|
I see where you are coming from Andrew, but do I have the same "right" do treat players with druid PCs the same way? Why or why not? People with battle bison are just abusing the same animal buddy mechanic that druids get patted on the back for every day.
Every GM has to make a choice as to what they are willing to run at their table. In some cases, your only option may be to get up and walk away yourself if your game day coordinator keeps putting those builds at your table. The consequences of being too restrictive, is that your game day coordinator may stop asking you to GM. It becomes a logistical nightmare to try and make sure conflicting personalities, certain builds, etc. aren’t placed at certain tables with certain gm’s or other players. I’m assuming most store coordinators, unless the situation is particularly egregious, will ask the players and GM’s to suck it up (I know I would).
As a GM, you do have the choice and right to get up and walk away from a table. The consequences of that action though, is that probably most at the table will be cheesed off, they will not have fun as they signed up to play and now you take that from them. Depending on your reasons (perceived as good or bad by the community) may cause a reputation of being a huge jerk to precede you to game days. A GM should think long and hard before throwing down the nuclear option.
That being said, personally, I don’t feel you should be banning from your table standard class abilities. Eidolons and Animal Companions are included in this. Choosing a Summoner requires an Eidolon, and choosing a Druid often comes with an Animal Companion. I’ve seen plenty of AC’s that aren’t over-built and just compliment the Druid. Except at low levels, the AC is typically 2 hit dice lower than the Druid. At low levels, at best, they are 1 hit dice higher or equal to the Druid through like level 3. Combat trained and purchased tigers and bison are CR 4 to 6. A character doesn’t have enough gold at lower levels to get their Animal Companion to that kind of equivalent power for the cost of 500gp or 75gp respectively. Additionally, these purchased pets come in addition to all the “balanced” class abilities they already have. The Druid’s animal companion and Summoner’s Eidolon are presumably balanced with other classes’ abilities. So let’s not create a false analogy here.
I know you are on a crusade against animal companions, but let’s not turn this thread into that argument.
If someone wants to purchase a bison at level 6+, where the power of the pet will largely be insignificant, I probably won’t have an issue with it. It may likely die. Purchasing a combat trained pet, of hit dice well over your character’s at lower levels, really only happens for one reason (with a few notable exceptions). And that’s to own the scenario.
The intent of these arbitrary bannings is not to ban class abilities as they are written (although I have heard tale of GM’s who tell their coordinators that they refuse to run tables with Witches who have the slumber Hex, and so on). The intent is to prevent ridiculous options from ruining a game day. Deciding that a class ability is a ridiculous option is not what I’m talking about.
The DD Tieflings, purchased and combat trained Bison specifically at sub-tier 1-2, and other combinations of individual things that are otherwise legal but when combined create “winning” combos. This is the Magic: the Gathering syndrome. Where you find the right combination of cards that will win almost any head-to-head game within 2 or 3 turns. Each card alone, or even in a standard deck, are powerful, but not over-powering. When combined in specific ways with other cards, it breaks the game (and subsequently makes it not fun for your opponent(s)).
But you do what you feel is necessary as a GM. The consequences of being too restrictive might remove you from the GM pool, as a coordinator may not want to deal with that headache and players may stipulate that they refuse to play at your table. But you do have the right to walk away if you don’t want to deal with something.
|
I think this is where I'm hitting a snag. Forcing someone else to either go home or play a pregen doesn't seem to qualify for "doesn't harm others".
Bringing a legal PC and a table-friendly attitude doesn't harm others.
Imposing an extra restriction on your tablemates and, if not accommodated at someone else's expense, send everyone home? That's no longer "doesn't harm others".
I think that is a fair view. What I have difficulty understanding is why someone would want to refuse to sit at a table with a certain class, race, or build present. Not wanting to sit at a table with a specific individual you've had a poor experience with is perfectly understandable, but not wanting to sit with a game mechanic? That's pretty uptight in my book.
And I can say that as someone who strongly dislike gunslingers. Especially the Pistolero archetype - up close and deadly with signature deed seriously burns my ass as far as being disgruntled with game mechanics go. But I would never refuse to sit at a table with one.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm trying to figure out what it is that's getting me, as I agree on a general level with what you guys are saying...
Okay, consider this:
Suppose I'm scheduled to GM at a game day. Except I don't show up. Next day (or next week, or whenever), someone asks me what happened.
If I answer that I was hit by a car and was in the emergency room, how would people react?
What if I answer that my wife went into labor?
What if I answer that I had the flu?
What if I answer that I had the sniffles?
What if I answer that I slept in after being up all night dealing with a crisis?
What if I answer that I slept in because my bed was warm and cozy?
What if I answer that I decided I'd rather play video games than GM that day?
What if I answer that I thought it'd be funny to throw you all a curveball?
Folks are saying (and in general, I agree) that you can always choose not to GM, for any reason or for no reason. But would anyone treat all of the above no-shows the same?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a question for the philosophers out there. Can bacon make bacon better? I'm envisioning a snake eating its own tail right about now.I'm a baconvore.There are very few things that bacon doesn't make better. Like racial hatred, or taxes.
Especially bacon taxes. Stupid government, taking my bacon...
This is silly. Bacon makes everything better, even itself, taxes and racial hatred. Think about it, if you're eating bacon, what would you rather eat? MORE BACON. If you're having to do or pay taxes, what would make you feel better? Warm crispy tender BACON. Racial hatred? Want to stop a race riot? Start handing out free BACON! Works every time!
|
I see where you are coming from Andrew, but do I have the same "right" do treat players with druid PCs the same way? Why or why not? People with battle bison are just abusing the same animal buddy mechanic that druids get patted on the back for every day.stuff
I would never *actually* not run because a druid was present. I mean its just as likely I randomly picked a weak sauce scenario, which results in the exact same experience for me as a GM. It's just that ACs turn many reasonable scenarios into jokes in my opinion. Too often, animal companions have armor class beyond the reach of the scenario NPCs. I think this can be shown through teh maths, but I digress.
I'm just presenting the potential problems of using this logic of the GM being able to make these kinds of calls.
However, your position appears to be that the maths of the bison are even worse than for the animal companion. This appears to be obviously true, and clearly you are drawing the line between animal companion and bison for what's reasonable.
Contributor
|
Folks are saying (and in general, I agree) that you can always choose not to GM, for any reason or for no reason. But would anyone treat all of the above no-shows the same?
I think there's a stark difference between several of these, and it applies equally to if you were player #3 at a table that was barely-legal.
"Don't be a jerk"
If you got hit by a car, got sick, over-slept after dealing with a crisis, or something else beyond your control, them's the breaks, life happens, it's just a game.
If you choose to sleep in, or play video games, or walk away from a table because you don't like Gunslingers/Summoners (resulting in said table no longer being legal), you're making an active choice to be a jerk.
Don't do that.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We all have the right to make decisions about what we are going to do.
Joining society play does not alter or take away any of those rights.
Play and judge for the fun of it and for the awesomeness of it (or for what ever else floats your boat, as long as it doesn't harm others).
It is a game.
Always remember that.
This is exactly what I was going to say.
Abuse the crap out of the rules! Go for it! Why not?Just don't abuse the players and GM at the table. They aren't text in a book or scribbles on a piece of paper. They're people (or extraplanar undead daemon lords).
Example! I know a certain bard who also happens to be an oracle of lore. This bard combines his studies with his connection to Abadar to be able to hit knowledge DC's in the 60's. Broken, right? But to what end? The bard is played as a faction monkey, designed to help everyone else complete their faction. He also often lets others make their knowledge checks first rather than just making all the checks for them.
The same can be done if you have a Huge sized Celestial Vampiric T-Rex companion. You don't have to send it in to dominate the combat and make everyone else's actions meaningless. You're CHOOSING to do that.
|
|
You can say anything... It doesn't matter really, in the long run. If it gets to be a habit, if you are a "No Show" consistently, we'll stop counting on you to show up. "He's always got a good excuse"...
The only reason I would need to know WHY the judge didn't show would be if I'm the coordinator and I might need to count on you again. Everything else is just fluff... water under the bridge.
You had a reason to not show. You felt that reason was important. Good enough for me. Thanks for trying.
It's rare that I completely agree with Nosig... but, I agree.
p.s. If you were my GM, I'd probably still game with the players that showed up ;-) We be goblins anyone?!
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like to think that natural deslection comes into play here.
If you won't GM a table with a player who's known for well/over built ACs, that's between you and him.
If you won't GM for any animal companions, you're a jerk.
If you won't play with a Player because you dislike *his* gunslinger that's between you and him.
If you won't play with any gunslingers at the table, you're a jerk.
If you're a jerk constantly, you're not going to have a table, either to GM or to play.
Whether that kills the gaming community, is up to the rest of the community.
IF you're crashing tables because it's a 3 player table and you have sir shoots a lot that you can't stand, it's up to you to work out.
|
|
I don't mind a GM who says "I won't let a gunslinger at my table unless the player can explain the rules for it clearly, and I can trust her to play straight with the rules."
Ah, so GM experience dictates what classes can and can't be run at their table? What if a GM decides they don't like the idea of gunslingers, and so never learns how they work? Then they have what you consider a valid reason to just ban gunslingers from their table.
It's not practical. If you're in for a penny, you're in for a pound: PFS is about all the rules.
|
|
@ Jiggy: As a GM, you can choose to do whatever you want. As long as you are willing to accept responsibility for the consequences of your actions.
1) If you add hp’s, creatures, or modify stat blocks in a scenario, and continue to do so after one or even two reprimands, chances are the coordinator you GM for will stop asking you to do so. And you might even receive a ban from assisting in official PFS conventions as well.
2) If you no-show, without notice, for any reason, more than once, likely you will be considered unreliable, and the store coordinator will stop asking you to GM. Good reasons (like medical emergencies, wife having a child, et. al.) likely can mitigate some of this as long as they don’t happen continuously over a short period of time.
3) If you threaten to, or actually, stand up from a table and leave based on players with whom you have a personality conflict, some build or class you don’t like, or whatever, you may have consequences for that. If it becomes a headache for the coordinator to find you a table to run, because you are too restrictive, he may stop asking you to GM. If the local community, at large, that you GM for, decides you are too restrictive, they may start asking the coordinator to not sit at your table (or if you are the coordinator stop showing up to your game day). However, if you are frugal with what you restrict and liberal with what you allow, and you typically only disallow at your table things that your local community, at large, has asked you to disallow, then likely you are doing what is healthy for your community.
The key here, is doing these things for the health of your community, largely because it’s what the community is asking for. Making arbitrary and unilateral decisions in these types of situations can likely turn around and bite you in the butt… making people stop showing up to your game day, refuse to sit at your table, and/or the store coordinator asking you to stop GM’ing for them.
Again, you can do what you want as a GM and make whatever choices you feel are necessary. You just have to accept the consequences of doing so.
And my advice is:
1) DO NOT change anything in a scenario.
2) Show up or give suitable notice (even helping to find a backup GM) if you know you can’t show up. If it’s a rare emergency, we’ll deal with it, but if “rare” emergencies keep happening over a short period of time, you become unreliable, so limit those as best as possible.
3) Limit your restrictions at the table to what the community is actually asking you to restrict. If your table of 6 players is having fun with uber-eidolons from hell with double-fiend sighted deeper darkeness Tiefling twin summoners, then restricting that may have consequences you may not like.
4) If you aren’t having fun with something, and the community is not asking you to restrict something, then perhaps your GM style and the community’s play style are not compatible. Change your style to match the community, only play, or maybe PFS is not for you (Rubia will be happy to see this line).
The largest issue: As a GM being able to tell the difference between your own bias and what the community actually wants.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Pathar, I'm going to disagree with you here.
If a Summoner (for me) is at the table, I have every right to question how it works, go over the the eidilon, etc as a GM. If the player can't explain it to my satisfaction, then I'll have to decide to a) roll with it, b) tie up time or c) ask them to play something else.
That said, I will make a point to study the summoner later. I don't have infinate time to go through every possible thing at the table. I learned alchemists because a) we had an alchemy player at the table, and b) season 2+ scenarios have them.
|
|
If a Summoner (for me) is at the table, I have every right to question how it works, go over the the eidilon, etc as a GM. If the player can't explain it to my satisfaction, then I'll have to decide to a) roll with it, b) tie up time or c) ask them to play something else.
That's not the same thing as not allowing it until you personally understand it.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Folks are saying (and in general, I agree) that you can always choose not to GM, for any reason or for no reason. But would anyone treat all of the above no-shows the same?
I think there's a stark difference between several of these, and it applies equally to if you were player #3 at a table that was barely-legal.
"Don't be a jerk"
If you got hit by a car, got sick, over-slept after dealing with a crisis, or something else beyond your control, them's the breaks, life happens, it's just a game.
If you choose to sleep in, or play video games, or walk away from a table because you don't like Gunslingers/Summoners (resulting in said table no longer being legal), you're making an active choice to be a jerk.
Don't do that.
Pretty much what I was getting at. :)
Now, I want to make sure I'm fair: Majuba (whose stance on the new SLA ruling inspired this train of thought for me) made it clear that he works hard to accommodate his preference ahead of time without impacting other people. That shows great responsibility. He did also say that if it came down to it he would send a whole table home before he would GM for an early-entry Mystic Theurge, which is what I disagree with, but it sounds like he does a lot to make sure it doesn't get to that point in the first place.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I don't mind a GM who says "I won't let a gunslinger at my table unless the player can explain the rules for it clearly, and I can trust her to play straight with the rules."
Ah, so GM experience dictates what classes can and can't be run at their table?
Of course! I'm surprised that's even a point of discussion. If there's an area of the rules that a new GM doesn't understand, and a player's character hinges on that area, and the player's table style is to push to gain more and more advantage until the GM pushes back, that's no good.
If you're in for a penny, you're in for a pound: PFS is about all the rules.
I don't feel that way at all. If somebody is comfortable with the fundamentals of the Core Rules and wants to GM Pathfinder Society, I think that's commendable. If that person isn't up to speed on [insert Pathfinder rules subsection here], and your character spends most of his time in that subsection, then either (a) you need to walk the GM through those rules, honestly, during the session, or (b) we should find you a GM who can handle your mojo.
|
|
(a) you need to walk the GM through those rules, honestly, during the session
Sure, no problem. But you left that part out of your original statement, which seemed to imply that you wouldn't allow something at your table until you'd personally played it and understood it.
Obviously the player needs to be able to explain it to the GM if the GM needs it; I request that from people playing gunslingers (etc) all the time.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
pathar, let's take a sidebar and talk about a matter of player attitude.
I've enough GM experience that when I play one of my characters at the table, I'm still sort of in "impartial referee" mode. If my character needs to provoke an attack of opportunity, or if it looks like the GM skipped an NPC's turn, I'll mention that.
Other players at the table think I'm foolish for doing so. From their perspective, they are advocates for their PCs. They're not going to cheat, but they're not going to do the GM's job for him, either. If the GM doesn't call for a concentration check for csting on a ship during a storm, that's not their problem. If the GM doesn't say anything when they pull a scroll out of their backpack as part of a move, then they don't feel a need to point out that doing so completes their turn.
Likewise, if they're playing a gunslinger who uses paper cartridges, and roll a 2 on an attack roll, and if the GM doesn't tell them their gun is broken, then they'll keep shooting. They would be happy to explain the rules, and comply with them, if the GM would think to ask.
And then there are the players who will push. If the GM is foolish enough to trust them, they will claim more and more powers. (But they'll back right down if called on something.) These players also like playing Steve Jackson games, where the rule is "it's only cheating if you get caught". They know that a pistol goes against touch armor class only when the target is up close, but they'll see if they can get away with ignoring armor at 50' away. (I don't much like these players. I consider them weasels.)
If the GM doesn't know the rules for gunslingers, she needs the player to be "impartial" about the rules and let her know when the character is at a disadvantage.
|
|
We all have the right to make decisions about what we are going to do.
Joining society play does not alter or take away any of those rights.
Play and judge for the fun of it and for the awesomeness of it (or for what ever else floats your boat, as long as it doesn't harm others).
It is a game.
Always remember that.
This is exactly what I was going to say.
Abuse the crap out of the rules! Go for it! Why not?Just don't abuse the players and GM at the table. They aren't text in a book or scribbles on a piece of paper. They're people (or extraplanar undead daemon lords).
Example! I know a certain bard who also happens to be an oracle of lore. This bard combines his studies with his connection to Abadar to be able to hit knowledge DC's in the 60's. Broken, right? But to what end? The bard is played as a faction monkey, designed to help everyone else complete their faction. He also often lets others make their knowledge checks first rather than just making all the checks for them.
The same can be done if you have a Huge sized Celestial Vampiric T-Rex companion. You don't have to send it in to dominate the combat and make everyone else's actions meaningless. You're CHOOSING to do that.
I guess my question is why do the devs allow said T-Rex to be so powerful to being with?
|
|
Ah, so GM experience dictates what classes can and can't be run at their table? What if a GM decides they don't like the idea of gunslingers, and so never learns how they work? Then they have what you consider a valid reason to just ban gunslingers from their table.
It's not practical. If you're in for a penny, you're in for a pound: PFS is about all the rules.
PFS is not all about the rules. It's all about fun. The rules exist to facilitate the fun, not the other way around.
|
|
PFS is not all about the rules. It's all about fun. The rules exist to facilitate the fun, not the other way around.Ah, so GM experience dictates what classes can and can't be run at their table? What if a GM decides they don't like the idea of gunslingers, and so never learns how they work? Then they have what you consider a valid reason to just ban gunslingers from their table.
It's not practical. If you're in for a penny, you're in for a pound: PFS is about all the rules.
One could argue that table variation detracts from the "society" part of PFS.
|
|
I guess my question is why do the devs allow said T-Rex to be so powerful to being with?We all have the right to make decisions about what we are going to do.
Joining society play does not alter or take away any of those rights.
Play and judge for the fun of it and for the awesomeness of it (or for what ever else floats your boat, as long as it doesn't harm others).
It is a game.
Always remember that.
This is exactly what I was going to say.
Abuse the crap out of the rules! Go for it! Why not?Just don't abuse the players and GM at the table. They aren't text in a book or scribbles on a piece of paper. They're people (or extraplanar undead daemon lords).
Example! I know a certain bard who also happens to be an oracle of lore. This bard combines his studies with his connection to Abadar to be able to hit knowledge DC's in the 60's. Broken, right? But to what end? The bard is played as a faction monkey, designed to help everyone else complete their faction. He also often lets others make their knowledge checks first rather than just making all the checks for them.
The same can be done if you have a Huge sized Celestial Vampiric T-Rex companion. You don't have to send it in to dominate the combat and make everyone else's actions meaningless. You're CHOOSING to do that.
David, your experience with animal companions is completely opposite mine.
My Pteranodon has an AC slightly less than my Druid. But then I've spent way more gold on the Druid than the Animal companion.
I have yet to see, in my 110 games of GM'ing, an Animal Companion that broke the scenario.
It isn't the option, its what the players do with the options, and how they combine that option with other options, that becomes the problem.
|
|
One could argue that table variation detracts from the "society" part of PFS.PFS is not all about the rules. It's all about fun. The rules exist to facilitate the fun, not the other way around.Ah, so GM experience dictates what classes can and can't be run at their table? What if a GM decides they don't like the idea of gunslingers, and so never learns how they work? Then they have what you consider a valid reason to just ban gunslingers from their table.
It's not practical. If you're in for a penny, you're in for a pound: PFS is about all the rules.
Because the rules are at their very nature, ambiguous in certain parts, and the developers have publicly stated that they like a bit of ambiguity in some rules, there is always going to be some level of table variation.
You can't escape it.
Adding a small bit of table variation tied to certain troublesome players' troublesome builds is not going to completely derail the "organized" part of organized play.
|
|
@Chris, I had my first PC death yesterday because of this.
*See here for multi-head recharge and how it's a gray area left up to the GM.
|
|
I guess my question is why do the devs allow said T-Rex to be so powerful to being with?We all have the right to make decisions about what we are going to do.
Joining society play does not alter or take away any of those rights.
Play and judge for the fun of it and for the awesomeness of it (or for what ever else floats your boat, as long as it doesn't harm others).
It is a game.
Always remember that.
This is exactly what I was going to say.
Abuse the crap out of the rules! Go for it! Why not?Just don't abuse the players and GM at the table. They aren't text in a book or scribbles on a piece of paper. They're people (or extraplanar undead daemon lords).
Example! I know a certain bard who also happens to be an oracle of lore. This bard combines his studies with his connection to Abadar to be able to hit knowledge DC's in the 60's. Broken, right? But to what end? The bard is played as a faction monkey, designed to help everyone else complete their faction. He also often lets others make their knowledge checks first rather than just making all the checks for them.
The same can be done if you have a Huge sized Celestial Vampiric T-Rex companion. You don't have to send it in to dominate the combat and make everyone else's actions meaningless. You're CHOOSING to do that.
David, your experience with animal companions is completely opposite mine.
My Pteranodon has an AC slightly less than my Druid. But then I've spent way more gold on the Druid than the Animal companion.
I have yet to see, in my 110 games of GM'ing, an Animal Companion that broke the scenario.
It isn't the option, its what the players do with the options, and how they combine that option with other options, that becomes the problem.
Sounds like your AC is fine. But why do druids even have the mathematical capability of running their animal companions' ACs above that of what is available to HEAVY ARMOR FIGHTERS of the same level? Does that sound remotely fair for them to even have this option on a *class feature*? Because people WILL exercise it. They do. I've seen it.
|
|
One could argue that table variation detracts from the "society" part of PFS.
And that would be a fair argument I believe. Table variation can be extremely frustrating when it affects your character, and I completely sympathize with that. My personal view, however, is that I play PFS to have access to a broader gaming community than just my circle of personal friends. I value that access more than I value perfect GM symmetry. I am a knowledgeable and adaptable player, I can adjust.
|
|
One could argue that table variation detracts from the "society" part of PFS.PFS is not all about the rules. It's all about fun. The rules exist to facilitate the fun, not the other way around.Ah, so GM experience dictates what classes can and can't be run at their table? What if a GM decides they don't like the idea of gunslingers, and so never learns how they work? Then they have what you consider a valid reason to just ban gunslingers from their table.
It's not practical. If you're in for a penny, you're in for a pound: PFS is about all the rules.
Because the rules are at their very nature, ambiguous in certain parts, and the developers have publicly stated that they like a bit of ambiguity in some rules, there is always going to be some level of table variation.
You can't escape it.
Adding a small bit of table variation tied to certain troublesome players' troublesome builds is not going to completely derail the "organized" part of organized play.
Going to have to disagree partially. There is ambiguity in rules sections, like lighting, that are too important to be left up to table variation. But I guess I'm stuck with it. I guess I should just run more and be done with it.
|
|
I guess my question is why do the devs allow said T-Rex to be so powerful to being with?
They aren't? It's the players choices that make it powerful. The allosaurus for example. Just because it has pounce doesn't mean you should focus your feats, tricks, spells and stat increases to boost it's pounce abilities through the roof. The anklyosaurus has a great armor class by itself, but it's not overpowered. It becomes overpowered when the player decides to use CHOICES to boost it's armor class into the sky.
|
|
One could argue that table variation detracts from the "society" part of PFS.And that would be a fair argument I believe. Table variation can be extremely frustrating when it affects your character, and I completely sympathize with that. My personal view, however, is that I play PFS to have access to a broader gaming community than just my circle of personal friends. I value that access more than I value perfect GM symmetry. I am a knowledgeable and adaptable player, I can adjust.
Fair enough. Access to a broader range is valuable.
|
|
Sounds like your AC is fine. But why do druids even have the mathematical capability of running their animal companions' ACs above that of what is available to HEAVY ARMOR FIGHTERS of the same level? Does that sound remotely fair for them to even have this option on a *class feature*? Because people WILL exercise it. They do. I've seen it.
You could just as easily ask that question about:
dual-wielding double-barreled pistoleros
twin tiefling double-fiend sighted deeper darkness casters
purchased combat-trained Bison in sub-tier 1-2.
Players who want to "win" will create these ridiculous builds, and Druids and Animal Companions are certainly not the only way to do so.
|
|
Lastly, a GM asking a player to not bring their Bison is not the same as outright cheating by changing a scenario. Call it what you will, but if a GM sees that EVERY time a Bison is brought to a tier 1-5 scenario, it ruins the fun of other players, then the GM is well within their rights to ask players to not bring a Bison into games they run. Furthermore, if the player refuses, the GM is well within their rights to ask the player to find another table. If the player refuses, the GM is well within their rights to remove themselves from the table.
Except that it IS CHEATING...on the GM's part. The GM has a right to remove disruptive PLAYERS...not BUILDS or TACTICS. When a GM bans legals builds or tactics, he is in fact CHEATING. Just like tripling the number of critters. The fact that you have trouble with this is quite concerning.
|
|
One could argue that table variation detracts from the "society" part of PFS.And that would be a fair argument I believe. Table variation can be extremely frustrating when it affects your character, and I completely sympathize with that. My personal view, however, is that I play PFS to have access to a broader gaming community than just my circle of personal friends. I value that access more than I value perfect GM symmetry. I am a knowledgeable and adaptable player, I can adjust.
Along those same lines, however, table variation can lead to some great things. The way some GM's handle situations is far beyond what I would have ever thought to do. I specifically seek out new GM's at every convention just to INCREASE my exposure to table variation. Even if it's a "negative" and I believe the GM is interpreting something incorrectly, it's a learning experience for me. It allows me to see things from a fresh perspective and makes me a better GM and writer.
|
|
Except that it IS CHEATING...on the GM's part. The GM has a right to remove disruptive PLAYERS...not BUILDS or TACTICS. When a GM bans legals builds or tactics, he is in fact CHEATING. Just like tripling the number of critters. The fact that you have trouble with this is quite concerning.
Lastly, a GM asking a player to not bring their Bison is not the same as outright cheating by changing a scenario. Call it what you will, but if a GM sees that EVERY time a Bison is brought to a tier 1-5 scenario, it ruins the fun of other players, then the GM is well within their rights to ask players to not bring a Bison into games they run. Furthermore, if the player refuses, the GM is well within their rights to ask the player to find another table. If the player refuses, the GM is well within their rights to remove themselves from the table.
I really wonder how many scenarios are conducive to having a Bison walking around with the party.
|
|
Sounds like your AC is fine. But why do druids even have the mathematical capability of running their animal companions' ACs above that of what is available to HEAVY ARMOR FIGHTERS of the same level? Does that sound remotely fair for them to even have this option on a *class feature*? Because people WILL exercise it. They do. I've seen it.
I think focus of resources should be equally or more valid than class design alone when determining such thing. If you have a heavy armor fighter and have devoted 10% of your feat and gold resources to to AC, and I have a no armored monk and have devoted 75% of my feat and gold resources to AC, I for one believe the monk should win out there.
|
|
Except that it IS CHEATING...on the GM's part. The GM has a right to remove disruptive PLAYERS...not BUILDS or TACTICS. When a GM bans legals builds or tactics, he is in fact CHEATING. Just like tripling the number of critters. The fact that you have trouble with this is quite concerning.
Lastly, a GM asking a player to not bring their Bison is not the same as outright cheating by changing a scenario. Call it what you will, but if a GM sees that EVERY time a Bison is brought to a tier 1-5 scenario, it ruins the fun of other players, then the GM is well within their rights to ask players to not bring a Bison into games they run. Furthermore, if the player refuses, the GM is well within their rights to ask the player to find another table. If the player refuses, the GM is well within their rights to remove themselves from the table.
No, it isn't.
A GM is perfectly within their rights to pre-emptively disallow anything game breaking.
Where that line is will be decided by the community for which that GM does his thing.
If the community at large disagrees with the GM, pretty soon that GM won't have anyone to GM.
If the community at large agrees with the GM, then everyone but that player who brings the brokenness to the table will be happy. And that is a win for the community.
|
|
I really wonder how many scenarios are conducive to having a Bison walking around with the party.
Heh, my home group loves playing around with game mechanics and PFS mechanics, so we routinely run various animals at low levels just to see how they perform. With the allowance to change tactics as necessary, we also learned this:
Tigers = very deadly at tier 1-5. Tigers also = very squishy with their 14 AC to the focus fire of screaming baddies who just saw their good buddy mauled to death...
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everything you have been saying
Andrew,
I must admit I am somwhat disturbed by your arguments on this thread. While I understand your concern for the community and do not disagree with you that broken builds can cause problems at the table. What I don't understand is your apparently insistent need to justify and defend what is clearly a bad solution. Why banning legal builds from your table a bad solution?
1. It is a violation of the rules. When you agreed to DM for PFS you agreed to abide by the rules set forth by the campaign staff. Those rules include a list of what is and what is not a legal character build. The campaign staff are the ones that get to decide this, individuals do not have the right or authority to make this decision on their own. The fact that a VO is publically supporting individuals to violate the rules if those individuals can justify it as being what is "best for the game" may earn you a Prestige Point in Shadow Lodge, but it undermines the structure of organize play and likely causes more damage than it fixes.
2. It's rude. Assuming someone is going to be a table jerk based solely on their build is stereotyping in the worst way.
3. It's treating the symptom, not the disease. The real problem here is inconsiderate players who either don't understand or don't care how much their dominance of the table spoils every else's fun.
4. It doesn't actually work. As per 3 above, it is only treating a symptom. Inconsiderate table dominators can and will simply find other means of dominating the table.
5. It creates an adversarial environment. By assuming the worst from your player base you are creating an adversarial environment that is at least as disruptive to fun as the actual problem players. PFS is supposed to be a cooperative game.
6. There is a much better solution. Dealing with problem players on an individual bases may be more work then pulling out the Ban Hammer but it is the PFS legal solution, is not rude, doesn't just treat the symptom and actually works. It may create an adversarial environment between you and the problem player, but that is far preferable to creating it for all game day participants.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me, a lot of this isn't about legal versus illegal, or being/not being a jerk: it's about the "no player-versus-player" rules. People assume this only means "no killing PCs". To me, this means, "don't do anything that would hinder your comrades". Blinding everyone else at the table by casting deeper darkness, even though it gives you an advantage, is PvP in my opinion. So is blocking everyone in the 10' dungeon corridor by putting your Large AC there, even though you can shoot through it without penalty because of your archer feat chain. And note, it's not "character versus character", but "player versus player"... so preventing a player from having fun violates PvP (again, in my opinion).
I find that using the spirit of the PvP rules stops most of the "not at my table" discussions in their tracks.
|
|
Sure it does. Because I had bacon, I was happier during their conflict than I would have been without bacon.Incidentally, Kyle,you remember that time you tried negotiating a truce between Jewish and Muslim extremists?
Bacon doesn't make everything better.
If bacon fails, up the anti. Deep fried bacon. Praise the south and there willingness to deep fry everything.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I find that using the spirit of the PvP rules stops most of the "not at my table" discussions in their tracks.
Except for the ones that have nothing to do with any version of PvP at all, such as the non-hypothetical "I won't ever allow a PC using rule X" that I've been discussing for the last page or two. Or the one mentioned by the OP from a few months back about using the Kickstarter boon. Or the ones from last year about certain skills that some GMs would never let a PC take 10 on. Or the ones from a while before that about not letting a small cavalier's mount climb stairs.
Hm, maybe "most" wasn't quite the right word there, eh? ;)
|
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 don't see a problem with the above, since it's based on numbers at the table, without being judgemental about anyone's character build or playing style.
Especially if you're at an event with your VL hat on, in which case it's understood that you're responsible for the smooth progress of all the tables.
A simple comment of "Oh, I see you've managed to get a legal table, without needing me after all. Guess I'll go see how the other GMs are doing." allows you to bow out with good grace.
And no-one's going to complain if you end up playing at a different table as player number 5, or even as player 4, making a non-legal 3-player table legal.