|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm hoping to get some clarification on what is/isn't considered PVP. Obviously, combat to the death is illegal in Society Play, but what about combat maneuvers and/or nonlethal damage? If the party Fighter gets feared and takes off running, can my character trip him? If the party Rogue wants to execute a helpless prisoner, can my Paladin disarm him? If (as happened today) the party Jerk gets irritated at the gangster leader we're negotiating with and decides to charge him with a longsword, can my character tackle him so he doesn't get us killed? What about gifting a sap to the back of the head as he runs past?
I know PVP's banned in order to preserve the player's fun, but if a fellow party member does something stupid (and the entire group - including the GM are OOC urging him to reconsider), how's my C/G Rogue supposed to react - especially when temporarily taking him down might prevent a TPK? I know this topic has been discussed before, but I've yet to find a clear ruling on the matter. Any help?
|
|
1. Yes, with the player's permission.
2. Yes, with the player's permission.
3. Yes, with the player's permission, but you probably won't get it.
4. That's really pushing it, but see above.
The best solution the situation you describe is for the GM to have the gangster be very understanding. I mean, he should totally kill the idiot character, but then he can continue negotiation with the rest of the party.
Venture-Lieutenant, California—Los Angeles (South Bay)
|
I have had other players give me in character permission to throw fire spells on targets that they are fighting with -- due to fire protection items. I think that the thing that is required is permission. So, perhaps it might be good to ask if players have no objection to someone tripping them or doing something non lethal if a fear spell is cast on him.
However, I think that we cannot have people do things to character without their permission. Yes, I have seen some stupid and frustrating players. However, as someone who plays and GMs in PFS, I have to respect the right of people to run their characters.
The question is whether the party would have problems for letting an NPC gangster kill another Pathfinder. I take the Pathfinder Society of Cooperate, Explore and Report seriously. Indeed, these dicatates and the anti PVP rules probably helps to make sure that characters as diverse as an Andoran diviner, a Taldan bard, a Cheliaxian inquisitor and others can work together. (Yes, there may be a bit of humor and rivalry, but there are limits.)
I hate to see any actions that causes people to give up on PFS.
|
Before getting Trap Spotter my rogue rushed into a room to evade a swarm of bats and triggered a Burning Hands trap that dropped two PCs below 0hp while Evasion left him unscathed. Afterwards one of the players said "my character walks up to the rogue and slaps him upside the head", to which the GM countered with "sorry, PvP is not allowed in Society".
Ah, memories.
|
As I personally see it, that would be a whole pile of jerky behavior. As a GM, I would talk to the player privately and explain that taking actions that expressly violate the group decision goes against the spirit Pathfinder Society, and needs to be stopped. You can play your character, but you cannot hijack the group. If the behavior continued, I would uninvite the player. Because if that one player doesn't leave, sooner or later the group will.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: everything below is my personal opinion
Rule 1: Ask for permission - it isn't PvP if it is consensual.
Rule 2: PvP is how it is perceived. As such it is akin to acts of evil. No rule ever will be able to clarify every situation.
Rule 3: you have a GM at your table - it's his remit to find solutions - even in unclear situations.
Problems only arise if players and/or GM perceive actions differently. One player might perceive it as PvP while the other one thinks it is for the best of the group.
The best I can do as GM is to try to rule fairly and in non partisan way. I will listen to voices at the table - but I will make a decision in a timely manner for the sake of keeping the game running.
This might include that one player feels I allowed PvP against him. In this case I surely perceived it differently or perceived most people at the table are of my opinion and I felt it was justified. I you feel I did a wrong decision - talk to me - after the game.
|
I may as well ask this here as it is along the same lines. I was running a scenario at Gencon. One player kept running off from the group and doing things on his own and driving the party crazy.
At one point he managed to get around behind the party in a particularly creepy and disturbing environment. I explained where he was to him away from the rest of the table. He told me he wanted to sneak up behind the party and jump out and scare them. They still believed he was scouting in front of them.
We take it back to the table and the party rolls perception checks. They can hear someone sneaking up on them but have no line of sight. Predictably they all ready attacks. When he jumps out they pound him into low negative hp, but don't manage to kill him. In many ways I wished they had as it would have been one of lifes most glorious examples of karma.
Now I have told this story a couple of times and was told I may have ran it wrong because it was PVP. My interpretation at the time was that it was ok because there was absolutely no intention of PVP. The other players genuinely had no idea it was him.
How would the rules apply to this scenario?
|
|
ShadowShackleton
Great example as it adds one more layer.
Now we have not only PvP but also meta-PvP.
It wasn't in character PvP - but you knew meta-gaming what was going on - and it seems it could have ended up killing the character. As GM you likely were annoyed with that player (as it seems the other player have been) - so it might have felt okay to teach the player a lesson.
So I clearly feel you would have overstepped if this would have resulted in a dead character. I think it was already bad enough when part of the group feels justified to potentially kill their comrade.
At the same time it is a difficult situation as the player at fault - sneaking off and trying to scare the others - played clearly not in the spirit of cooperation.
A better solution would have been to tell him off and explain when he tried to do that. Jumping out and scaring his comrades might seem as a prank (was the player using a gnome as mitigating circumstances) but nevertheless borders on PvP itself.
And you soon can get into a spiral that goes from bad to worse and in the end everybody lost.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The general rule for PvP is very simple: "Don't do anything to another player's character that the player of that character doesn't want you to do." That's it. Sometimes things happen by accident- it happens. Apologize, move on, try not to do it again. But don't negative channel in the middle of the party without Selective Channeling.
|
|
Thod: to be fair to the other players I would like to clarify a couple of things. First of all, the player who committed this action was fully aware that this might be a consequence. In fact he laughed like a hyena at the result. If I had asked him directly for permission for them to attack him he would have given it. I am sure of that.
Secondly, the other players around the table genuinely had no idea it was him. They were truly surprised that anyone would do that in the environment they were in. I know it sounds hard to believe that they wouldn't assume this, but they did not. My expectations of the situation was that one of them would say "hold your fire, that might be character x", but they all genuinely assumed they were under attack.
You are right that I enjoyed it thoroughly though, so I would be the only party to blame if his character was killed as a result. I admit it was probably the wrong decision, and I would just invoke the "don't be a jerk" rule with him in future, but It was probably the funniest moment of PFS play that group encountered that weekend. It seemed worth it at the time.
Probably one of those things that are awesome for home play, not cool for org play I suppose.
|
|
My description to the party was neutral: you hear something coming towards you through the (I'll call it full concealment to avoid spoilers).
"How big is it" was the only question.
"Roughly human sized"
"I ready scorching rays to blast it as soon as I have line of sight" etc. Followed by several similar responses.
I don't think I led them down the path and fully expected someone to ask if it might be the guy they just sent off on his own.
|
|
"The general rule for PvP is very simple: "Don't do anything to another player's character that the player of that character doesn't want you to do."
In the situation I mentioned, the party was meeting with the equivalent of the Godfather. In his base of operations. Surrounded by guards. Trying to get some vital information that only he knew so we could complete the overall mission. The one player (not wanting to owe the Godfather a favor) decided to attack him. The game paused as the players explained why this was a terrible idea, and that he could get us all killed. He ignored us. My Rogue (trying to save everyone) tripped his character as he charged the Godfather. Basically, my character was doing everything he could to show the Godfather that he had absolutely nothing to do with the unprovoked and unwarranted attack. After the scenario ended, the GM told me that my actions fell under PvP.
While I see where this is coming from, I'm a little confused by the rule in general. In its current state, players are allowed to do anything they want as long as it doesn't directly affect another PC. In the scenario I mentioned involving the Paladin and the helpless prisoner, the in-character interaction seems like it would be rather bizarre.
Player A: I'm going to kill this helpless prisoner.
Paladin: No! That's an evil act. He should be brought to trial as the law requires.
Player A: Nah, that'll take too long. *pulls out a sword
Paladin: *stands there and watches as the prisoner is murdered (after all, taking Player A's weapon is PvP)
While the quoted statement is a good rule of thumb, what happens when there's a conflict between player characters? It seems that the disruptive/suicidal/jerk-type player is given the OK to act, and then it's up to the GM to determine what happens next. Why doesn't the rest of the party get to do anything other than talk to the PC? That just doesn't seem fair to me.
EDIT: Obviously, if permission is given, that's a different story. My question's concerning the jerk player who doesn't give permission. In-character, his actions could be devastating to the party. Why can't the party in-character take actions to stop him? Why should the party (and the GM) suffer because one player's being disruptive? As a Society GM, I try to be flexible and give my players as much freedom as possible in the scenarios. However, if a player wants to trip a disruptive PC in order to possibly prevent a TPK, that's PvP and only allowed if the disruptive player gives permission? How's that fair? Thoughts?
|
|
Whack-a-Rogue
I think I know which scenario this is. It contains an awkward faction mission
One faction mission - I think Taldor = lets your action seem to look like you are a jerk. You have to ensure you get slapped / insulted by the Godfather equivalent' So possibly you tried to prevent someone from finishing his secret faction mission.
And that might have caused the accusation of PvP.
Just got the text:
Have I got a mission for you! When I first heard that you were being sent to distant Kaer Maga by the Society, I must admit I didn’t believe it. After recovering from my initial shock, I spent hours thinking of how best to use you there, and then the answer came to me—I need you to take a beating. Not just any beating, though! I need the man called Dakar, the leader of that cleverly secretive Commerce League, to be so offended by your presence that he orders his men to stomp some sense into you. As they beat you, you must say, “I do this for Taldor!” Hopefully he gets the message, even if you don’t.
If the spoiler is correct and it was this adventure then the GM was absolutely right to 'tell you off' - but he should have given you at least an explanation.
If I'm wrong and it isn't this situation - well - I haven't been at the table and I don't know all the details. And it would depend how I rule at the table.
No 'PvP' is not a carte-blanche for someone to act against the party and use this as a shield that makes him untouchable. But it needs the whole context to decide - and even then a GM might get it wrong as he has to decide on the fly.
edit: Similar situations that might be more common can occur if someone has a faction mission to ensure BBEG or a specific henchman is dead to fulfill his faction mission. In this case I would side with player A and not the paladin.
On the other hand - in case of a random NPC with no gain for anyone I would likely tell the player A off to respect the paladin code and his view.
|
|
Thod: Right scenario, wrong faction :-)
Basically, we had a player new to the Society playing at a Tier 4-5 table. Didn't like that he couldn't play his brand new character. Didn't like the pre-gens. Didn't like that we had two Clerics in the party. Complained that the scenario was "too railroady." Complained that no one role-plays anymore. Complained about the hoods. Complained about owing the mob boss a favor. Played his character as "Chaotic-Stupid." Decided to go out in a blaze of glory (while simultaneously screwing over everyone else). After we tried to talk him out of attacking (and my tripping his character), he decided that his character spontaneously immolated and stormed out claiming that PFS was stupid.
With this added context, what other options did my Rogue have? What are good in-game ways to save players from themselves without resorting to violence/combat maneuvers?
|
As a GM, I feel a situation like this is relatively easy to handle. You pull the player aside and politely discuss with him his disruptive and unsporting behavior, and if they persist in being an ass after that, you have a very understanding baddy and his buds wipe the floor with the fool who attacked them and not hold the fool's actions against his peers and proceed with the scene as intended.
As a player, it's alot harder because there isn't a PC available clause for dealing with another PC/player who's doing something completely idiotic that will have consequences for the other players and/or the success of the scenario. Had it been me I would have tried to reason with him in-character, then out of character, and then frankly if all that failed I would have tried grappling him or using a crowd control spell on him and just seen if my GM let me get away with it.
|
|
As a player, it's alot harder because there isn't a PC available clause for dealing with another PC/player who's doing something completely idiotic that will have consequences for the other players and/or the success of the scenario.
This was an OOC problem. Not an IC one. If my first attempt at handling it IC failed. I'd entreat with him OOC. If that failed, and he remained a jerk, then I would handle it one of 3 ways.
1) I'd personally take the GM aside and ask him to deal with the player (or being a V-O ask the GM if he wanted me to handle it.)
2) I'd tell the player to please leave if I was the GM or if the GM asked me to handle it.
3) If I weren't a VO and the GM refused to handle it, I'd tell the GM that I was going to leave if he didn't ask the unruly player to leave.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It shouldn't matter; if only one of them feels it, you need to hit harder.The player or the character?I'm wondering what options I have as a player in a situation like that.Throatpunch?Get him to hold his character sheet about an inch away from his face then punch it.
Added bonus, he counts as blinded, so you get sneak attack damage!
Unfortunately, this only works if you make a bluff check to get him to hold the sheet up to his face. On the up side, it sounds like this guy's wisdom and sense motive could be pretty low.
But as for the topic at hand, I've seen a lot of things that borderline qualify as PVP in PFS. I've seen dominated PCs making lethal attacks against their allies, who then fight back lethally. I've seen the wimpy, low strength party witch in the back of the group try to grapple our feared cleric to keep her from running away after she failed a will save vs a fear affect. Then there are those instances of area of effect spells being used with an ally inside the fireball blast zone - usually with permission from the affected PC, but should the party fighter really be able to stop the wizard from using his most effective weapon by rushing into battle too soon?
The most obvious that's actually required by the game is a sleight of hand check oppposed by other party members' perceptions to complete a faction mission. Does that count as PVP?
As far as I'm concerned, players shouldn't be fighting to the death, but a non-lethal combat maneuver or some minor friendly fire is fair game, as long as there's a good reason behind it.
|
|
As far as I'm concerned, players shouldn't be fighting to the death, but a non-lethal combat maneuver or some minor friendly fire is fair game, as long as there's a good reason behind it.
This. Some variation of the above added to the Organized Play document would clear up a lot of the trouble with the current PvP rules.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, California—Los Angeles (South Bay)
|
As far as I'm concerned, players shouldn't be fighting to the death, but a non-lethal combat maneuver or some minor friendly fire is fair game, as long as there's a good reason behind it.This. Some variation of the above added to the Organized Play document would clear up a lot of the trouble with the current PvP rules.
Until then, I think player communication is key. It is next to impossible to eliminate the jerk factor or the unpredictable player factor at every table. However, we can have players discuss what is allowable, such as tripping or restraining charmed or frightened characters.
|
|
As far as I'm concerned, players shouldn't be fighting to the death, but a non-lethal combat maneuver or some minor friendly fire is fair game, as long as there's a good reason behind it.This. Some variation of the above added to the Organized Play document would clear up a lot of the trouble with the current PvP rules.
Oh hell no. The last thing i need is two people tripping each other and glazing each other in bbq sauce in front of the monster because "its what my character would do" is a good reason.
|
|
As far as I'm concerned, players shouldn't be fighting to the death, but a non-lethal combat maneuver or some minor friendly fire is fair game, as long as there's a good reason behind it.This. Some variation of the above added to the Organized Play document would clear up a lot of the trouble with the current PvP rules.
Oh hell no. The last thing i need is two people tripping each other and glazing each other in bbq sauce in front of the monster because "its what my character would do" is a good reason.
Obviously, "don't be a jerk" is still rule #1.
|
|
I really don't see the difference between hitting someone for 30 points of damage or tripping them so the monster can do it.
You seem to be trying to disagree with something in this thread, but I'm having a hard time figuring out what it is you disagree with. Can you provide a quote showing what it is you're responding to, since nobody has ever even implied that setting up your allies to be killed would ever be acceptable?
Nobody is saying that getting a fellow player killed is acceptable. As I already said, "Don't be a jerk" is still rule #1.
But there are times when a non-lethal combat maneuver can help the target, rather than hurting them. The obvious example that keeps getting thrown around is tripping or grappling someone who is running away after failing a save against a fear affect. Current rules are ambiguous as to whether that's allowed, but I've never seen any player or GM invoke the "no PvP" rule to prevent it from being done. That particular type of attack against a fellow player seems to be almost universally accepted, from what I've seen.
Similarly, it's usually considered ok to splash an ally when throwing alchemist's fire, even without asking first. Throwing an area of effect while another player is in the middle of it usually involves asking first, but it's frequently allowed.
Again, common sense and "Don't be a jerk" go a long way.
An official clarification from campaign management that these types of things are allowed would help with the very rare case that we hear about on these forums of people insisting that any attack roll against another player is always strictly forbidden, regardless of the circumstance.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I'm concerned, players shouldn't be fighting to the death, but a non-lethal combat maneuver or some minor friendly fire is fair game, as long as there's a good reason behind it.This. Some variation of the above added to the Organized Play document would clear up a lot of the trouble with the current PvP rules.
I believe the rule is deliberately vague and with good reason. Anytime you make a rule designed to stop people from being jerks, the more detailed you make it, the more the jerks are going to 'rules lawyer' it and look for loopholes that let them claim their jerk behavior is within the rules. If the Jerks don't know for sure they can use a loophole to escape repercussions they are less likely to try something jerkish.
It should be up to the DM to determine this. Though he should give clear warnings to players when they are about to cross the line.