|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[ I also am pretty sure that GM has something on the Aspergers/Autism spectrum and took him aside and with some information to get help (it exists in my family).
I wasn't going to get involved in this thread ... however, I feel something needs to be said on this portion of your post. While the entirety of your post was good and had lots of awesome things. The healthcare worker brain that I have now has read flags going off in it.
Unless you are a physician that is state/federal board qualified to be making a diagnosis, you should never approach someone. Just because it runs in your family does not make you an expert. Giving someone information on a disease that they may or may not have is worse that not saying something at all. That is the point where you need to take the issues to the coordinator and let them deal with the GM themselves.
It could be that the GM knows about the issues and has been working to overcome them and may have already had a discussion with the coordiator -- there are a lot of things behind the scenes that happen that players aren't and shouldn't be aware of.
You can fuss and fume that you know everything that there is know about the disease, but until you show me your board certification that gives you the license to diagnosis the disease you shouldn't be saying anything.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
They do not want to deal with being held emotionally hostage by a player trying to play something that doesn't quite follow the rules. So, when a player tries to play an amphibious, green gnome covered in seaweed named Sigmund the Seamonster it can really throw off a GM. Especially when the player starts laying on the passive-aggressive guilt of claiming its the only character they have in this tier and will not be able to play.
With all due respect, Will, I would welcome that player to the table and look forward to a hilarious game. I also don't feel that Sigmund the Seamonster violates the rules. Let's look at it:
Gnome - Fine. One of the core races.
Green - Great! Gnomes are known for odd skin hues, and often for dying themselves various colors.
Seaweed - Not a problem, so long as he has some way to keep it fresh or has fake seaweed of some sort.
Amphibious - Also not a problem, if he has a way to breath underwater or fake it. Perhaps a Potion of Water Breathing?
To be honest, I don't really see the problem here. Somebody is being creative and acting within the rules. Also, I could completely see a gnome doing this, given their penchant for odd names and confusing people. In fact...I may have to make Sigmund, with your permission. :P
|
They do not want to deal with being held emotionally hostage by a player trying to play something that doesn't quite follow the rules. So, when a player tries to play an amphibious, green gnome covered in seaweed named Sigmund the Seamonster it can really throw off a GM. Especially when the player starts laying on the passive-aggressive guilt of claiming its the only character they have in this tier and will not be able to play.
The only thing is, no one is talking about bringing a green gnome named Sigmund the Seamonster. Everyone is bringing what they think is a reasonable character well within the rules. The rules have no proviso for aquatic gnomes. They do have rules that state a summoner and eidolon have a close personal connection. That is the difference.
It is not always the player's fault if they throw the GM for a loop. I've met a fair share, and occasionally been the GM, who is too easily thrown for a loop. It happens to us all.
A loop free game will not happen all the time and it is usualy not a product of malice.
A GM should not lay on passive aggresive guilt on the player for throwing them for a loop simply because they don't like being thrown for a loop, particularly if said loop was accidental. If people are making a reasonable effort to make the GM comfortable and are respectful of the work they did prepping and GMing, that is all that is to be expected.
|
|
They do not want to deal with being held emotionally hostage by a player trying to play something that doesn't quite follow the rules. So, when a player tries to play an amphibious, green gnome covered in seaweed named Sigmund the Seamonster it can really throw off a GM. Especially when the player starts laying on the passive-aggressive guilt of claiming its the only character they have in this tier and will not be able to play.The only thing is, no one is talking about bringing a green gnome named Sigmund the Seamonster. Everyone is bringing what they think is a reasonable character well within the rules. The rules have no proviso for aquatic gnomes. They do have rules that state a summoner and eidolon have a close personal connection. That is the difference.
It is not always the player's fault if they throw the GM for a loop. I've met a fair share, and occasionally been the GM, who is too easily thrown for a loop. It happens to us all.
A loop free game will not happen all the time and it is usualy not a product of malice.
A GM should not lay on passive aggresive guilt on the player for throwing them for a loop simply because they don't like being thrown for a loop, particularly if said loop was accidental. If people are making a reasonable effort to make the GM comfortable and are respectful of the work they did prepping and GMing, that is all that is to be expected.
One thing I've come to expect when sitting down to run tables, is that there is going to be at least one odd "thing" presented. Going in prepared for this means that I'm able to not be shocked at being presented with this "thing" but am better able to take it in stride and ask the player to explain their "thing" to me so that I'm able to understand it. If there are parts that I'm questioning as to how it can work from a GM perspective... I've a wealth of other GMs around me that have probably encountered said "thing" and can give me advise.
While I agree, that the burdon of proof is on the presenter -- i.e. come with your stuff to run the "thing" you want to run... GMs shouldn't be making blanket NO statments until they've had a moment to investigate. That is when it is nice for the player to mention their "thing" while everyone is setting up vs. in the middle of combat (because ambushing the GM is usually not very nice), this gives the GM time to investigate if needed. If a player respects me enough to give me the heads up... then I respect the player... if they don't well, their "thing" doesn't necesarily work on my table if they can't explain their "thing" to me in a sentence or two.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My opinion on this inclusive vs exclusive:
It's both.
Inclusive - PFS is inclusive in that it doesn't prevent people from playing. You can find a public game near you, go to a convention, or start your own group. No on is preventing you from playing. Judges in public settings are required to allow play of any legal choice. We all learned the hard way that we couldn't ban the synthesis from play at our tables (before it became an illegal choice)
Exclusive - PFS is designed around a set of sub-rules that exclude options published by Paizo. You can not run a world-wide live campaign inclusively, it leads to too much table variation. PFS has to be exclusive in order to prevent too much table variation. It would never work if every time you sat at a table you had a 50:50 chance of the Judge approving your character for play. Even Mike has said that PFS is not for everyone and that if you don't like the rules as they are...go elsewhere.
It's not a black and white issue, it's a balancing act.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not a black and white issue, it's a balancing act.
I agreed, and that's how it should be. But I have experienced GMs feeling like they are handcuffed in their ability to make judgments. That's more black than white (or vice versa). I guess what I am looking for is some sort of blessing for GMs to use common sense first, followed closely by RAW. They shouldn't ever violate RAW, but since RAW is often not cut and dried, they should feel like that have a recourse to make the judgment that seems right to them.
|
|
I agreed, and that's how it should be. But I have experienced GMs feeling like they are handcuffed in their ability to make judgments. That's more black than white (or vice versa). I guess what I am looking for is some sort of blessing for GMs to use common sense first, followed closely by RAW. They shouldn't ever violate RAW, but since RAW is often not cut and dried, they should feel like that have a recourse to make the judgment that seems right to them.
It's not a black and white issue, it's a balancing act.
Have you read the most recent guide or played since that guide came out? You're arguing for something we already have.
|
Have you read the most recent guide or played since that guide came out? You're arguing for something we already have.I agreed, and that's how it should be. But I have experienced GMs feeling like they are handcuffed in their ability to make judgments. That's more black than white (or vice versa). I guess what I am looking for is some sort of blessing for GMs to use common sense first, followed closely by RAW. They shouldn't ever violate RAW, but since RAW is often not cut and dried, they should feel like that have a recourse to make the judgment that seems right to them.
It's not a black and white issue, it's a balancing act.
This.
If GM's are aware of the common sense part of the Guide to Organized Play, v4.3, and they are ignoring it, then that's the problem. Not the Guide.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agreed, and that's how it should be. But I have experienced GMs feeling like they are handcuffed in their ability to make judgments. That's more black than white (or vice versa). I guess what I am looking for is some sort of blessing for GMs to use common sense first, followed closely by RAW. They shouldn't ever violate RAW, but since RAW is often not cut and dried, they should feel like that have a recourse to make the judgment that seems right to them.Have you read the most recent guide or played since that guide came out? You're arguing for something we already have.This.
If GM's are aware of the common sense part of the Guide to Organized Play, v4.3, and they are ignoring it, then that's the problem. Not the Guide.
You, yourself, argued yesterday that the common sense proviso means GMs shouldn't allow anything not explicitly covered by the rules.
That's precisely the kind of logic being discussed in this thread, inasmuch as it was our conversation about that which spawned this thread in the first place.
That's the definition of exclusivity in this context. That's what we are talking about here, for Chrissakes.
The question is, how should the common sense proviso be applied? Just citing it as GM freedom--especially when your well-known view directly contradicts that citation--is not helpful to the discussion!
|
|
You, yourself, argued yesterday that the common sense proviso means GMs shouldn't allow anything not explicitly covered by the rules.
That's precisely the kind of logic being discussed in this thread, inasmuch as it was our conversation about that which spawned this thread in the first place.
That's the definition of exclusivity in this context. That's what we are talking about here, for Chrissakes.
The question is, how should the common sense proviso be applied? Just citing it as GM freedom--especially when your well-known view directly contradicts that citation--is not helpful to the discussion!
No I didn’t. You might have read into what I wrote to think it meant that.
But I never said anything of the sort.
These posts are becoming borderline attacking everything I have to say, instead of trying to engage in meaningful discussion about these topics.
What I did say, is that “players” should use the most conservative versions of the rules should they not want to deal with table variation. As such, when asking for advice, the advice I’m going to give is going to be based on the most conservative interpretation (and often my personal interpretation) of the rules, so as to not lead them into a table variation trap.
But I never said that a GM shouldn’t allow creative actions during a scenario. You sir, are putting words in my mouth, and then attacking me for something I never said.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just have to say....the PFS forums have been a train wreck today. A little more than usual and it is very distracting to my ability to finish my Thesis in any kind of timely manner. I just want to get out the popcorn and see people burn down all their bridges. So...be nice so I can go back to writing pages upon pages of dry scientific jargon.
|
|
I just have to say....the PFS forums have been a train wreck today. A little more than usual and it is very distracting to my ability to finish my Thesis in any kind of timely manner. I just want to get out the popcorn and see people burn down all their bridges. So...be nice so I can go back to writing pages upon pages of dry scientific jargon.
|
|
I just have to say....the PFS forums have been a train wreck today. A little more than usual and it is very distracting to my ability to finish my Thesis in any kind of timely manner. I just want to get out the popcorn and see people burn down all their bridges. So...be nice so I can go back to writing pages upon pages of dry scientific jargon.
See, exactly. I'm over here trying to crank out page after page of rhetorical theory and ... well.
I think I might just need to step away from the browser window for a while. :P
|
|
[ I also am pretty sure that GM has something on the Aspergers/Autism spectrum and took him aside and with some information to get help (it exists in my family).I wasn't going to get involved in this thread ... however, I feel something needs to be said on this portion of your post. While the entirety of your post was good and had lots of awesome things. The healthcare worker brain that I have now has read flags going off in it.
I will say I just tactfully pointed out that this is a place you can get checked out (a general low cost clinic). I didn't mention a specific diagnosis. I did it one on one. But I am pretty sure he wasn't getting help.
I didn't make that as clear as I should have.
|
|
[ I also am pretty sure that GM has something on the Aspergers/Autism spectrum and took him aside and with some information to get help (it exists in my family).I wasn't going to get involved in this thread ... however, I feel something needs to be said on this portion of your post. While the entirety of your post was good and had lots of awesome things. The healthcare worker brain that I have now has read flags going off in it.
I will say I just tactfully pointed out that this is a place you can get checked out (a general low cost clinic). I didn't mention a specific diagnosis. I did it one on one. But I am pretty sure he wasn't getting help.
I didn't make that as clear as I should have.
Nope, you made it sound like you had diagnised him... still, my personal opinion is that it still wasn't your place to say anything. But that's my healthcare brain on patient privacy so I'm sure we're going to have an difference of opinion on the right and wrong of what was done....
|
|
Since I'm in Colorado, I can get you all magical brownies which mellow everyone out (they're also availible in Washington State). Would that help.oooo bribing a former cop with "magic" brownies ... ummm ... no he's not single enough to frisk me ;)
They would be legal if Mike came to them! Just not the other way around.
Edit: Wait, no no, I lied, Colorado and Washington both legalized, didn't they? So they would be legal as long as there was a way to transmit them that didn't cross any of the state in between.
Although even if they were adjacent that gets into the question of crossing state borders ... um ... so we're back to the idea that Mike should come to the brownies.
|
|
Since I'm in Colorado, I can get you all magical brownies which mellow everyone out (they're also availible in Washington State). Would that help.oooo bribing a former cop with "magic" brownies ... ummm ... no he's not single enough to frisk me ;)They would be legal if Mike came to them! Just not the other way around.
Edit: Wait, no no, I lied, Colorado and Washington both legalized, didn't they? So they would be legal as long as there was a way to transmit them that didn't cross any of the state in between.
Although even if they were adjacent that gets into the question of crossing state borders ... um ... so we're back to the idea that Mike should come to the brownies.
Lol .. missing the point ... still a cop :P
|
|
Since I'm in Colorado, I can get you all magical brownies which mellow everyone out
Rocky Mountain High, now legal. As Mr. Denver was known to say, "Faaar out!"
|
|
Amazing how this has changed after Mike´s intervention :)
This topic is surprisingly fresh somehow, because of some things that have clouded my roleplaying fun lately a lot.
Where i am, i´m the one trying to start PFS (next one is 1.5h train and 70€ ticket away) for a reason. There are lots of roleplayers here, playing different games, but many D&D, less Pathfinder.
In all groups i was, there were some people and a GM that needed to have some houserules or restrictions. Many seem to think they can do something better than the Paizo design team, or they don´t like something and ban it. While this is within their personal rights, it´s not what i want when i want to play Pathfinder. Opinions differ, quite heavy often.
I love the way PFS is being exclusive there. Because most of that houserules and "table variations" are stupid, not thought through and people not aware of their consequences. Also it´s not necessary to make the game more "fantastic".
Supreme rules the fact, that people who´s sole business it is to do exactly that, govern the realm of what is legal and not in this game. What means questionable combinations, tactics, items etc are normally not legal and you don´t need to care about balance because of that.
Everything what is on the list is allowed, so there is no one telling you: "oh no we don´t like that, it´s too complicated, CRB only!".
On the other hand, GM´s don´t have so much work, because players need to bring the proof and the resources they are relying on, which is normally handled fast and clearly.
The inclusive side, everyone can come and play as long as one is behaving and treating others nice. What i think a big plus.
I think it´s a common misconception of some people, that because they are the GM, they are like gods and behave like that, treating others like kids. Like if they rule something and make all the laws and you just have to submit. Well if you meet with some friends or people, sit down and play PF(S), then there are no superiors. The GM is like more like a refere, doing some more work yes, chairing the game, but not ruling supreme. This attitude is exactly why i hate houserules and table-variations, which are really most often rules of the person GMing courtesy to their views and not something that the table really agreed to.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for getting this back on topic, Ken.
My personal design philosophy for characters is to be different. I think many people are fine finding uniqueness in their characters personalities, but I have a need to not bring a character that does the same things as someone else at the table or the table before. To do this though, often requires combining somewhat random character options, or taking a fringe ability and trying to figure out how to make it a build fixture.
This is what's fun for me. I don't do it to make a GMs job difficult. I don't do it to powergame, as most often I am not making an optimal build (optimal for concept perhaps, but not a DPR champion by any stretch).
The guide says to use common sense, but to also follow the rules. In so many cases, those are not complimentary statements. I am hoping that there is enough support in the community to modify what 4.3 says about rules and common sense, because what I have observed in practice is far greater adherence to a strict reading of the rules, than common sense. This is the opposite of what the change log for 4.3 says about empowering GMs to use more common sense.