|
Maybe one of the power gamers could take a break from scenario-breaking PCs and apply their system mastery to running NPCs in a correct fashion. Watch out, I'm almost making sense here.
Just have to say - when this happens locally is when the players walk from the table. Not usually a great solution.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
They are different because one undermines the core premise of organized play that a build that is legal at one table is legal at all tables, and the other does not undermine this. Ergo, one is a good solution, the other is a bad one.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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?
It's different because it gives them the chance to not be jerks with their builds. I described upthread that I had considered a very similar build (with Sneak Attack, even!) but with the intent of only busting it out if things were going south and we needed a trump card.
If instead you ban the build/tactic, then:
1) You might have alienated an innocent player rather than a guilty one, and
2) If the player was going to be disruptive, you've now failed to address that behavior - they think the problem was the build (or worse, they think the problem is you), so they just come back and be disruptive with a different build that you haven't banned (or at someone else's table).
It's the difference between addressing the real problem, versus passing it on to someone else (possibly your own future self) to have to handle later, or alienating a player who was never a problem in the first place.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is beginning to really depress me that a Venture Captain has been in this thread advocating for days the right to ignore or suppress rules he doesn't like, in direct contradiction of multiple previous statements by the campaign coordinator, and this hasn't earned a single comment from the higher-ups.
|
It is beginning to really depress me that a Venture Captain has been in this thread advocating for days the right to ignore or suppress rules he doesn't like, in direct contradiction of multiple previous statements by the campaign coordinator, and this hasn't earned a single comment from the higher-ups.
Path,
Take a step back. It's only PFS. There's a LOT of other crap going on in the real (Earth) world that would provide suitable fuel for deep depression. Unless your livelihood is somehow connected to PFS, it's not worth it, man.
~T~
|
|
They are different because one undermines the core premise of organized play that a build that is legal at one table is legal at all tables, and the other does not undermine this. Ergo, one is a good solution, the other is a bad one.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?
So essentially you’d rather see potentially 5 upset players (and if they are brand new possibly never come back to PFS) than 1 upset player? All in the name of strictly following the rules?
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
It is beginning to really depress me that a Venture Captain has been in this thread advocating for days the right to ignore or suppress rules he doesn't like, in direct contradiction of multiple previous statements by the campaign coordinator, and this hasn't earned a single comment from the higher-ups.
If you want a response from a paizo staffer, shoot them a message or email.
I know Mike is on vacation, and assume the rest are burning the candle at both ends to get ready for GenCon. Also, 855 posts man... That's a lot to digest >.<
|
|
So essentially you’d rather see potentially 5 upset players (and if they are brand new possibly never come back to PFS) than 1 upset player? All in the name of strictly following the rules?They are different because one undermines the core premise of organized play that a build that is legal at one table is legal at all tables, and the other does not undermine this. Ergo, one is a good solution, the other is a bad one.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?
Ahh, the classic 'rights of the individual' versus 'rights of society' quandary. I used to fall on the side of protecting the rights of the invididual most of the time. Then I started participating in organized play RPG campaigns. :-p
|
|
It is beginning to really depress me that a Venture Captain has been in this thread advocating for days the right to ignore or suppress rules he doesn't like, in direct contradiction of multiple previous statements by the campaign coordinator, and this hasn't earned a single comment from the higher-ups.
First of all, I’m not a Venture-Captain. I’m a Venture-Lieutenant.
Secondly, I’m not advocating breaking the rules.
I’m advocating sticking up for the majority of players having fun.
There is a huge difference.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
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.
Okay seriously, I'm gonna bring to Mike's attention. If he says it's okay, fine...otherwise, I think you and him needs to have a chat about your ability to unilaterally decide what is and is not allowed in PFS games.
|
|
[...] I just view running a game for players as an act of selfless service [...]
This idea of player entitlement, to have someone GM for them no matter what, has become more prevalent over my time in PFS. Let me point out a couple of things.
GMs are taught (through every rulebook in every edition I've seen) to read their players and concentrate on the aspects of the game the players seem to like best: combat, roleplaying, whatever it might be. That's part of the job. (As is seeing "our" characters get slaughtered by the PCs.) But that level of consideration should go both ways.
Players should learn to read their GMs as well, and try to enable the GM's fun, too. If your slumber hex seems to upset the GM, maybe it's not that he hates witches, but that he's spent several hours every week prepping these scenarios and you end every single one of them the exact same way every time, and he never gets to use any of the prep he put in. Consider the choices you as a player make to enable fun for others around the table, and don't assume that you are he only one who deserves the benefit of "fun" at the table.
This is a team game. The players and the GM are ON THE SAME TEAM. Anyone that doesn't get that should look at a different type of game, one where winning depends on making the other player lose.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Andrew,
You're a good friend, and you know I have your back when it comes to the goal of a healthy organized play environment. But I think you're wrong here; let me ask you a question:
Picture the best player you know. The guy knows his rules, but is upbeat, fun to play with, and always looks out for everybody else at the table. He's the first person you think of, when you want somebody to sit next to a new player.
If that guy came to your table with a 1st-level Shoanti fighter who had bought 2 war-trained bison, would you (a) immediately ban him, or (b) ask him what his intentions were?
I ask because your rhetoric backs Position A, while I suspect you hold Position B, and most people here are cool with Position B.
|
|
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.
NO IT IS NOT...sigh...
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
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?
RE The DD twins.
I wanted to point out two very real scenarios.
I played with Blue (one of the DD brothers) playing Ksenia. One encounter where he was scouting with DD up came up and it turned into a mess because he had the spell up, the (dwarven) cleric was following behind and didn't think to dismiss it. (cleric cast spell) It did grind the table to a halt, since Ksenia and the other PCs were more on the sidelines readying actions to hit anything that came out of the darkness. Nothing did.
Is that the fault of the GM or the player.
Another time, I played Dexios with Blue. While Dex does have the spell (it amuses me to be able to 'deny you Shizuru's blessing') and the feats, the number of times it came up in the entire scenario? Zero.
Both players have a very specific 'build philosophy' in mind.
To use Andrew's example, I could never play Dexios at his table, because he'd look at Dexios having the combo by himself, and say "Nope" I could never play Dexios with another tiefling with the fiend sight feats, because it might happen, even though it never has.
|
|
Ahh, the classic 'rights of the individual' versus 'rights of society' quandary. I used to fall on the side of protecting the rights of the invididual most of the time. Then I started participating in organized play RPG campaigns. :-pSo essentially you’d rather see potentially 5 upset players (and if they are brand new possibly never come back to PFS) than 1 upset player? All in the name of strictly following the rules?They are different because one undermines the core premise of organized play that a build that is legal at one table is legal at all tables, and the other does not undermine this. Ergo, one is a good solution, the other is a bad one.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?
I’m sure you half said that tongue-in-cheek… but I understand the sentiment very much so.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So essentially you’d rather see potentially 5 upset players (and if they are brand new possibly never come back to PFS) than 1 upset player? All in the name of strictly following the rules?They are different because one undermines the core premise of organized play that a build that is legal at one table is legal at all tables, and the other does not undermine this. Ergo, one is a good solution, the other is a bad one.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?
No, I am not essentially saying that. If a player has a potentially broken build you take him aside and explain the potential problem. If it is clear that he will be a problem after this discussion then you have the right to tell him you won't allow HIM at the table because of this. If the player appears to understand the problem and agrees to behave you let him play. Only if the player proves that he is actually going to be a problem when you thought he wasn't does this disrupt the game. If you warn the player and then ask him to leave the table an hour into the game because he won't behave even after he said he would, then the other players at the table will remember the effort you put into making the game fun for everyone and likely return. So what I am essentially saying is that it is possible to make the non-jerk players at your table happy AND follow the rules at the same time.
This may not be quite as easy as the Ban Hammer, but it is a better solution. If you were just some schmuck like me, I probably wouldn't care that much about this. But you are a VO and as such, your comments carry a certain amount of authority. So it concerns me when I see a VO publically advocating violating the rules, which is the same concern as the OP of this thread.
|
|
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?RE The DD twins.
I wanted to point out two very real scenarios.
I played with Blue (one of the DD brothers) playing Ksenia. One encounter where he was scouting with DD up came up and it turned into a mess because he had the spell up, the (dwarven) cleric was following behind and didn't think to dismiss it. (cleric cast spell) It did grind the table to a halt, since Ksenia and the other PCs were more on the sidelines readying actions to hit anything that came out of the darkness. Nothing did.
Is that the fault of the GM or the player.
Another time, I played Dexios with Blue. While Dex does have the spell (it amuses me to be able to 'deny you Shizuru's blessing') and the feats, the number of times it came up in the entire scenario? Zero.
Both players have a very specific 'build philosophy' in mind.
To use Andrew's example, I could never play Dexios at his table, because he'd look at Dexios having the combo by himself, and say "Nope" I could never play Dexios with another tiefling with the fiend sight feats, because it might happen, even though it never has.
Have you actually read my posts where I said I have never banned any particular thing, and probably never will?
You'd be fine at my table until the moment you cause problems for others.
A lot of these questions are pointed and specific to get people thinking about the greater good.
|
|
This has been blown so, so far out of proportion.
What are pathar, et al hoping to get out of this? Censure of Andrew? Stripping of "rank"?
Can we all just agree to the following:
No GM may ban a legal option, however if they have concern over any aspect of a character, the GM may ask the player to agree to the following statement:
"I promise I won't let this ruin the game and I'll stop doing it if it becomes a problem."
If the player refuses, they will not be seated.
If, as a player, you can't make or keep that promise, then you either don't trust the GM to be reasonable about what constitutes a problem, or you are unwilling to hold back for the fun of the rest of the table.
If the former, you should probably walk away, because playing with an antagonistic GM is not fun.
If the latter, you should probably walk away, because playing with you is not fun.
Apply to:
Slumber Witches
Animal Companions
Mystic Theurges
DD Power Twinsies
etc.
|
|
Andrew,
You're a good friend, and you know I have your back when it comes to the goal of a healthy organized play environment. But I think you're wrong here; let me ask you a question:
Picture the best player you know. The guy knows his rules, but is upbeat, fun to play with, and always looks out for everybody else at the table. He's the first person you think of, when you want somebody to sit next to a new player.
If that guy came to your table with a 1st-level Shoanti fighter who had bought 2 war-trained bison, would you (a) immediately ban him, or (b) ask him what his intentions were?
I ask because your rhetoric backs Position A, while I suspect you hold Position B, and most people here are cool with Position B.
First, you’ll see upthread at least two separate times that I’ve said I never have and probably never will ban anything .
You’ll also note, that when talking very specifically about what actions I would specifically take, that I’ve noted that I would talk to the player first.
I am mostly Item B.
I would call it a soft-ban. Because largely I never really ask folks about their builds in such a way so as to glean information about whether I want them at my table or not. But if someone showed up at my table with an item that raised one of these red flags (Bison at a sub-tier 1-2 table), then I’d ask pointed questions about their intentions.
If they are a good friend and good player, I think they would understand my reservations and easily be able to put my concerns to rest.
That being said, I can see why some GM’s (regardless their title or star count), would feel the need to outright ban something. Because there are just some things that aren’t conducive to team play.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Can we all just agree to the following:
No GM may ban a legal option, however if they have concern over any aspect of a character, the GM may ask the player to agree to the following statement:
"I promise I won't let this ruin the game and I'll stop doing it if it becomes a problem."If the player refuses, they will not be seated.
That's exactly what this thread was aimed at getting GMs to agree to, redward.
Several GMs in the thread have done so.
One has very explicitly declined (though to his credit, he does his best to arrange situations such that it won't come up in the first place).
And currently, a few posters are at least suspecting that Andy doesn't agree to the quoted segment, and insisting that he comply (while Chris Mortika is suspecting that he *does* agree to it and is perhaps just not coming across well in his posts).
So yeah, this whole thread is about getting GMs to agree to exactly what you're asking folks to agree to.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a very powerful gnome heavens oracle. I was playing fortress of the nail. The first fight I was in a horribl position so I won it in the first round to save myself. The second fight the party took a huge AOE effect, and a few people were pretty low on hp. So out of fear of someone dying the ended that fight. I felt really bad about it, but at the same time I would have felt worse had someone died. The last fight I ran around doing nothing so the other PCs could get some action. The only thing I did was CLW. I say go ahead build that super celestial t-rex, that DD twins, the slumber witch, and whatever else. Just realize when it is too much and take a step back.
You can roleplay reasons not to fight with these super characters, but you can also use them to save a party when things get out of hand.
Plus gnome would love reading someones celestial t-rex.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually the best way to deal with obvious broken builds that you know will break the game is to just do the following:
GM: "This is obviously broken and will break the game and none of the other players will have fun."
Player: "Dude..my 6 armed gunslinger with a gatling gun and an war Bison ids a Legal build I I have the right to play him"
GM: "I'm asking you politely to play something else"
Player: "This is what I want to play"
GM: Signs chronicle sheet and hands it to player "Congratulations you have soloed the mission...now go away so the rest of us can play the game and have fun"
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that some people say they are going to ban things, without seeing them be devastating.
I had this situation come up a few months back. I had made a burning arc specialist, magical lineage, wayang spellhunter, spell spec. I took time to write down all the sources and what everything I could do, where the number came from everything about the character's "tricks".
I showed it to a GM, and he looked very disheartened, but he didn't ban me from the table. After the game he gave me a piece of advice, he said "you might not want to show GMs that sheet."
I thought about this quite a bit. I would, as a gm, want to see a sheet like that for everyone beyond 5th level. This GM (who was an excellent GM mind you) was immediately stressed out/disinterested and moved into "oh god, one of those" when I was simply trying to be forthcoming about what my character could do, in an effort to not slow down play when "how is it 10d6? how do you change the energy type?" ect come up. I didn't disrupt the table, I didn't cause problems, the GM said he would love to have me at his table again. I explained that blasting is bad, but fun, so I optimized one to make it a valuable contributor :).
My point is, Don't judge everyone who has an optimized character as a jerk. Don't judge everyone who bought a bison as an... insurance policy as a jerk. TALK TO THEM, THEY ARE HUMANS WITH MINDS AND WORDS THAT THEY CAN USE.
Saying "I won't allow x at my table" is not fair, or an OK thing to advocate.
Saying "if people are being disruptive I'll ask them to stop, if they don't I'll ask them to leave."
Kyle said this a few hundred posts ago, but it's still true.
"what is so hard about talking to the players?"
Darkness team-up. If they are preventing other PCs from contributing, they are being jerks. Do what you must to stop it. don't ban classes, builds, anything of the sort. The rules are the rules, accept them or Don't GM.
As a PFS GM you don't have to accept people being abusive and table dominating, you do have to accept that characters capable of that are going to exist.
|
|
And currently, a few posters are at least suspecting that Andy doesn't agree to the quoted segment, and insisting that he comply (while Chris Mortika is suspecting that he *does* agree to it and is perhaps just not coming across well in his posts).
I actually think they know that I don't do this.
I think what their objection is, the fact that I'm asking very pointed questions and making very controversial statements trying to engender discussion by the community about curbing these broken things before they get to the point where a GM would have to deal with it.
I've failed abysmally at that.
They feel that I'm advocating breaking the rules (even though I don't do it myself) and with my title, apparently gives weight to it and are afraid that others may decide to break the rules because I said that I understand why a GM might feel the need to ban something.
But rather than discuss their "disgust, dismay, or disappointment" in my controversial statements, lets steer this conversation to how the community as a whole can help our problems become assets.
|
|
We were hoping to get the 'idea' that pre-emptive Bans are not only illegal (in Public PFS) but wrong.
Andrew has spent days explaining how it is the 'right' solution.
Since he is arguing for GMs to specifically violate the PFS rules, and has refused to acknowledge that it is a blatantly illegal option, and in direct conflict with the Campaign Coordinator's explicit ruling, this issue must be brought to the Campaign Leadership's attention.
This thread has basically broken down to Andrew explaining how he knows better then every one else and he knows what is best for the community at large.
Andrew does continue to explain that he is not doing this. The fact that he continues to draw attention to his "110 tables" of experience and the fact that he is a "prolific GM" as the basis for a number of his arguments points out that he is indeed arguing that he knows best.
Yes, I'm an evil and horrible person who should be banished.
You'll note, that I'm not the only one arguing my position. I'm just the most vocal.
You'll also note, that when specifically asked by David if he could ban Animal Companions, my advice to him was essentially no.
But you can read into what I've written however you want if it makes you feel better at the end of the day.
|
Some of you guys really need to relax.Relax?
I AM relaxed.
YOU DON'T TELL ME TO RELAX.
I AM PERFECTLY CALM!
Calm like a blender showing some standard gold whey protein who's boss. ;)
I can see the blood vessels on the faces of folk's avatars from here! Get the animal tranqs ready TOZ, we'll show these folks how to relax.
|
|
Ban the player, not the build.
Andrew I understand your point, but if a foreign player comes into your area and wants to play his established build you do not like, he has to hit the road?
Give the player a chance. It would seem at that point you are blindly following a rule you established that directly conflicts with PFS's established rules.
If you find a player disruptive and you tried to work with that player, stop DMing for him.
|
|
Ban the player, not the build.
Andrew I understand your point, but if a foreign player comes into your area and wants to play his established build you do not like, he has to hit the road?
Give the player a chance. It would seem at that point you are blindly following a rule you established that directly conflicts with PFS's established rules.
If you find a player disruptive and you tried to work with that player, stop DMing for him.
@ Finlanderboy,
You'll note that I have stated many times that I have not, and probably will not ban anything. So a person coming to my game day from outside my area really has nothing to worry about as far as that goes.
I welcome all newcomers (whether it be brand new to PFS, or someone from another region new to Minnesota) to visit the game days I coordinate.
But it is an interesting discussion to have. I think its necessary to bring to light that there are tons of build options that the majority of the community find detracts from their fun at the table.
There are certain builds and choices that raise red flags for me, and will cause me to view that character and player with more scrutiny. But face-to-face, I have enough diplomacy to handle it without making them feel crappy about it if they are not a problem player.
|
|
Andrew, you HAVE stated that GMs have a right and almost a responsibility to pre-emptive ban potentially problematic/disruptive builds/characters.
This is EXPLICITLY illegal, as defined by the Campaign Leadership.
Meaning: You HAVE been advocating the breaking of the rules. There is no other interpretation.
The FACT that you ARE a VO, means that you ARE in a position of Authority. Your words are granted a greater weight, deserving or not.
As I understand it, the fact that you are a VO comes with additional responsibilities. It also requires you uphold the rules and not promote the violation of the rules.
I could be wrong about that, but I am sure Mike Brock would agree with my assessment.
Settle down, Francis. I'm pretty sure Andrew is a decent, hard-working guy who has done a lot for this campaign. For those of you who see a 'power hungry monster', I think you're tilting at windmills. Maybe we need to ask ourselves the question, "Why do these things irritate Andrew and others so much?"
|
|
Settle down, Francis. I'm pretty sure Andrew is a decent, hard-working guy who has done a lot for this campaign. For those of you who see a 'power hungry monster', I think you're tilting at windmills. Maybe we need to ask ourselves the question, "Why do these things irritate Andrew and others so much?"Andrew, you HAVE stated that GMs have a right and almost a responsibility to pre-emptive ban potentially problematic/disruptive builds/characters.
This is EXPLICITLY illegal, as defined by the Campaign Leadership.
Meaning: You HAVE been advocating the breaking of the rules. There is no other interpretation.
The FACT that you ARE a VO, means that you ARE in a position of Authority. Your words are granted a greater weight, deserving or not.
As I understand it, the fact that you are a VO comes with additional responsibilities. It also requires you uphold the rules and not promote the violation of the rules.
I could be wrong about that, but I am sure Mike Brock would agree with my assessment.
Thank you. That is essentially the discussion I'd like to have.
And what can the community as a whole do to try to help these people who choose to be rude to the other 5 players at the table, to come into the fold and have fun with us, instead of in spite of us?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Have you actually read my posts where I said I have never banned any particular thing, and probably never will?You'd be fine at my table until the moment you cause problems for others.
A lot of these questions are pointed and specific to get people thinking about the greater good.
Hmm..
So GMs are not breaking any rules by disallowing disruptive choices. If the player refuses, the GM is well within their rights to remove themselves from the table. A GM is perfectly within their rights to pre-emptively disallow anything game breaking.
Given that you seem perfectly fine with banning legal things you find 'disruptive' I'm just taking you at your word.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, if you're advocating "sticking up for the majority of players having fun" by way of flat-out banning troublesome options at your (public) tables, then actually, you ARE, in fact, advocating breaking the rules.
Again, if you're running a public PFS game, you must allow all PFS-legal options at your table. If a player then uses one of those options to be disruptive, you deal with that player, but you do not remove the option.
I've participated in organized play events for many years now (Living Greyhawk before Pathfinder Society) and in that time, I've seen few situations that couldn't somehow be settled. Nearly all problems can be resolved if people communicate with tact and mutual respect.
Having said that, I try not to force my GMs and players to sit at the same table with people who kill their enjoyment of the game. If an otherwise legal tactic or overly powerful combination of abilities keeps the other players from enjoying themselves, I'm going to request that the involved player change some details of his approach. As an example, a ferociously-optimized character who dominates play might be no problem at all if he looks for a table where he's a level behind the other characters instead of being the highest level PC at the table.