|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everything you have been sayingAndrew,
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...
Those are all fair responses.
And as I stated in an above post, a GM has to take responsibility for the consequences of his or her decisions.
1) It actually isn't a violation of the rules. Go back and take a look at some of the posts made by Mike Brock in that very contentious thread regarding whether someone could ban summoners from their table or not. And Mike Brock responded that they could not stop anyone from installing certain restrictions on their own private game days. In essence, they cannot stop someone from playing a certain way in their own home. Furthermore, Mike Brock has indicated on more than one occasion, on these public boards, that GMs, game day coordinators, and V-O's have his blessing to disinvite troublesome players from their game days based on abusing the rules of the game to dominate play. Invite them to create their own game day. It isn't a huge leap to include GM's banning certain builds or purchases in certain situations so that they can include players rather than disinviting them.
2) Whether the intent of the player is to be dominating or not, sometimes they learn bad habits from those players who are rude and troublesome. It isn’t necessarily stereotyping a player to say that you will not allow purchased combat-trained Bison to participate in combat in a sub-tier 1-2 scenario. It is prudent. But even if it ends up being rude, frankly, so what? It is easy enough to mend fences with a player who is legitimately just bringing a cool factor vs. letting a player ruin a table by giving them the benefit of the doubt.
3) By removing the temptation, the disease never happens. CR 4 to 6 purchased pets are simply not appropriate for a sub-tier 1-2 scenario. And if the players cannot take the responsibility upon themselves to realize that, then the GM has to. Just the same as if a player cannot realize that uber-solo-domination of a table is not appropriate in any venue, then the GM has to. Banning a player from your game day for their choices is really no different than banning the choices that player chooses to make. There are simply some choices that are only made by troublesome players wishing to dominate a table. For me personally, should I ever choose to make such a restriction at my tables,* if the conversation begins and the player chooses to discuss the issue and convinces me that they are not about dominating the table, I will give them one chance to prove me wrong.
4) Sure it does. It starts the conversation. It can be a learning and teaching moment for both the player, the other players at the table, and the GM. Ideally the GM doesn’t just create a blanket ban of those items, and when he sees one come up, it raises a red flag for him or her. Then he discusses it with the player before banning anything. But I would never blame a GM for creating a blanket ban on some very select things (Bison in a tier 1-2 scenario). But what the teaching and learning moment allows for, is the other players to express any hesitation they have for playing with that particular player because of their choices, the GM to express why they dislike such choices, and the player in question to express how he isn’t like all the others (or try to convince the group he has the right to be a narcissistic jackass.)
5) I personally, typically try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Trust first, ask questions later. But if you’ve been burned many times by the same choices, it then becomes hard to do the next time said choice presents itself. I rarely engage in an adversarial situation at the gaming table as either a player or a GM. I typically try to engage in fun. But if a player insists on bringing a choice to the table that is completely inappropriate (Bison at sub-tier 1-2), I will be very tempted to put my foot down and simply say no. If this creates an adversarial situation, that actually is the player’s problem, not mine. I’m looking out for the welfare of the table, not an individual with a Bison.
6)I am not afraid of confronting a problem player on an individual basis. Thankfully I haven’t had to but maybe once or twice in the nearly two years as V-L. But again, typically, the choices that are inappropriate are typically only choices that problem players choose. Part of the process of assimilating problem players into the community as a team player, is showing them the choices that are inappropriate. And it helps make them feel more a part of the team if it is a blanket ban, than if they are the only one not allowed to make those choices. “Why does Tommy get a Bison and I can’t have one! <pout>”, “Because Tommy isn’t a jackass with his Bison, but you are.” How does that conversation go over well?
*I bolded the above statement because I wanted to express that I personally have not banned anything at my tables, yet. Right now about the only thing I would seriously consider is combat-trained purchased pets of a CR over the level of the sub-tier being played at (standard horses and riding dogs do not apply). But I haven’t made that decision yet. I am likely to.
As I stated above, a GM must take responsibility for the consequences of their decisions. If they become too restrictive, soon the community will not want to play at their table and game day coordinators will not want to use them as GMs. Conversely, if your community cries out for a restriction, and you ignore it, you may find yourself without any players but the dominators. And that’s when I stop GM’ing.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Have you seen turkey bacon?
Turkey bacon sort of looks like bacon at first. It's like, if bacon was in a fight scene, and you saw it from behind or from a distance ... that was turkey bacon.
|
|
Please show me in the Pathfinder Society Guide to Organized Play where PFS GMs are allowed to do this?
A GM is perfectly within their rights to pre-emptively disallow anything game breaking.
Mike has specifically stated the opposite of this is true in a public setting.
And when you play outside your private play group in a private setting, such as your own home, with a controlled group of friends. the PFS rules are followed and any character class, race, concept, etc... that is legal will not be banned from play. That is the difference between public and private play.
The most a GM can do is be a jerk and walk away from a table at the last minute.
**This is assuming that the GM has not played with said player before, determined that the player is disruptive, and attempted to fix the issues with the player. If the GM has tried this route then the GM is within their right to ban the player from play.**
|
|
Please show me in the Pathfinder Society Guide to Organized Play where PFS GMs are allowed to do this?
A GM is perfectly within their rights to pre-emptively disallow anything game breaking.
Mike has specifically stated the opposite of this is true in a public setting.
And when you play outside your private play group in a private setting, such as your own home, with a controlled group of friends. the PFS rules are followed and any character class, race, concept, etc... that is legal will not be banned from play. That is the difference between public and private play.The most a GM can do is be a jerk and walk away from a table at the last minute.
**This is assuming that the GM has not played with said player before, determined that the player is disruptive, and attempted to fix the issues with the player. If the GM has tried this route then the GM is within their right to ban the player from play.**
What is the tangible difference between:
"Sorry, no Bison at this sub-tier 1-2 table please."
and
"Ok, I'll just leave the table if you insist on bringing that Bison to this sub-tier 1-2 table."
|
|
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.
You seem to have read the words in my statement in the wrong order.
|
Except for [...]
Hm, maybe "most" wasn't quite the right word there, eh? ;)
No, it's the right word since it covers "most" of the situations I've come up against. I don't have any GMs who have said, "I won't allow any rule X at my table" because my GMs know they would not be GMing for public PFS games for me if they said that. Public games have requirements for both GMs and players to put up with the public environment.
But, if a GM is running home (private, invite-only) PFS games and don't want to allow gunslingers (for example), that's their call (as Mike Brock has affirmed with summoners). If you don't like that ruling, find a different GM.
The Kickstarter boon is just ridiculous in my opinion, but if the players want to do it, fine by me (at a public game). But if people start to bully others into doing it, or use the gained abilities to dominate the table, that falls into PvP as well.
|
Show me where they aren't?Please show me in the Pathfinder Society Guide to Organized Play where PFS GMs are allowed to do this?
A GM is perfectly within their rights to pre-emptively disallow anything game breaking.
I really don't think a GM is "perfectly" within their rights to do this. Evidently, Mr. Brock has specifically prohibited this kind of behaviour. However, there aren't many good solutions to this, and I suspect that multiple star GMs, or any GM really, will get tons of slack on this subject. I just seems to introduce the ultimate level of table variation. As tempted as I have been, I have never actually done this. According to many on this thread, I made the wrong call.
|
|
Options are made legal within Pathfinder Society Organized play, with the assumption that the players will use those options responsibly.
If players do not use them responsibly, and if certain options in certain conditions are irresponsible in and of themselves (Bison at sub-tier 1-2), then whose job is it to make sure that things are used responsibly?
Do we wait for a table or two of fun to be ruined because of irresponsible choices before we deal with the problem players?
Or do we pre-empt the problem by making sure that the “certain options in certain conditions that are irresponsible” become not an option at a GM’s table?
It is physically, mentally, psychologically, and temporally impossible for Mike Brock to account for all possible iterations of use of a legal option. It is up to the GMs on the ground to make sure that responsible play and choices ensue whenever possible. And it is their right, when they see an irresponsible choice being made, to step in and overrule it.
The line between disallowing irresponsible play choices and irresponsible, arbitrary, and unilateral GM restrictions will be decided by the community the GM runs games for. If they like his choices, they will continue to play at his table and enjoy themselves. If they don’t, then that GM will find a dearth of available players.
|
|
pathar, let's take a sidebar and talk about a matter of player attitude.
** spoiler omitted **
You are 100% correct about all of this. My concern isn't with GMs who ban (watch/prohibit/work with/whatever) problem players, my concern is with GMs who ban problem builds wholesale, for values of "problem" equal to "I don't like it despite its legality."
|
|
What is the tangible difference between:
"Sorry, no Bison at this sub-tier 1-2 table please."
and
"Ok, I'll just leave the table if you insist on bringing that Bison to this sub-tier 1-2 table."
In reality, nothing. In both cases the GM is alienating players. In both cases the GM is the issue, not the player. The player has yet to do anything but sit down at a table with a legal choice. On paper, Mike has banned one and not the other.
If the GM has issues with legal options in PFS then they should petition to have them removed from play (see synth summoner, vivisectionist, etc). Until then, they should attempt to handle players as well as they can and if issues come up work them out with said player. They can ban said player from all play if it does not work out but they can not ban said player only if they want to play a build the GM dislikes. If the GM still feels they need to ban stuff preemptively then they need to keep to private games where they can limit player choices. If they can't limit themselves to the private setting then they should leave society and be happy with homegaming where they have all the power and judgment they wish for.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking as a player, not a GM, I have never seen a PC so powerful that it should be banned from PFS. (I have seen characters that should be banned from home games, but that is another matter.) The closest I have seen was a Synthesist Summoner, who could almost have done the adventure single-handed. My observation has been that the rules for character creation, magic item access, and playing "out-of-tier" prevent excessively powerful characters.
A PFS GM does not have the right arbitrarily to ban characters that are entirely legal for society play. Nor can a PFS GM use his own rules interpretations if those rules violate RAW. A PFS GM may have the right - and the responsibility - to ask players to leave, based on their behavior at the table.
|
|
Mike has specifically stated the opposite of this is true in a public setting.
And when you play outside your private play group in a private setting, such as your own home, with a controlled group of friends. the PFS rules are followed and any character class, race, concept, etc... that is legal will not be banned from play. That is the difference between public and private play.
Can you source that? I want to be able to link to it. :)
|
|
Can you source that? I want to be able to link to it. :)Mike has specifically stated the opposite of this is true in a public setting.
And when you play outside your private play group in a private setting, such as your own home, with a controlled group of friends. the PFS rules are followed and any character class, race, concept, etc... that is legal will not be banned from play. That is the difference between public and private play.
I closed the tab. Let me dig it back up.
|
You seem to be mixing both of our arguments here.
1) It actually isn't a violation of the rules. Go back and take a look at some of the posts made by Mike Brock in that very contentious thread regarding whether someone could ban summoners from their table or not. And Mike Brock responded that they could not stop anyone from installing certain restrictions on their own private game days. In essence, they cannot stop someone from playing a certain way in their own home.
My arguments are related to public game play. I agree this is acceptable in a private play environment, but VOs primarily exist for public games. They don't serve much purpose for private ones, so public comments from them should be addressing public concerns unless stated otherwise.
And as Nosig has pointed out, Mike has specifically stated you can't do this in a public venue.
Furthermore, Mike Brock has indicated on more than one occasion, on these public boards, that GMs, game day coordinators, and V-O's have his blessing to disinvite troublesome players from their game days based on abusing the rules of the game to dominate play. Invite them to create their own game day. It isn't a huge leap to include GM's banning certain builds or purchases in certain situations so that they can include players rather than disinviting them.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying you should be doing. This is handling the situation on an individual basis and is within the rules. Banning individuals and banning individual builds are not the same thing.
|
|
"And when you play outside your private play group in a private setting, such as your own home, with a controlled group of friends. the PFS rules are followed and any character class, race, concept, etc... that is legal will not be banned from play. That is the difference between public and private play."
I hate broken PC builds, and I hate animal companions, and non-Eidolon pets in general, but if any rational person parses this sentence, how does this *not* end the debate? The "will not be banned from play" is pretty hard to wriggle out of. Sounds like your job as GM is to sit there and take it like a man. Now if the rest of the table gets up, like they should, you can still say you did your job.
|
|
If bacon fails, up the anti. Deep fried bacon. Praise the south and there willingness to deep fry everything.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.
That delicious treat will be at the Wisconsin State Fair in a few weeks which also happens to be a mere 4 miles from where I live. I will bike there to burn off the calories equal to the first piece I devour.
|
|
That delicious treat will be at the Wisconsin State Fair in a few weeks which also happens to be a mere 4 miles from where I live. I will bike there to burn off the calories equal to the first piece I devour.If bacon fails, up the anti. Deep fried bacon. Praise the south and there willingness to deep fry everything.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.
We have a brew pub in St Louis that does it as a side item. I told them that they should move it up to the main course.
|
|
Basically you have to wait for the huge animal companion to actually get in everyone's way and actually start soloing the entire scenario before you can start talking about tossing the PC. All this really does is give the player the opportunity to voluntarily not own everything's face with a single class feature.
I agree that an AC with 35 AC and 100 dpr looks very suspicious from the get go, but Brock has specifically denied pre-emptive bans it seems.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Except for [...]
Hm, maybe "most" wasn't quite the right word there, eh? ;)
No, it's the right word since it covers "most" of the situations I've come up against. I don't have any GMs who have said, "I won't allow any rule X at my table" because my GMs know they would not be GMing for public PFS games for me if they said that. Public games have requirements for both GMs and players to put up with the public environment.
But, if a GM is running home (private, invite-only) PFS games and don't want to allow gunslingers (for example), that's their call (as Mike Brock has affirmed with summoners). If you don't like that ruling, find a different GM.
The Kickstarter boon is just ridiculous in my opinion, but if the players want to do it, fine by me (at a public game). But if people start to bully others into doing it, or use the gained abilities to dominate the table, that falls into PvP as well.
I agree with everything you just said. Sadly, the examples I gave were of GM-fiat table-bans in non-private games. (Though I'm glad to hear that doesn't happen in your area!)
I'd also like to say that I'm relieved to now be seeing that I'm not the only one who thinks public-game table-bans that aren't based on disruptive behavior are off base. I think a lot of people perhaps misread the OP as saying that GMs shouldn't deal with disruptive players, but after 9-10 pages of back-and-forth, it looks like the actual complaint has been clarified enough to get some commentary on it (instead of on disruptive players), and it looks like the majority opinion (so far) is that such things are inappropriate for public games.
Hopefully that fact will make the OP feel a bit better about all this. :)
|
|
Specifically, Mike Brock has disallowed, in a public venue, the ability of a GM, or game day coordinator, to outright disallow specific legal classes, races, concepts, etc.
This was in direct response, after Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic came out, where some GM’s were indicating that they were disallowing summoners (specifically synthecist summoners), gunslingers and zen archers from play.
Let’s not take these comments out of context please.
Mike and Mark decided at the time, that they couldn’t and shouldn’t dictate what people did in their private homes. I actually argued against it quite vociferously at the time. I argued that for it to be a legal table, it should allow all PFS options. But I was more specifically referring to entire classes being banned.
Out of context, you take what he said and can apply it to any situation, and even problem players have recourse to disallow you from disinviting them from play. Yet, you agree that disinviting a problem player is ok.
But what was the reason for disinviting the problem player? Is he just a jerk? Or is his jerkishness because of his build choices and how he uses those choices during play to dominate the table?
Again, what would be the reason to bring a combat-trained tiger or bison to a sub-tier 1-2 table? It’s a completely inappropriate choice, and merely making that choice raises lots of red flags.
Putting Mike Brock’s statement in context, and including other statements by Mike Brock, disallowing combat-trained bison at a sub-tier 1-2 table is completely acceptable unless the player can show that he can do so responsibly. If a largely responsible player sat at my table (assuming I instituted a bison ban at sub-tier 1-2) with a bison in a sub-tier 1-2 table, I’d probably question it, but give them the benefit of the doubt. If a notorious problem player sat at my table with the same, I’d say no way. If someone I didn’t know sat at my table (specifically at a convention) I’d be very skeptical of their motivations for said choice. I’d ask them to reconsider. If they insisted, I would probably get the convention coordinator involved in the discussion.
And I reserve the right to not GM that table if the player decides to be obstinate about his inappropriate and irresponsible choice and the convention coordinator feels their hands are tied about allowing/disallowing said choice.
I’d rather be viewed as a jerk, and have no table happen, then waste my own and potentially 5 other players’ time for 4 to 5 hours watching a herd animal destroy a scenario.
Any player who would be so obstinate and demand the right to play a Bison (and use it in combat) in a sub-tier 1-2 scenario, is probably the type of player who makes other selfish decisions that gets them disinvited from game days and such anyways.
|
|
Options are made legal within Pathfinder Society Organized play, with the assumption that the players will use those options responsibly.
There is no such 'specific' assumption. Only the assumption that the players will behave responsibly in all things at the table and there is a specific PFS approved method for dealing with them when they don't. Table domination through abusive builds is only one possible irresponsible behavior and does not have any specific rules associated with it compared to any other bad table behavior. Thus the solution for this is the same as the solutions for any other bad table behavior.
DMs equally have responsibility too. And one of those responsibilities is to abide by RAW. The reason for this is not that Mike Brock is god and is all knowing. Nor is it that RAW cannot be broken or abused. The reason for this is that organized play only functions if you have a high degree of table consistency. Anything that increases table variation, especially unnecessary table variation when there are other perfectly good options that don't, is bad for PFS.
If players do not use them responsibly, and if certain options in certain conditions are irresponsible in and of themselves (Bison at sub-tier 1-2), then whose job is it to make sure that things are used responsibly?
Do we wait for a table or two of fun to be ruined because of irresponsible choices before we deal with the problem players?
In this country, we only punish people for crimes they have committed. Not crimes they 'might' commit.
Or do we pre-empt the problem by making sure that the “certain options in certain conditions that are irresponsible” become not an option at a GM’s table?
You have a perfectly legitimate means of doing this that is within the rules. If you see a potential problem, you can sit down with the player and explain your concerns, warning the player that if he does abuse the build he will be asked to not play at your venue. That is the proper solution. And it is a solution that you, as a representative of PFS, should be advocating.
The problem, Andrew, is that for every single issue you have brought up there is already a perfectly acceptable and functional solution. Yet you continue to promulgate a solution that is questionable in its legitimacy, morality and efficacy. Why is that Andrew? Why is it that you cannot accept the legitimate and accepted solution to the problem?
|
|
@trollbill: This isn't the US legal system. This isn't about crime and punishment.
This is a game about ensuring fun for the majority of people.
There is no court of law where I have to prove guilt or not.
If I know a choice is irresponsible regardless who makes it (Bison at sub-tier 1-2), I'd be remiss to allow it.
Why does this thread keep getting off topic? Let's get back to the core of this thread and discuss bacon.
With all this talk of bacon, I can’t get that commercial out of my head now…
“Iiiiiit’s BA-con!”
It’s all your fault, Kyle.
|
|
"I’d rather be viewed as a jerk, and have no table happen, then waste my own and potentially 5 other players’ time for 4 to 5 hours watching a herd animal destroy a scenario."
Again, what if I extend this exact logic to animal companions? Do they get a pass because they are "core"?
Pretty much yes. But having a discussion with the players of ridiculous Armor Class animal companions and ask that they tone it down a bit wouldn’t be out of line.
If they refuse, and they keep hogging the spotlight from other players, and you see other players upset by this, disinviting them from the game day and asking them to form their own game day is appropriate action.
|
|
@trollbill: This isn't the US legal system. This isn't about crime and punishment.
This is a game about ensuring fun for the majority of people.
There is no court of law where I have to prove guilt or not.
If I know a choice is irresponsible regardless who makes it (Bison at sub-tier 1-2), I'd be remiss to allow it.
And you have already been given an acceptable solution to this problem time and time again on this thread.
|
|
"Pretty much yes. But having a discussion with the players of ridiculous Armor Class animal companions and ask that they tone it down a bit wouldn’t be out of line."
I remember once scenario that was being walked over by an AC where I was playing my cleric. When we finally got to something that could hurt the thing, I considered excluding the AC out of my channels just to give our melee group member something to do. I felt this went beyond "the jerk event horizon", so I didn't do it. But I find it very frustrating it got to that point.
The part that makes no sense is that the druid was even WORSE in 3.5 and is a base class in Pathfinder. Yet seasons 0-2 are animal companion doormats. What gives?
|
|
"I’d rather be viewed as a jerk, and have no table happen, then waste my own and potentially 5 other players’ time for 4 to 5 hours watching a herd animal destroy a scenario."
Again, what if I extend this exact logic to animal companions? Do they get a pass because they are "core"?
Pretty much yes. But having a discussion with the players of ridiculous Armor Class animal companions and ask that they tone it down a bit wouldn’t be out of line.
If they refuse, and they keep hogging the spotlight from other players, and you see other players upset by this, disinviting them from the game day and asking them to form their own game day is appropriate action.
Yup. That is 100% the correct, legitimate and accepted solution to this problem and I am very glad to see you are aware of it. Please continue to publically promote this solution rather than the less accepted solution of blind build banning.
|
|
And you have already been given an acceptable solution to this problem time and time again on this thread.@trollbill: This isn't the US legal system. This isn't about crime and punishment.
This is a game about ensuring fun for the majority of people.
There is no court of law where I have to prove guilt or not.
If I know a choice is irresponsible regardless who makes it (Bison at sub-tier 1-2), I'd be remiss to allow it.
And I've told everyone, time and time again, on this thread, that waiting for worst case scenario does nobody any favors.
At the very least, if a red flag goes up when I see something come to my table, I'm going to query it. If it becomes obvious that the player is going to be selfish, I will ask them to leave the table.
po-tay-toe, po-tah-toe...
ban the selfish player, or pre-empt the choice... its the same thing.
But if you want to call it a po-tay-toe, fine, that's what I'll call it.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a person that brings a combat trained tiger with them in the 1-2 games.
When I played a game with him, I felt useless and it wasn't much fun.
When I glanced over and watched him playing with others last week, everyone was having fun.
"Fun" is subjective.
As a GM, if he started overshadowing players, and people were put off by it, I'd speak with him candidly about giving other people a chance to shine. He, being a great guy, would tone it down for that table. And everyone would have a great time.
If he didn't, he would be a jerk.
If I banned him on sight, I would be a jerk.
We are both not jerks. We both want to have a fun table.
I think if the people involved on either side of a situation like this - an overpowered, specialized, or janky character kicking butt in a game - just talked to each other like adults, we wouldn't have threads this long.
I think it's not much to ask for civility and understanding at tables. This is a social game, so working stuff out with the people sitting around you is an integral part of making any table a success.
I talked to him after the game he got his tiger in. He admits its broken, and now only uses it when the party lacks a meaty tank, or they are playing up. He also corrects GMs if they overlook his need to Handle Animal, or the fact that he doesn't actually control it. The result is tables that get a unique experience and broaden their knowledge of the system.
Yay tigers!
|
|
not taken personally SCPRedMage.
But it is funny how many people feel like I'm banning stuff willy nilly based on my argument here.
You'll see above, that I have yet to ban anything ever from my table.
About the only thing I currently would have real trouble allowing, to be honest, is the CR 4 to 6 purchased pet in a sub-tier 1-2 scenario.
|
|
Yup. That is 100% the correct, legitimate and accepted solution to this problem and I am very glad to see you are aware of it. Please continue to publically promote this solution rather than the less accepted solution of blind build banning."I’d rather be viewed as a jerk, and have no table happen, then waste my own and potentially 5 other players’ time for 4 to 5 hours watching a herd animal destroy a scenario."
Again, what if I extend this exact logic to animal companions? Do they get a pass because they are "core"?
Pretty much yes. But having a discussion with the players of ridiculous Armor Class animal companions and ask that they tone it down a bit wouldn’t be out of line.
If they refuse, and they keep hogging the spotlight from other players, and you see other players upset by this, disinviting them from the game day and asking them to form their own game day is appropriate action.
If I never see twin double fiend sighted, deeper darkness casting Tieflings play, and they show up to my table and I know what they are before the game starts (or even as they are about to take their actions during the 1st encounter), I can ask them to cease and desist for the fun of the rest of the table.
If they refuse, I can ask them to leave.
How is that different from straight up banning the same thing other than it creates the awkward situation about an hour later than it should have?
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
"Oh, player's shouldn't get to use the slumber hex to take out the BBEG in the first round, because then I don't get to have fun beating them up!"
The authors could have written a BBEG that didn't suck. Just a thought.
That's harsh.
Authors work within the confines of "what fits the scenario," then within the confines of the page limit, the CR bracket, and everything they do is compressed by a developer. All of which rests on the framework of a system where a natural 1 always fails. So when you put them up against a class that hinges on "save or suck" abilities, condemning the authors isn't very fair.
They stepped up their game considerably in season 4, so I'll presume you were talking about season 0-2; some of which came out pre-APG. So a lot of those BBEGs were designed without the existence of witches.
That said, your argument essentially boils down to "hate the playa not the game" which I would respect, if I was still in middle school. We're mature folks, and having an attitude of "we'll they didn't say I couldn't!!" when playing optimized characters is one of the lamest cop outs around. Players should own up to it and accept that they're pushing things to the limit - that's where all the fun is anyway... I love my optimized characters.
Witches are awesome. And slumbering people is great. But if you 're playing a tabletop game to essentially button-mash-spam your sleep hex, you're missing out on a lot. What's the fun of raiding if one person can solo the boss?