|
Methinks the people who protest too much are not the ones sitting behind the screen week after week watching and dealing with some of these ridiculous builds.
I have played several games with Andy and he is a FINE DM...the games are fun. But I have seen some of these uber builds and have had games where my PC really didn't contribute much and was really just along for the ride...basically one or two players dominate every combat and OOC encounter.
This leads to a mentality of to contribute I have to come up with some over the top weird combo build or be sidelined...not what I want to do or will do.
I have DM'ed a few games as well and there is nothing less fun than watching every encounter become a ..sleep/pit/color spray/grease/web/trip fest. Yawn....when you trivialize every encounter it stops being fun. it drives away new players and even old players like me will sometime wonder why am I bothering to come here every week for the same old iterations of a few basic tactic?.
Paizo success if predicated on selling product...if you lose players then they don't make money...simple as that. So it is in their best interests to give the GM's the power to regulate their games so that abises can be stopped and problem players disinvited.
|
@ 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.
I am sorry to make it acusatory. I do not mean to blame you. There are a lot of posts and I am sorry I do not remeber everything everyone said.
I understand how someone could understand a build or rule could wreck another players time. Although I feel DMs that make a descion before they see the player use the rule is just as ignorant as the player that does abuse it.
That last paragraph of yours is completely awesome and I think you are such for thinking that way.
Developer
|
| 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.
Silence need not be a sign of lack of interest—merely a lack of time to read through a rather immense thread when I should have put the hours into developing the Gen Con scenarios. What I have done is read through the 600+ posts so that I might contribute in an informed fashion.
Now for a few paraphrased, unattributed quotes.
A GM can ban whatever for table enjoyment reasons
It appears that over time this has mostly shaken itself out toward a consensus. If it seems necessary, I might be able to comment further after work.
Someone can GM X many games and still be a lousy GM.
Yep, I'm probably guilty of that one.
Authors don't/can't make good BBEGs
I develop scenarios so that a wide range of players can participate, succeed, and have fun. This includes the casual player with lower levels of system mastery as well as the more optimization-prone player. I endeavor to favor neither, but I try to provide the latter an outlet to show off every once and a while. See the "hard mode" experiment (for which I can take credit) and the ongoing Bonekeep series (for which I was not initially responsible).
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
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?"
I have no doubt Andrew's heart is in the right place. But the ends do not always justify the means and this is hardly the first time I have disagreed with Andrew's methodology.
|
@ 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.
I am sorry to make it acusatory. I do not mean to blame you. There are a lot of posts and I am sorry I do not remeber everything everyone said.
I understand how someone could understand a build or rule could wreck another players time. Although I feel DMs that make a descion before they see the player use the rule is just as ignorant as the player that does abuse it.
That last paragraph of yours is completely awesome and I think you are such for thinking that way.
Thanks for saying that. I was starting to feel pretty crappy with some of the reactions in this thread to what is essentially an opinion.
|
|
I have no doubt Andrew's heart is in the right place. But the ends do not always justify the means and this is hardly the first time I have disagreed with Andrew's methodology.
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?"
Actually in this case, we pretty much agree on methodology. You just disagree with my stating that other GM’s have the right to make certain decisions.
That’s fine, everyone has their own opinion, and they are all wonderful, even if they don’t agree with mine.
Or is it my methodology of how I post that you disagree with?
|
Developer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
John, Mike Brock has explicitly disallowed the GM blanket ban in PFS.
It's appreciated, though I saw those earlier in the thread. In part it was in seeing that others had pulled in those links and discussed them that made further comment unnecessary on my part.
As the conversation evolves, I read different sub-topics coming up that are worth batting back and forth a bit; however, I also see an exceptional amount of vitriol and digression about porcine meat products.
Keep it clean.
|
|
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.
I'm sure Andrew has done a lot of good things for the campaign but I'm not sure he's doing it any favours right now. Put it this way if a DM bans another players legal build at a table I will walk away from that DM because it smacks of you play my way or else attitude that I have no wish to be subject to as a player.
What a DM says goes if its stupid enough so do his/her players.
Perhaps Andrew would do well to consider why his position is irritating so many players
|
Developer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do believe the discussion about bacon is/was an attempt to subdue the thread from becoming forum warfare.
Gah, now you have me doing it!
|
|
I do believe the discussion about bacon is/was an attempt to subdue the thread from becoming forum warfare.
I agree. silliness raises the levity and makes people less agressive. For a topic that people are passionate about a slight detour that people can easily skip is very healthy toward keeping the forum polite.
For myself if I read something offensive and I read something about baconvore solving the worlds problems I am much less upset about the post that offended me. Much less prone to the rage post.
|
Shhhhh. Don't tell anyone, but I break the rules all the time.
Hell I don't even worry about the rules. I just throw chronicle sheets at my players while dancing around naked.
With the outpouring of anger in this tread too I promise to just walk away from the table then rather than banning the player who has shown a disregard to others at the table. The first apparently will get me arrested, the second...while resulting in the same net outcome apparently is the "better" of the two.
|
|
Something to consider...something said by somebody far wiser than I (with a little paraphrasing). To those of you yelling that things are "against the rules of PFS!"
The "rules" of PFS are an illusion.
There are no rules either within PFS nor PF. People who think that the game isn't social, i.e., those who think they are entitled by the rules rather then by social collaboration are the ones that believe things have failed.
Rather than focusing on "this is how, by the rules, things are supposed to be", perhaps we should instead rather consider "how can I work this out socially."
If said individual who chose to say this to me wants to pontificate (his words), I'll let him, but for now I'm out.
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
If I may...
I regularly GM for a group of extremely optimized characters. I have a good time, and they have a good time. None of us have a problem with it. In my mind, the only time that it's problematic is when those really, really optimized PCs start demanding harder and harder scenarios. When that happens, we get extremely overpowered scenarios that the average player isn't likely to survive.
In short, my thought is that if you want a challenge, start building weaker PCs. Build a battle wizard, a starknife master or a tanky bard.
|
"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.
More stuff
Season 4 is a LOT better, but still suffers from NPCs that can't hit animal companions-itis, inability to deal with large amounts of ranged damage (fighter archer) and "we get rofl stomped by heaven oracles because we have eyeballs". John has taken time out of his schedule to address this thread and I must say I whole heartedly approve of the "hard mode" experiment. Unfortunately, I don't know if these kinds of people will limit their usage of power builds to "hard mode" games.
I'm not trying to engage in thread warfare. I understand where Andrew is coming from, but by rules as stated by Mr. Brock, it seems this is off the table. His method also doesn't help much when GMs don't have time for audits, don't understand what they are auditing, or the PC doesn't "rev up" until the second encounter or so.
I really don't understand what these players get out of sleep hexing the universe into submission, but its clear there is no simple answer.
|
|
Just have to say - when this happens locally is when the players walk from the table. Not usually a great solution.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.
Why? My system mastery is pretty good, but it doesn't help when the scenarios *tell you how to play the NPCs*. However, it does help me avoid cheating the PCs on things like grapple mechanics and the like. And, yes, when GMs make arbitrary rulings about how grapple will work at "their" table, I consider that cheating.
Oh, and I totally don't blame people for taking double fiend sight. Especially with how much BS deeper darkness is now. So if I looked at some tiefling sheet and saw double fiend sight, my first thought would be, "Oh, he's hedging against deeper darkness because that spell is total BS now."
|
|
Just an example from one of my characters... My level 2 Half-orc Thug/Two-hander fighter has a Riding Dog, and Handle Animal 10 with only 1 rank in it... The dog is named Champ... I imagine him as a Pitbull the size of a pony... He has yet to break any scenario, and in fact I think Brutus(name of the Thug) is on his second or third Champ... at higher levels I'll be buying more powerful critters, because this is this guys Shtick. It is fun, while not terribly effective, but it fits the Sczarni Dog Fighter, turned Pathfinder back-story.
I'd want my Sorcerer with a Bison to have a good back-story and would require the proverbial bull in the china shop to effect all aspects of the scenario, like social situations, not just combat... he isn't keeping it magically in his pocket.
Try to consider this, before out right refusal of the critter... but make him EARN his broken critter.
Also this guy is putting himself WAY behind in saving up for the magic items that will keep him alive past level 6... Specially if the expensive great bights the big one a couple times. Take heart in this...
the Munchkin will ride his one trick pony into the graveyard when he plays his first 7-11.
|
|
John, first, I'm pleased to see you (re-)join the thread. You've demonstrated a reasonable and even-handed nature since you were brought on board, and I think that your presence in this thread will be a very good thing.
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.Silence need not be a sign of lack of interest—merely a lack of time to read through a rather immense thread when I should have put the hours into developing the Gen Con scenarios. What I have done is read through the 600+ posts so that I might contribute in an informed fashion.
Understood and appreciated, but I had assumed an exploding thread like this was something you'd have been monitoring. Perhaps that was unfair of me, especially given the season. I spent quite some time deliberating whether I should email campaign leadership, but ... let's just say that I'm a little bit leery of exercising that option these days. Ultimately I decided that doing so was unlikely to accomplish anything positive.
Since it would seem that some others have gotten your attention, however, I am hoping that you might--after some time to deliberate, certainly--weigh in on both the original situation (a VO and a 4-Star actively declaring their intentions to disregard the rules of the campaign, and confirming in this thread that they meant just that) as well as the ongoing situation (a different VO actively and repeatedly advocating his right to disregard sections of the rules). Since all of these things stand in direct contrast to statements issued by campaign leadership ("disregarding parts of the rules you don't like is not acceptable" and "advocating breaking the rules is not acceptable"), I feel like this situation could benefit immensely from the input of a higher-ranking individual such as yourself.
|
|
Ok I have become dizzy after 13 pages...
I'll exit on a Joke: A Sorcerer, a Bison, and a Cleric walk into a bar....
But wait, What is that? His Bison isn't allowed in the Bar? O Nooos... His Faction Mission is IN the Bar, MUNCHKIN MUST HAVE PP... he leaves the Bison outside... Mysteriously he was Bison-jacked while in the Bar. He is out the gold he dropped on the Cow of doom, and there don't seem to be any Bison salesmen in this town. Lesson learned Mr. Bison master? OK! now on with the scenario.
Again, this is how I would handle it, and I'd be the guy picking up your table when you walked because of a Bison, but I respect your decision to do so, and so should other folks.
Another Solution... don't run 1-5 scenarios
Gonna go get some... B A C O N
|
|
Well I have been reading this thread. While I haven’t been able to read the entire thread, from what I understand the original poster expressed some dismay that a VO, some one in a position said something to the effect of “not at my table”. To which the OP said something to the effect of “you cant do that so stop”. At least that is my understanding of his posting that may very well be wrong.
I haven’t quite been able distill the “counter argument”. My guess is that it has gone something like this: We GM’s are often frustrated by players who take advantage of the rules and squeeze the most value out of them thus resulting in a character much more powerful then the norm, being able to wade through a scenario and single handedly killing the opponents, while the other players sit by and watch. Perhaps I am wrong or have missed a key point in the thread.
Now this post I posted last year expressing my frustration last year may speak to some of the frustration some GMs may feel who feel like saying “Not at my table”.
June 4 2012
“I find the "my rules-fu" rules lawyering is better then yours irritating, and the as you put it "look at my build" to be tiresome.
I remember in one game I was GMing a few months ago, and the players were in rare form. I was blessed with thee rules lawyers, and they chose to argue amongst themselves over interpretations of the rules. I tried to fit the story in edge wise. Towards the end of the scenario, one of the PCs had successfully disarmed the BBEG of her +1 sword. I decided the BBEG wanted her weapon back, so she cast mage had to get the blade back.
I was then informed by one of the players that I (the GM) could not do that because mage hand didn't work on magical weapons. There was some more questions about how heavy the blade was and some one wanted to look it up.
In sheer frustration I turned on the player and said " Enough already! Do you want me to GM or not? Fine, If the (name of BBeG) cant mage hand the weapon, I'll have her take a five foot step back, and color spray you all."
At that point, I was irritated and after the color spray spell the battle had become much more precarious with a couple of characters incapacitated. At that point I didn't care if the BBeg killed all of the characters there. I wasn't sure if I wanted to do much more PFS GMing after that game.
The players apologized and promised they would try to behave better.
That experience has been the exception to the rule. I have had many more games where I enjoyed myself playing and GMing. I particularly enjoy running beginning tables where I am introducing people to the Pathfinder game.
Anyways, while I know PFS isn't for everyone, it can be lots of fun. I guess it was suggested up thread, in a gaming store environment you can learn which GMs you like and which players you dislike.
Good luck “
Often there are things we don’t like in PFS. There are things we might like to ban
Last year while living down in Raliegh NC I got to play lots of PFS. One of the players whom I played along side of had a Synthesist Summoner / Paladin / Oracle character. I am not sure how many levels he had of each class, but as he said, the character was an experiment in “cheese’ at one point the Eidelon’s head was shaped in a wedge of cheese. My friend had a sense of humor. He also didn’t hog the stage too much. But if we ever got in serious trouble we could count on his character to trash whatever we came across. We grew quite complacent. In one high level game we ran across a monster who was able to use power word stun on our Synthesist and dropped him like a stone, within a couple of rounds just about killed this character. We barely survived.
Anyways…while my friend was very helpful, and didn’t hog the spot light; I have met plenty of other players who played Synthesis who were much more unpleasant then my friend and they did their best to hog the spotlight and do every other players’ jobs for them.
Now I understand that people will say it was the player not the ‘poor” Synthesist character class that was the problem because there are many other things that can be “broken”, I was quite happy when the campaign staff decided last year to ban the synthesist because it didn’t fit in with the theme of the campaign.
While I realize there are plenty of things I don’t personally like, for example, gunslingers, and some things I might personally like to ban, I realize that PFS is for a much wider range of tastes then my own. I realize the decision to ban lies in the hands of the campaign coordinators. And when a GM says “not at my table” It may reflect a sense of frustration that should not be ignored.
|
|
We’re all friends here, and we’re all playing a game together with the single purpose of having a wonderful time. Do not push other players around just because your character can. Extreme forms of dysfunctional play will not be tolerated. A little fun banter between PCs can be great roleplaying, but when you find yourself doing everything in your power to make another character look like an idiot or to undo everything that character is trying to accomplish, you’ve probably lost sight of the purpose of Pathfinder Society Organized Play and may be asked to leave the table. Playing your character is not an excuse for childish behavior. GMs should work with their event coordinators to resolve any out-of-game conflicts. If you are both the GM and the coordinator, use your own discretion. Extreme or repetitive cases should be resolved by asking the offender to leave the table.
Emphasis mine.
|
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok folks, let's clarify some things.
First and foremost, just because campaign leadership hasn't responded to a thread doesn't mean we are ignoring it. As John mentioned, we are exceedingly busy. I have spent the last 4 days gearing up for Gen Com since I'm going to be in Erope for the ext two weeks and only have a week left when I get back to finish up prep for 2000 tables of PFS over four days. The only reason I was able to catch up on this thread finally is because I'm at the end of a five hour plane flight.
Second, I always punish in private and praise in public. No matter how much you would like to see me bash someone in public, it simply isn't going to happen. Trying to coax me into that very thing by advising we are ignoring it isn't going to work.
Third, my points on the topic have been made very clear and some links to those quotes have been made on this long thread. There is no need for me to write the same exact thing a second time. I think I've proven though my track record, if something proves to be broken, we will address it. I'm carefully watching all the tigers, bisons, et al. that are messing with lower level games.
Fourth, GMs do not have the right to ban legal items they simply don't like in a public PGS game. It's been linked here already but I guess it needs to be said again.
Finally, this is a social game. If you a detracting from the fun of others because you need to show off your awesome character building powers by dominating a table, PFS is not the right platform to do that. It causes resentment and causes players (especially new ones) to leave the game altogether. The VCs/VLs and I had a month long discussion about allowing the bisons and other similar creatures into play as a legal item before the book was added to Additional Resources. I opted on the side of allowing them because the payer base, by and large, are responsible and mature players and want to see everyone have fun. It is only when a few jerks set off to ruin the fun of others by showing how awesome their character building skills are and then flaunt them by dominating a table.
Respect your fellow players and GMs. You will be better received by the community.
|
|
I can be a rules lawyer, but its usually over something like grapple, or lighting NOT mage hand. However, it is true that mage hand can't affect magical items. If you've got three like that at your table who are rules lawyering and power gaming, the NPCs in these scenarios literally have no chance anyway. I just let it be at that point and get back to the story parts asap.
|
|
Finally, part 2. If the personal attacks, vitriol, and downright uncivil behavior continues, this thread will be locked.
I am sorry I followed this thread more thourghly than I do most others, but I do not see such attacks. Maybe I was unable to read the acidic attacks and just saw them as general counter points.
I apologize if anythign I said during this thread anyone found offensive. I honestly meant everything as honest debate. Even when Andrew unselfishly took the devil advocates side I tried to choose my words to suggets logic VS an attack on him.
But again I found this debate of a very passionate thing handled quite well and the attacks were minimal. That is why I followed it closely.
|
|
I did not find your points insulting Finlanderboy.
But can I have my Avatar back? ;b
You know... When I picked this avatar I actually went and sorted them by least used to avoid this exact situation.
I was even stupid enough in another thread to call someone else cold napalm because they used the same avatar as him and I must have been convincing because Chris Mortika followed my suit. And he is a bright fellow to trick.
|
|
Just wanted to let everyone know that no vitriol was intended on my part. I just want to maximize everyone's experience (even druids) while staying within society rules. Probably my most efficacious PC at this point is my archer ranger. There has been a scenario where I was playing at level 4 in a 1-2 tier where I basically put away my bow and attacked with my 2Her sword so the other newer players could get in their hacks. The BBEG at the end was surprisingly non-trivial and so I got out the bow to make sure no one died. This is all I'm looking for. Some kind of self-control from players with powerful builds. And there are builds WAY more powerful than an archer ranger.
