|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I realize that in every debate, someone is bound to declare that whatever legal ruling is being discussed will not be allowed at THEIR table.
I've seen it said about certain applications of the rebuild rules, I've seen it said about the Goblin boon, I've seen it said about the Kickstarter Chronicle.
But today I saw a Venture-Lieutenant and a 4-Star GM say it. About two totally different things, even. And this causes me some concern.
So can we please just take a moment to reflect on the fact that this is an organized play campaign, and even if you don't like some legal option, you still don't get to ban it from your tables?
I recognize that people like to make sweeping statements here on the Interwebs, but this is where we gather to discuss the rules, and making statements like "rules be damned, I won't stand for it" is both counterproductive to good conversation and frightening to newcomers.
So please: Knock it off.
Thank you.
|
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing that bothers me about "powerful builds" are when they ruin the fun of the other players at the table. I really don't care if you're capable of downing the very BBEG I designed in one hit. Congrats. But did you and the rest of the table have fun doing it? If not, then I have a problem with it (more the player than the character).
|
The only thing that bothers me about "powerful builds" are when they ruin the fun of the other players at the table. I really don't care if you're capable of downing the very BBEG I designed in one hit. Congrats. But did you and the rest of the table have fun doing it? If not, then I have a problem with it (more the player than the character).
I think that's a fair view. In terms of character builds and powergaming: I am of the belief that the only person who has the ability to ruin your fun is you, however. Other people at a table who are playing powerful characters do not impact my fun at all. They do not possess that power over me.
A jerk player, on the other hand, is an entirely different issue that can completely smash your fun.
|
Out of curiosity, Kyle, what would you do if that exact situation came up at a PFS table?
Bonus points - what if it came up on more than one occasion?
Edit: Extra credit question - what about builds so powerful that they can solo an entire scenario with no one else at the table doing anything? (or powerful enough to take the scenario with just one other powerful build-character, leaving 4 people twiddling their thumbs for 4+ hours)?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But no GM at a PFS table should feel burnt by a legal build. The role of any and all GMs is to guide the players through an adventure and ensure those players are having fun while playing a cooperative society game. As long as the rest of people at the table are okay with these ridiculous builds then so be it.
GM's feel free to let that player know, once you've taken off your GM hat, how you and others may feel about said build.
I guess i'm really confused about what people would find to be too out there in a high fantasy setting such as this. As long as it is RAW in all ways so be it.
Just my .02cp
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Character design, tactics, or what not. I am cool with.
Things I have said "not at my table" for. Abuse of other players, or if I catch you red handed cheating. I have one warned one person in my area if they touch another person I will never DM for them again(it was minor for the other person but they complained, and he did jab me in the ribs once too). That same person I have caught cheating, and am not sure if I will kick him form the table for cheating again as I did not officialy warn him.
My job is not to make the rules. My job is to make the game fun.
If a DM does not like something that is legal they should really grow up. Being the outlaw DM against the rules is silly. Like in kyle's example if you have a player dominating the table then call a break and speak with that player. The counter arguement I have against this though is it is not the build that demands all the attention. It is often the player. A player demanding the all of the DMs attention is what is destructive to the other players.
All of this is in the don;t be a jerk rule to me.
I look at D&D and pathfinder as social games where you roleplay and work off each other. As a DM you should get a feel of your table. You can call breaks, and you can speak with people. If you treat problem players like an intelligent adult they very well may respond positively.
Again it is not the build, but the player. Few may be lost causes, but the ones you can save will have an exponential return.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Out of curiosity, Kyle, what would you do if that exact situation came up at a PFS table?
Bonus points - what if it came up on more than one occasion?
Edit: Extra credit question - what about builds so powerful that they can solo an entire scenario with no one else at the table doing anything? (or powerful enough to take the scenario with just one other powerful build-character, leaving 4 people twiddling their thumbs for 4+ hours)?
If one player's build ruined the fun for everyone else at the table, I'd pull that player aside and have a small chat with him about letting the other players shine and have fun. I'd politely ask him to tone down his tactics and let the others do stuff.
If he continues to be a disruption to the fun, I would ask him more sternly to watch his behavior. After that, I would talk with the local coordinator and if need be a VO about if we want his continued disruption to be a part of the society. A bad player who drives away others isn't worth keeping around if we want to continue to grow after all.
As for powerful builds...my cleric did exactly that. We played up. The party REALLY should not have. Basically, I kinda ended up soloing the scenario by going from normal I'm having fun tactics to I'm going into overdrive tactics. Since the result was we had one death instead of what should have been a TPK...I don't think the other players minded one bit. Just because you CAN solo a scenario doesn't mean you HAVE to.
You said stuff.
+1 to all that and amen brother.
Developer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Out of curiosity, Kyle, what would you do if that exact situation came up at a PFS table?
Bonus points - what if it came up on more than one occasion?
Edit: Extra credit question - what about builds so powerful that they can solo an entire scenario with no one else at the table doing anything? (or powerful enough to take the scenario with just one other powerful build-character, leaving 4 people twiddling their thumbs for 4+ hours)?
Oh! Oh!
|
|
Out of curiosity, Kyle, what would you do if that exact situation came up at a PFS table?
Bonus points - what if it came up on more than one occasion?
Edit: Extra credit question - what about builds so powerful that they can solo an entire scenario with no one else at the table doing anything? (or powerful enough to take the scenario with just one other powerful build-character, leaving 4 people twiddling their thumbs for 4+ hours)?
Which "exact" situation are you referring? *My* BBEG dies in one hit? *Any* BBEG dies in one hit? Something more generic? I want to make sure I answer the question as directly as possible since the topic of dealing with powergaming players is very complex and makes for a lengthy discussion. I would also like to add that discussing this topic is part of GM 101. :-)
For the record, if *MY* BBEG(irl) died in one hit at my table, I'd punch that player in their face, light their character sheet on fire and report them as dead (both the character to Paizo and the player to the Police). /s
|
|
Which "exact" situation are you referring? *My* BBEG dies in one hit? *Any* BBEG dies in one hit? Something more generic? I want to make sure I answer the question as directly as possible since the topic of dealing with powergaming players is very complex and makes for a lengthy discussion. I would also like to add that discussing this topic is part of GM 101. :-)For the record, if *MY* BBEG(irl) died in one hit at my table, I'd punch that player in their face, light their character sheet on fire and report them as dead (both the character to Paizo and the player to the Police). /s
Apologies - I meant a PC one-hitting a BBEG (and other enemies in the same scenario) and most of the players at the table not having a fun game due to simply not being able to do much other than watch.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the "ultimatums" usually happen because said GMs have been burnt by ridiculous (even if legal) builds.
Slippery slope there - how are GM's hurt by players being successful? Not allowing excellent legal builds because they might work too well is akin to not allowing excellent legal ideas beause they might work too well. It is not and never should be GM vs. Players.
|
|
Out of curiosity, Kyle, what would you do if that exact situation came up at a PFS table?
Bonus points - what if it came up on more than one occasion?
Edit: Extra credit question - what about builds so powerful that they can solo an entire scenario with no one else at the table doing anything? (or powerful enough to take the scenario with just one other powerful build-character, leaving 4 people twiddling their thumbs for 4+ hours)?
I felt I've done that with SOME scenarios with my Wizard.. mostly early Season 0s in the 5 to 7 level. Now I spend more time buffing my party members for longer payoffs than hammering a bunch of mooks for 40+ points in an AOE.
That being said, I also have to admit some of those moments were lucky rolls (Empowered Fireball vs a bunch of Evasion Mooks who ALL failed).
That being said.. no one felt deprived and now that I find ways to spread the power to others they enjoy the game as much as I do.
And I can fireball THEM with impunity (Extended Communal Protection from Fire is nice) to get the things around them. :D
Apologies - I meant a PC one-hitting a BBEG (and other enemies in the same scenario) and most of the players at the table not having a fun game due to simply not being able to do much other than watch.
Who cares, it happens even if a character is not optimized sometimes. Ask yourself if the player is going out of his way to ruin everyone else's fun time though. Plenty of builds load DPR without trying, summoners and gunslingers and archers, oh my! Lots of variables too, such as what the other characters were playing.
Anyways, yeah, not a fan of the "Not at my table!" speech either. Sort of like how everyone agrees to play by the same rules (no vivisectionist, cleric of the ideal, atheist paladins, etc.), just nitpicking at one rule you don't like and banning it at the table doesn't feel very welcoming and if everyone could do it organized play wouldn't be as organized would it?
|
|
Apologies - I meant a PC one-hitting a BBEG (and other enemies in the same scenario) and most of the players at the table not having a fun game due to simply not being able to do much other than watch.
No apologies required! I'll whip up an answer for you in the morning (assuming I can still get extra credit).
|
Out of curiosity, Kyle, what would you do if that exact situation came up at a PFS table?
Bonus points - what if it came up on more than one occasion?
Edit: Extra credit question - what about builds so powerful that they can solo an entire scenario with no one else at the table doing anything? (or powerful enough to take the scenario with just one other powerful build-character, leaving 4 people twiddling their thumbs for 4+ hours)?
I'm not Kyle, but I'll answer this question.
If a player one-shotted Kyle's BBEG* I'd probably congratulate them on their dice magic.
*From Rats part 1
If it wasn't dice magic, I would mention to the player that they should hold back the "big guns" and let other player's shine a bit.
Just because a character can solo a scenario, doesn't mean that the other characters don't get play, or that they won't have highly effective actions.
The power of one character only invalidates other characters if they are so overwhelming that it prevents friendly player actions. (summoning a bunch of creatures and killing all the enemies at once for example)
Just because a character, say a Zen Archer, can solo a scenario doesn't mean that the other characters won't have fun. Any "supertank" builds are annoying for GMs cause nothing hits them, but other offensive characters still get to be valuable team-members.
A more appropriate question is "what do you do when a PLAYER who's character is capable of soloing a scenario insists on doing so."
if someone plays that same Zen Archer listed above, but in this case he tells the party to stay out of the room, until he has defeated the enemies. That player is attempting to steal the spotlight and that should be addressed, if he's overly insistent and unwilling to be reasonable removing him from the table wouldn't be off the table.
Players showing excessively selfish behavior need to be asked to stop, it's never exciting to bring that up during a scenario, but sometimes it must be done.
We have to talk about a lot of specifics and how to handle them, and then generalize based on those specifics and find a reasonable course of action to take.
I'm getting to tired to continue this, I'll post more this weekend when I get a chance :)
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm. I'm trying to think a bit on the flip-side of this equation. As a GM, am I having fun? The street has to go both ways.
As a PFS GM, I'm locked into what the book says to do. Often it is quite easy for my players to come up with builds that mess up the bad guys' tactics, but I have to try and stick with it. In a home game, I could compensate. Here, I can't. Players can do strange stance combinations, or put me in a pit, or trip or grapple me, or any number of things to make the bad guy pointless. But I still have to try and keep to the scenario. This is not fun.
On the other hand, I'm fine with a slug-fest, or numerical de-buffs that let me keep to the plan. Those can be fun.
The most important part of the scenario to me is storytelling. Role-playing the various characters. I'm mainly a 7th Sea GM, it sometimes comes through here. Combat is what you have stats for, but the story is what I'm really here for.
In the end, I'll keep on GM'ing, because somebody has to and I have too big a sense of duty. And because the rewards are decent. But when someone brings a character to the table that shuts down my villains before they can do whatever they're designed to do... it's hard to have fun with it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a PFS GM, I'm locked into what the book says to do. Often it is quite easy for my players to come up with builds that mess up the bad guys' tactics, but I have to try and stick with it. In a home game, I could compensate. Here, I can't. Players can do strange stance combinations, or put me in a pit, or trip or grapple me, or any number of things to make the bad guy pointless. But I still have to try and keep to the scenario. This is not fun.
Really, you listed the pit second? The pit wasn't even remotely near as bad as the accursed slumber witch. And I can't believe you didn't list the sundering of spell component pouches. For shame :P .
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As the VL that you mentioned in the opening post, I feel like I need to clarify my position.
I play these games to have fun, spread the fantastic game that is Pathfinder, volunteer for the community and have fun with like-minded and responsible players. I fully realize and accept that I am bound to follow the rules of the game if I GM.
If I feel like my players are not interested in playing the game and is instead looking to have battle bison trounce levels 1-5, then guess what? I have so much better things that I can do with my time. I do not want to spend 48 hours (representing the minimum time to get to level 6) watching you roll a handle animal check to get a purchased NPC to defeat the game.
I am sick to death of players that are looking to wring out any potential challenge by exploiting rules-legal but not intent-legal thought exercises.
Maybe it's just the current atmosphere of the PFS board but I see very few people writing about stories and cooperation and a lot of people writing about how to 'game' the system. And I'm sick of it.
Being a VL does not mean I am servant to the whims of my players. You don't get to click a finger to get me to appear. Instead, you expect table variation. If I sit down to GM you, it is with the expectation that you are looking for fun, challenge and adventure, not to test out some stupid idea you read on the internet to break the game.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Three important questions for players. If you answer yes, continue to the next question.
1. Is it rules legal?
2. Have I asked my GM if he/she is comfortable with me using this tactic in a PFS environment?
3. Am I sure the other players are not going to be adversely affected or endangered by this tactic?
Three yes answers? Let's get rolling!
I feel like a lot of players are simply asking question 1 and ignoring 2 and 3 as irrelevant. This is a social game people.
I am sick to death of players that are looking to wring out any potential challenge by exploiting rules-legal but not intent-legal thought exercises.
That's sort of part of the hobby no matter what table top your playing. By playing in the organized play your going to meet a lot of different players. Its a little on the arbitrary side to say, ban someone for a build you just don't like. It could also open the floodgate for banning players for just being effective, people who aren't out to break the game but were just good.
Anyways, your going to meet a lot of different people in the society play. I once met a guy who said he didn't want any summoners at any of the games he played as a player or as a GM. If there was a summoner he'd just walk away. He just hated summoners. Is this guy in the right too?
Also what's with your 3 questions eh? one makes sense, number 2 means I have to ask anytime I use any tactic, and with 3 isn't there a no friendly fire rule anyway? Me using slumber kills a lot of fun, but it doesn't directly affect a player. Me shooting a metamagic fireball at a friend does. Should my witch be booted from every table because the witch class's main feature is hexes and spammable save or suck/dies?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been biting my time since this conversation started in the other thread, but I've got some thoughts I'd like to share.
First, I see Andrei's point. It hasn't come up for me as a GM, but as a player, if there's a 7th person seated at the table I'm sitting at, I'll get up and leave. Past experience indicates that for me, at least, 7-person tables aren't fun. They're legal, but I don't like them. Don't tell me that just because I'm a Venture-Lieutenant I'm setting a bad example by choosing not to participate in a legal table.
I look at it from this lens: I'm responsible for making sure that PFS puts its best foot forward. If a new player shows up with a level 1 rogue, and proceeds to do nothing for an entire scenario because someone's got an Animal Companion that destroys the experience, they're not coming back. To be clear, I wouldn't blanket ban anything that's legal, but I'd take a close look at table composition and have a conversation with anyone who was going to abuse an overpowered option at a table, to the detriment of everyone else's playing experience.
Luckily, in Toronto, we don't seem to have a lot of players like that. I can't think of any that I've encountered at public PFS so far.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a new player shows up with a level 1 rogue, and proceeds to do nothing for an entire scenario because someone's got an Animal Companion that destroys the experience, they're not coming back.
Rogues and animal companions usually do entirely different things? Personally if someone showed up with a giant bear that rampaged through the game I'd laugh. Combat isn't the only aspect. Someone showing up with a rampaging bison on an unsuspecting GM might be a bit weird for the GM though.
So, should a GM be allowed to throw out anything he doesn't like? Or should he have to accept anyone who's society legal but voice his concerns on the boards?
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Powerful builds aren't really the issue. As usual, jerk behavior is the issue.
If one player is being a jerk to others, whether it is by punching them in the face or using perfectly legal rules to dominate the game and deny other players the chance to participate, it's the GM's responsibility to step in.
That line of demarcation when a player crosses over from powerful build to jerk behavior is a GM judgment call, but it shouldn't be drawn at "my BBEG died too fast" or "this is too easy." The line should be drawn wherever it starts to adversely affect the experience of the other players at the table.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
2. Have I asked my GM if he/she is comfortable with me using this tactic in a PFS environment?
No! No, no, no. The GM does not get to decide which legal options are acceptable. That is, in fact, the whole point of starting this thread--to reinforce that.
Being a VL does not mean I am servant to the whims of my players.
No, but it does mean you're subject to the rules of the campaign and you should know that.
|
|
Don't tell me that just because I'm a Venture-Lieutenant I'm setting a bad example by choosing not to participate in a legal table.
Jeff, this is an excellent example of a straw man argument. I'm not saying you're using it deliberately, but that's definitely what's occurring here. The topic at hand is that GMs can't ban legal play options from their tables; you're countering with the idea that players have the right to leave a table for whatever reason they want. That's true, but not relevant.
There is also a false equivalence at work here in the presence of rank--in the original argument, it is noted that a VO is setting bad precedent by espousing an incorrect idea, to wit, that GMs should ban legal options based on their own whim. In your response, you are equating that--again, I'm not saying deliberately--to a VO being accused of setting bad precedent for doing something that is totally acceptable, in this case, choosing not to play at a table. Since these cases are essentially opposites, the equating of them only serves to muddy the waters.
To clarify: Anyone--including the GM, regardless of that GM's rank within the campaign--has the right at any time to not want to play at a table. However, while playing at a table, everyone is expected to abide by the rules of the campaign--all the rules--whether they like them or not.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see your point, MoR, but let me extend my argument slightly to make a connection that may (or may not) be relevant.
There were two points I was trying to make (and re-reading, I'll admit that it wasn't even close), and here they are laid out more explicitly
1) I'm concerned about the willingness of my GMs to stick around - regardless of the "rank" of the GM - which is dependent on their ability to have fun. Some GMs don't find it fun to watch a single player dominate the scenario, and the reasons for that are irrelevant. They're either frustrated by the ease of play, or invested in their NPCs, or whatever. If a GM isn't having fun, then there's only so many times they'll come back, and I can't afford to lose GMs. Regardless, as Andrew Christian said in the other thread, if a player shows up with an option that a GM doesn't want to have to deal with (for whatever reason), then the shortest possible, and very antagonistic conversation, looks like this:
GM: Hey, I don't want that option at my table. Either don't use it, or bring a different character.
Player: Don't oppress my options. It's legal, so you can't stop me from using it.
GM: (standing up and leaving) Okay. See you guys next week, as long as he's not here.
In short, it is an impractical argument to say "you can't ban options that you don't want to deal with." It's a great ideal, but you can't stop it from happening, because you can never force someone to be a GM.
2) I'm concerned about the fun of the other players at the table. It is often the case that if one person is dominating the game - or even dominating a specific aspect of the game like combat - means you've killed the fun of others at the table. This doesn't represent the best of Pathfinder Society, and I think it's the GM's responsibility to keep that from happening.
|
|
In short, it is an impractical argument to say "you can't ban options that you don't want to deal with." It's a great ideal, but you can't stop it from happening, because you can never force someone to be a GM.
2) I'm concerned about the fun of the other players at the table. It is often the case that if one person is dominating the game - or even dominating a specific aspect of the game like combat - means you've killed the fun of others at the table. This doesn't represent the best of Pathfinder Society, and I think it's the GM's responsibility to keep that from happening.
For point one, yes, you are correct: A GM can pitch a fit and refuse to run a table with a legal option he doesn't like. In a small enough area--in other words, one where there are no replacement GMs--he might even get away with it. But it's petty and childish. It's also not something that VLs should be declaring in public, because it's not an option that people should be encouraged to use.
Regarding point two, that's totally fair, and there are going to be some things where that can be a problem. In the case of a pet bison that tramples everything for absurd damage, sure, that might ruin a table's fun if it happens every combat. But it might also be the funniest thing in the world to some tables. It depends on the players and how the GM handles it. There are options other than saying "OMG GTFO OR I RAGEQUIT." Perhaps something like "Say, Bison-Owner, I think your bison is very tired after that last fight. Is it possible we could put him out to pasture for the rest of the scenario so your fellow players can join in the trampling fun?" Or any other of endless options.
But on the other side of point two, this thread really was about multiple instances--as I said, there were two yesterday from two different sources. The other was a 4-Star GM declaring that there would be no PCs at his tables who met PrC requirements with SLAs. An Aasimar Mystic Theurge who was designed from the start to get into this PrC a few levels early is not a gamebreaker, and is not going to dominate the table, and is not going to ruin everyone's fun. So there's no reason other than "I don't like this ruling!" to not want it at your PFS table, and that runs directly contrary to the whole point of PFS.
|
|
You raise some valid points, and I won't argue with them, but there is one point here I'd like to clarify.
In a small enough area--in other words, one where there are no replacement GMs--he might even get away with it. But it's petty and childish. It's also not something that VLs should be declaring in public, because it's not an option that people should be encouraged to use.
Agreed on the first two sentences. Disagree on the last. I never endorsed or encouraged it, nor said that it's a good option. I acknowledged that it IS an option, and that some people might choose to take it. If we pretend that this isn't a possible outcome, then we're doing a disservice to the discussion by not looking at every possible consequence of the policy.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) I'm concerned about the willingness of my GMs to stick around - regardless of the "rank" of the GM - which is dependent on their ability to have fun. Some GMs don't find it fun to watch a single player dominate the scenario, and the reasons for that are irrelevant. They're either frustrated by the ease of play, or invested in their NPCs, or whatever. If a GM isn't having fun, then there's only so many times they'll come back, and I can't afford to lose GMs. Regardless, as Andrew Christian said in the other thread, if a player shows up with an option that a GM doesn't want to have to deal with (for whatever reason), then the shortest possible, and very antagonistic conversation, looks like this:GM: Hey, I don't want that option at my table. Either don't use it, or bring a different character.
Player: Don't oppress my options. It's legal, so you can't stop me from using it.
GM: (standing up and leaving) Okay. See you guys next week, as long as he's not here.In short, it is an impractical argument to say "you can't ban options that you don't want to deal with." It's a great ideal, but you can't stop it from happening, because you can never force someone to be a GM.
If a GM can't run with all legal options on the table they should not GM public games.
Considering Mike Brock's opinion on this topic, if this happened to me I would be reporting said GM to my VC.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East
|
As a PFS GM, I'm locked into what the book says to do. Often it is quite easy for my players to come up with builds that mess up the bad guys' tactics, but I have to try and stick with it. In a home game, I could compensate. Here, I can't. Players can do strange stance combinations, or put me in a pit, or trip or grapple me, or any number of things to make the bad guy pointless. But I still have to try and keep to the scenario. This is not fun.Really, you listed the pit second? The pit wasn't even remotely near as bad as the accursed slumber witch. And I can't believe you didn't list the sundering of spell component pouches. For shame :P .
It was a long day and I was tired. But yes, those too.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every player has a right to leave the table for whatever reason they may have, good or bad. A GM has the same right. In both instances, the person who leaves will have to deal with the possibility that their actions may label them as a 'jerk' or a 'whiner' in the eyes of the community.
However, I believe there are more polite ways to ask a player to play a different character or pregen if the GM is uncomfortable with it. Just like there is a polite way to disagree with a GM ruling at the table (discuss it over a table break or after the game).
Reading over this thread, I think I disagree that it is only the GM who has the responsibility make a table fun, as some have claimed. I think it's up to the players, too. Others have repeatedly stated that it is not builds that are the problem, it's the players.
The type of player that dominates combats with 4 armed dual greatsword-wielding Ragechemist/Barbarians is going to disrupt tables even if they play a standard monk or rogue. Players need to police themselves, it can't all be up to the table GM. If you've built a unique character who has powerful abilities, don't use them every encounter (unless party survival depends on it, of course).
No matter what side of the GM screen you sit on be polite, be respectful and help everyone at your table.
|
|
The type of player that dominates combats with 4 armed dual greatsword-wielding Ragechemist/Barbarians
Thankfully SKR clarified that doesn't work!