
Have more than one PC available. That means before the adventure starts - once you have most of the table picked (both the other players and the adventure), pick amoung your personal PCs by what the party needs. Check with everyone else about what they are playing. Balance the team. Is there 2 barbarians, a bard, and a Magus at the table? seems to me they need a Cleric... or maybe a Rogue. a 5th level cleric at that table (even at tier 6-7) would be better than another Barbarian (even a 7th level barbarian). This esp. works if the other players have more than one PC available too.
So many players have just one PC. or maybe only one PC at a wide Tier. That's fine, I am not complaining about it, it just means they have no flexibility. Kind of like the Barbarian with only a Cold Iron Greatsword... and no other weapons. Sometimes it helps to have a backup....
Do you come to the table with only one weapon? Why do you come with only one PC? "But I like my Undead Paladin of Pharasma!" sounds a lot like "Pick a lock? I pull my 2H-Sword named Disable Device..."
WHATEVER reason my PC is not a good fit for this team, I switch it. 'Cause I want to play with people who enjoy haveing me at the table. I want to be a useful, fun, team member.
Nosig,
Do you have a viable character at every single sub-tier?
I don’t. I have 9 characters. 2 are level 12, one just hit level 10. I just barely got one of my level 3-4’s into level 5 with GM credit. I have one at level 3 almost 4, and one at level 4.1. I also have a level 2.1 and a level 1.1. Finally I have a level 2 that hasn’t been made yet.
I have about 77 GM credits and approximately 50 player credits.
I can’t imagine how many games you’ve played to make sure you have 2 or 3 characters per sub-tier as you suggest.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BNW: I'm talking at the player level, not the character level. No matter WHAT characters are in the group, players can always (if they really want to) find some way of roleplaying that isn't disruptive to the table.
In-character, yes, the PFS has the wolves and weirdos. But if they're causing actual out-of-character problems (which is what this topic is really about), it's because of the player.
So with that in mind, the point of my post is simply that the person who says something is not automatically the person who's the problem, unlike what your comment implied.
|
|
I can’t imagine how many games you’ve played to make sure you have 2 or 3 characters per sub-tier as you suggest.
Maybe he means tier and not subtier? That sounds much more reasonable.
I like the suggestion, and I try to do the same thing, nosig, but I think Andrew is right as far as having that many characters available seems kind daunting. :p
To answer the original question: Yes, I would allow someone to swap a character out after the introductions.
Of course, I avoid the whole issue altogether by making characters that get along with just about everyone. How boring! ;-)
|
|
In-character, yes, the PFS has the wolves and weirdos. But if they're causing actual out-of-character problems (which is what this topic is really about), it's because of the player.
How do you justify saying that they're the cause of the out of character problem?
So with that in mind, the point of my post is simply that the person who says something is not automatically the person who's the problem, unlike what your comment implied.
The person who made a character and insists that they MUST role play a character so that he or she can't work with whoever the venture captain assigned to work with them IS the problem. As a player you know some people have weird concepts. As a character you should know that a lot of pathfinders suffer from an excess of personality and a deficiency of morals before you swear in.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
In-character, yes, the PFS has the wolves and weirdos. But if they're causing actual out-of-character problems (which is what this topic is really about), it's because of the player.How do you justify saying that they're the cause of the out of character problem?
You're asking how I justify saying that players are the cause of OOC problems?
So with that in mind, the point of my post is simply that the person who says something is not automatically the person who's the problem, unlike what your comment implied.The person who made a character and insists that they MUST role play a character so that he or she can't work with whoever the venture captain assigned to work with them IS the problem.
That's a subtly different statement than the one I was responding to.
As a player you know some people have weird concepts.
Tell me about it. Saturday I was in a party with a ninja named "Big Dog". :/