|
Wow ... long thread that really didn't seem to get anywhere, however, I'll interject my 2 cents into it...
If the player wants to play something that is broken and exploits obscure rules, then they had A: better be able to explain it to me, and B: have the information from the legal source to be able to show me. If it's super obscure than I may ask for the information to show that it is legal.
If they cannot explain it to me, do not have the information from the legal source, then I feel I don't have to allow it at the table if I cannot verify that it is a legal option.
Gms are not robots and cannot be expected to recall all the rules and know everything out of every book what is legal and what isn't. At some point the player needs to take the responsibility to prove that his character is legal.
On another note... can we please please please please stop throwing around the phrase that GMs are cheating when they do something that doesn't sit well with the player base? It degrades the society into nothing more than schoolyard antics and does a disservice to the community as a whole
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Columbus
|
Don't think the GM's have to cater to you. We are not paid employees of Paizo. If you bring in a character which continually dominates the table and cant be hit and kills everything by itself in two rounds---don't be surprised if the GM doesn't want you at his table.
Are you paying the GM? Is Paizo paying the GM? There are SEVEN players at a table when there are 6 characters there.
I have a couple players---level 9 AC 35+ hitting for 120-150 points a round--that make GMing a hell of a lot more of a chore than I have fun doing. If they keep it up--they may find themselves short some GMs.
I can't touch their ac even with flank and charge----basically feel like starting every scenario out with "here's your chronicle sheet"
Those GMs take time out to prep the scenario for you---pay 3.99 to buy it and download it. And if like me spend another 3 dollars or so to print it out. If you want to tick us off---treat us like we HAVE to wait on you. We want you to have fun--but we don't want it to be expected to be a job for us.
Some of my players are very good about being thankful. Others apparently seem to think I owe them to GM for them.
|
You all are right--I can't make you leave the table. But no one can make someone GM either. Make the game unfun enough for the GMs and you don't have gms.
Like I said--we aren't paid. We come expecting to be allowed to have fun--just like you. I have GMed many scenarios I have not even had the opportunity to play yet.
Ask yourself when you look at your gm---why is he taking his time to GM and allow us to have fun? Paizo gives him nothing for doing it.
I started playing in March of 2012 and am already halfway to a 3 star----and I am also burned out. Like I said--it has gone from having fun to players competing to see how broken of a character they can bring.
If they just want a printed chronicle sheet--maybe they can arrange that at Paizo. Show up at table--present overpowered broken character that could one shot everything--get your chronicle sheet and run. Cause if the GM can't even hit your AC--because you have a 38 ac and the monsters only have a +12 to hit--that is basically what you are doing anyhow.
|
I'd just like to thank this thread for reminding me that some of the core issues with Organized Play never change, be it under the RPGA banner, PFS, or otherwise...
To the PFS GMs out there, I have nothing but respect for the job you're trying to do. I hope they hand out a hip flask as part of your equipment. :)
|
I'd just like to thank this thread for reminding me that some of the core issues with Organized Play never change, be it under the RPGA banner, PFS, or otherwise...
To the PFS GMs out there, I have nothing but respect for the job you're trying to do. I hope they hand out a hip flask as part of your equipment. :)
Thanks! But really, all the delicious tears I've collected over the years have made it worth it. Some day I will retire and sit on a tropical beach sipping those tears and eat an endless supply of bacon.
|
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?
Perhaps methodology was not quite the right word. "Approach" is probably a better one. You seem to approach problems from a basis of mistrust rather than trust, i.e. your solutions assume the worst from the player base, not the best.
|
Which as we all know is magical calming fluid.I'm finishing my coffee.Some of you guys really need to relax.Relax?
I AM relaxed.
YOU DON'T TELL ME TO RELAX.
I AM PERFECTLY CALM!
I'm also a park ranger now. I even once dabbled in pacifism. Not in PFS of course.
Hm, maybe I should found the Sobchack Lodge; a place for everyone gives a sheet about the farging rules.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16
|
I realize that in every debate, someone is bound to declare that whatever legal ruling is being discussed will not be allowed at THEIR table.
I've seen it said about certain applications of the rebuild rules, I've seen it said about the Goblin boon, I've seen it said about the Kickstarter Chronicle.
But today I saw a Venture-Lieutenant and a 4-Star GM say it. About two totally different things, even. And this causes me some concern.
I'm not going to tell a player that something legal isn't allowed at MY table, but I certainly feel free to make my own decisions about unusual interpretations and corner cases. I'll always try to ensure that everyone feels welcome to game with me.
I'll also (tactfully) point out when someone's choices are causing friction or frustration in the hope that we can find a way for everyone to have fun. Just because someone's character is "Uber", it doesn't follow that they can't adjust their style to give others a chance to shine.
Once or twice, I've even advised someone that I can't give them a fun and challenging game if they use the character/spell combo/animal they put together. I'm not telling them what to do: I'm advising them of the limitations I face as a GM in organized play.
|
|
trollbill,
I will say that Andy's presence online is a LOT more harsh than his presense IRL. I have always found him to be a very understanding and sociable individual, who has done everything he could to make things run well on his game days... including trying to help coordinate a game day while he was on his honeymoon, in Europe!
I don't doubt that. The Internet has a way of bringing out the worst in us sometimes and I know I am no exception to that. And if people are letting him DM 100+ games he must be doing something right. Of course, my statements online are directed at Andy's online personality because that's what I have to work with.
I want to fry up some burgers and wrap them in bacon now. And then die.
|
|
Why? My system mastery is pretty good, but it doesn't help when the scenarios *tell you how to play the NPCs*.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.
begin stereotype: Power gamers tend to be both confrontational and inwardly-focused. For confrontational, there is a wide range, from 'willing to change tactics to be killer' to simply 'expresses an attitude of murderous intent'. At the latter end, a player could have exactly the same rule experience with a PG GM vs. a 'nice-guy' GM, but walk away with very different feelings about it. The former end has been discussed to no end.
By inwardly-focused I mean they are primarily concerned with running the bad guys to their full extent, and may fail to broadcast relevant (and obvious) information to the players that would affect their tactics. See: regeneration, energy resistances, or even types of damage being inflicted ("What? He's been hitting me with a flaming sword? I have resistance to fire!")
end stereotype
Lots of great power-gamer type GMs out there.
|
|
I never do that with the NPCs. Optimally, I like to give the PCs a healthy scare. But I never attack down people or coup de grace unless there's an actual reason that action would be taken. I've also been the victim of left out details far more than I have left them out.
I have found that a certain (small) percentage of encounters have a reputation as hard because they are frequently misplayed or misunderstood by many GMs. I have found out after the fact that GMs have given NPCs DR when they didn't have it just to make things harder or cast spells not listed on the NPC's list.
As much as I hate weak sauce scenarios, that is something I would NEVER do. Petition for harder scenarios, don't ad hoc stuff in that you think is cool.
I have nothing to add. I just wanted to quote Garble Facechomper.
|
|
Really? Wow.As much as I hate weak sauce scenarios, that is something I would NEVER do. Petition for harder scenarios, don't ad hoc stuff in that you think is cool.People did that. They got Year 4. They petitioned for easier scenarios.
It's kind of split goldilocks syle. Some thought season 4 too hard, some thought it perfect, and a small portion of players petitioned for even greater difficulty. If you fall into the last category, you should try bonekeep and waking rune "hard mode".
John your awesome! Thanks for trying new stuff out and keeping us all happy.
|
Nah, I think Season 4 is about right. I've only seen Season 4 trivialized by really nasty builds.
Year 4 can be really nasty on 5 person parties - they should let a 5 person party add a pregren to make a 6 person party - like 3 person groups can add one to get to 4. In my experience, all the major party death games in year 4 have been with 5 person groups.
|
|
Another stereotype of mine, "The players who build the most powerful builds, are those least likely to enjoy being challenged." Go ahead and disagree, fine. This is just my small sample of experience. About 9 out of every 10 true powergamer who sits at my table, doesn't have fun when the bad guys give them a good run for their money or bacon.
|
Another stereotype of mine, "The players who build the most powerful builds, are those least likely to enjoy being challenged." Go ahead and disagree, fine. This is just my small sample of experience. About 9 out of every 10 true powergamer who sits at my table, doesn't have fun when the bad guys give them a good run for their money or bacon.
Really? That's very sad to me. Our group loves to pit our system mastery against foes worthy the excess we take it too. Example:
When I ran Curse of the Riven Sky for our 1st set of characters at level 9 , they...
We had a blast running and playing through it, though.
Another stereotype of mine, "The players who build the most powerful builds, are those least likely to enjoy being challenged." Go ahead and disagree, fine. This is just my small sample of experience. About 9 out of every 10 true powergamer who sits at my table, doesn't have fun when the bad guys give them a good run for their money or bacon.
Oh, there’s that word again. We just can’t get away from it.
But I agree about season 4 on the challenge level being just right. I’ve only played maybe 5-6 scenarios and a couple of them I’ve almost died and the rest of them at least challenged us (the party) very well.
But then my preference leans on a more difficult scenario, so maybe my opinion is a bit skewed.
|
|
Another stereotype of mine, "The players who build the most powerful builds, are those least likely to enjoy being challenged." Go ahead and disagree, fine. This is just my small sample of experience. About 9 out of every 10 true powergamer who sits at my table, doesn't have fun when the bad guys give them a good run for their money or bacon.
I've had that same experience so often as a GM that I have to agree with you. So often the person with the most powerful build is glaring unhappily at the map when the bad guy is actually a danger. It doesn't happen every time of course, but often enough that it forms a pattern.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I enjoy a challenge. But I like my challenge to come the NPCs being a tactical threat, not for YMMV table variation of game mechanics. "Oh, last game [insert mechanic here] worked that way, but now it works this way!"
I admit grinding a game to a halt because the GM was having an NPC maintain grapples and full attack. The group was not optimized at all, and were rather new. I didn't want the newer people getting chewed up by this rules gaffe.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
David,
I say this in the spirit of friendship and PFS brotherhood: if I were running a table, looking at a critter's stat block, and a player questioned me about how the game mechanics worked with that critter, that would be welcome. (I don't profess to have system mastery over the entire rules system.) I would make a ruling -- based on the rules and FAQ as I understand them, the player's evidence, and the stat block in front of me -- and move on.
If he tried to stop the game to argue about it, and he wouldn't back down, I would ask him to leave. Doesn't matter whether the other players are new or old hands, playing twinked-out characters or pre-gens, walking through an easy opponent or on the ropes.
|
|
Another stereotype of mine, "The players who build the most powerful builds, are those least likely to enjoy being challenged." Go ahead and disagree, fine. This is just my small sample of experience. About 9 out of every 10 true powergamer who sits at my table, doesn't have fun when the bad guys give them a good run for their money or bacon.I've had that same experience so often as a GM that I have to agree with you. So often the person with the most powerful build is glaring unhappily at the map when the bad guy is actually a danger. It doesn't happen every time of course, but often enough that it forms a pattern.(IMHO) I do not agree.
I often play with people with "overpowered combat machines". With min-maxed PCs. Often they seek out the hardest scenarios they can play (and end up not playing with me due to this).
I have also played with the exact reverse. Players who never stopped complaining the entire game. (though I tend to avoid those players later).
I think perhaps you are just noticing ones that prove your case.
But again, that's just my opinion.
I am personally not trying to prove any case. I was simply stating that was also my experience. I don't believe there is a PFS rules against pouting. It just happens sometimes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's fine, but GMs still don't get to ad hoc the grapple rules. "The game must go on" doesn't fly with me when 16PP are potentially on the line because a GM doesn't understand how a common combat maneuver works. I don't think GMs should be making "rulings" on mechanics that are unambiguous. There's enough grey area stuff too keep GMs busy as it is. I'm not backing down over an unambiguous mechanic that the GM was trying to mulch new player's PCs with. Being a GM is not a license to cheat. I make damn sure I don't cheat my players, even if sometimes combats take a little extra time.
|
|
I am with Chris on this one. GM's are not perfect but we attempt to give the illusion of it because that improves game flow. The best you will get out of a GM is a quick look at the rules and a ruling before they move on. A good GM will then take the time to look at all the rules and make sure they have it right for the next table.
I have played with GM's who will go through the books, look at all the rules for X, and make sure they have it right. 30 Min. later you have lost the tables interest in the combat/story but you can now grapple correctly. I don't sit at that GMs table anymore.
The only time I will, as a player or GM, step out of this view point is if a character is about to die. Only then will I make sure I have it perfect before acting.
|
|
Well, in this case, people were guaranteed going to die the way it was being played. There have been several scenarios I have played and then ran and found out there was a little "creative GMing" when I played it. Not cool.
And if it takes your GM 30 min to parse the grapple rules, you need a GM with better reading comprehension.
An issue I have with sacrificing mechanics for game flow is that I truly believe it is one of the factors that motivates people to bring "battle cattle". If power gamers can dominate the combats completely enough, then it vastly reduces the effects of table variation. Both appropriate and inappropriate table variation.
|
|
Oh! I don't question the fact that some players (and judges) are prone to "pout" when things don't go easily. I've seen it more than once, and even seen it with people who I would not expect it from. But it doesn't seem to be to be related to the strength (or lack of) of the persons build. Kind of like saying people with green eyes do it. The two things (IMHO) are unrelated.
Again in your opinion and from your experience. What Amanda and I stated was that from our experience (and Doug Miles's as we frequently discussed this topic), players who are the BIGGEST powergamers enjoy a real challenge or threat the least. No one is trying to prove anything or even prove a correlation. We're just simply stating our experience.