|
I never endorsed or encouraged it, nor said that it's a good option. I acknowledged that it IS an option, and that some people might choose to take it. If we pretend that this isn't a possible outcome, then we're doing a disservice to the discussion by not looking at every possible consequence of the policy.
Yes, but I wasn't talking about you--I was talking about the VL who said, "I won't allow that legal option at my table."
|
Had a scenario yesterday that I played in. My ranged fighter, got the nickname Rambo, due to his new machine gun combo. 4d8+40 at lvl. 6. GM wished to see my PC sheet to look over my stats and what I was wearing because he had a hard time believing the damage I was doing. And it felt like I took all the spot light, from the Tier 5-6 scenario.
Personally I felt bad, since I rolled one crit against the BBEG and my dmg became 6d8+60 and I one shotted a Rhamorazz for 86 hp.
Now prior to my firing of 4 arrows, the BBEG had successfully grabbed the melee fighter on a surprise round. Then, we rolled initiative, had the rogue not done 20 dmg and my ranged fighter not done 86 dmg. the Rhamorazz was going to successfully swallow the PC in question and kill him in ONE shot. The internal blood flowing through the Rhamorazz being 'lava' I'm not even sure there would be anything of our tank, to resurrect.
So, to the OP. How do you handle this? If you tell me to leave after seeing my lvl. 5 fighter go from 2d8+10 per round to 4d8+10 per round at lvl. 6. I can make a new PC but that means the Rhamorazz gets to kill one PC at lvl. 5 and the party watches their buddy die.
Now, are you intent on killing PCs? Or do you allow a PC who can one shot the BBEG?
Yes, the spotlight doesn't get shared but then a PC dies as well. So, in order for these PCs not to be allowed, the monsters can't be allowed to do this stuff either, am I right?
|
|
I think they can technically toss you off the table for any reason they dream up. That's why I just leave tables that get that bad.
No. They. Can't.
When it comes to refusing to let a player use a legal build, they cannot say, "You cannot use this build."
What they can do is refuse to run until the player uses another build.
Then the event coordinator decides if he's going to side with the GM or the player.
Which make work in the GMs favor once. But not in the long term.
And it's still contrary to the spirit and purpose of Organized Play.
|
That's interesting. I've been told a GM can toss someone for whatever reason they deem necessary, which is basically and end around to trying to hold GMs to RAW. If someone speaks up too much, the GM can toss them, even if the GM is in the wrong. That's why I avoid certain GMs.
This policy is not hearsay in my area.
|
Had a scenario yesterday that I played in. My ranged fighter, got the nickname Rambo, due to his new machine gun combo. 4d8+40 at lvl. 6. GM wished to see my PC sheet to look over my stats and what I was wearing because he had a hard time believing the damage I was doing. And it felt like I took all the spot light, from the Tier 5-6 scenario.
Personally I felt bad, since I rolled one crit against the BBEG and my dmg became 6d8+60 and I one shotted a Rhamorazz for 86 hp.
Now prior to my firing of 4 arrows, the BBEG had successfully grabbed the melee fighter on a surprise round. Then, we rolled initiative, had the rogue not done 20 dmg and my ranged fighter not done 86 dmg. the Rhamorazz was going to successfully swallow the PC in question and kill him in ONE shot. The internal blood flowing through the Rhamorazz being 'lava' I'm not even sure there would be anything of our tank, to resurrect.
So, to the OP. How do you handle this? If you tell me to leave after seeing my lvl. 5 fighter go from 2d8+10 per round to 4d8+10 per round at lvl. 6. I can make a new PC but that means the Rhamorazz gets to kill one PC at lvl. 5 and the party watches their buddy die.
Now, are you intent on killing PCs? Or do you allow a PC who can one shot the BBEG?
Yes, the spotlight doesn't get shared but then a PC dies as well. So, in order for these PCs not to be allowed, the monsters can't be allowed to do this stuff either, am I right?
Gravity bow? Deadly aim, decent strength with a magic composite longbow? Am I missing anything for the damage calculation?
|
And it's still contrary to the spirit and purpose of Organized Play.
I think you've missed the whole point of organized play in the first place. There is absolutely no difference between a player being a jerk and a GM being a jerk.
Who's more the jerk? The jerk GM who says "I'm not about to spend 5 hours of my life playing a game where I have zero fun" or the player who decides that he's going to play a character that makes the other 6 players not have fun?
There's a much bigger issue at hand here than GMs saying "I won't run legal option X".
|
|
Are there documented instances of GMs not allowing PFS legal characters at their tables? Or is this all hearsay based on a few posts by people on a public message board?
While I've never seen a GM walk from running a table, I've watched GMs say "I won't run that person ever again" and refuse to GM for future game days. Does that count?
Rules are rules. If even GM do not follow them then it what the point?
If someone one-shots things just give him less exp because he cant learn anything from combat.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gravity bow? Deadly aim, decent strength with a magic composite longbow? Am I missing anything for the damage calculation?
You don't even need gravity bow for that. Rapid shot, many shot, iterative at 6 is 4 attacks for the 4d8. Strength +2 bow, +1 magic weapon, Deadly aim +4, weapon spec +2, weapon training +1. Seriously, 4d8+40 over 4 shots at level 6 is...well meh.
|
|
Are there documented instances of GMs not allowing PFS legal characters at their tables? Or is this all hearsay based on a few posts by people on a public message board?
In my case above, yes, it happened here on the boards. There is a small difference in that neither the DM or I where actually having an argument and came to the mutually agreeable conclusion that my last action happen, but that I would switch out that prepped spell for something else thereafter. I've also on separate occasions seen individuals not be allowed to play because of certain options (both legal or questionably legal), but only a handful of times, and I do not recall them being major issues. Either the player went somewhere else or did something else, politely refraining from playing with that DM, but not making an issue about it.
|
|
Basic Composite Long Bow +2, Str. 14 Dex 19:
Point Blank Shot (+1 to hit, +1 dmg)
Precise Shot (I can hit things in combat, no -4 penalty)
Deadly Aim (-2 to hit, +4 dmg)
Rapid Shot (-2 to hit, +1 attack)
Weapon Focus (+1 to hit)
Weapon Training (F5 ability)
Manyshot (extra arrow, with first shot)
+6 BAB (+1 attack)
Belt +2 Dex
Azata Blooded Aasimar
I have one other feat but its a skill feat, I didn't want to cheese all out with Weapon Mastery until later.
|
|
Are there documented instances of GMs not allowing PFS legal characters at their tables? Or is this all hearsay based on a few posts by people on a public message board?
I started this thread based on people with various types of authority--in this case, social (based on experience) and official (based on rank)--stating that this is what they will do for situation X, where that situation varies from person to person.
The variety is the problem. Various GMs dislike various rulings. In fact, I'd say that everyone who plays PFS dislikes a ruling or two. Which is fine until someone starts declaring that they won't stand for it. Which they shouldn't be doing because the whole point of organized play is to have consistent rules.
|
|
That's interesting. I've been told a GM can toss someone for whatever reason they deem necessary, which is basically and end around to trying to hold GMs to RAW. If someone speaks up too much, the GM can toss them, even if the GM is in the wrong. That's why I avoid certain GMs.
This policy is not hearsay in my area.
It's not quite like that. The GM is allowed to be wrong during play, but is still held accountable for it, but not until (usually) after the scenario is over. The player, however, can be tossed from the table if he's being disruptive. Insisting to halt the game to debate a rules issue and refusing to allow the other players to resume playing until the GM agrees with him is a valid reason to boot the player. The correct action for the player is to shut up and play, and talk to the GM afterward. If something is immediately important, he can call over the VC/coordinator (provided his GM is not that person) and ask for a ruling, but then must accept it, right or wrong.
If a GM is consistently doing something wrong, it should always be handled outside of game play.
|
|
That's interesting. I've been told a GM can toss someone for whatever reason they deem necessary, which is basically and end around to trying to hold GMs to RAW. If someone speaks up too much, the GM can toss them, even if the GM is in the wrong. That's why I avoid certain GMs.
This policy is not hearsay in my area.
Well, that policy is crap. Tossing someone for disruptive behavior is one thing. Tossing someone for contradicting the GM--especially when they're right and the GM is wrong--is asinine. If it happens to you, I encourage you to run it up the flagpole and see what happens, because rules enforcement in an organized play campaign is everyone's business.
(Since someone's about to start talking about rules lawyering, no, that's not what I mean. I don't mean "the GM made a ruling and a player disagreed" I mean "the GM was wrong about the rules and the player pointed it out," which is the situation to which I am responding; see bolded portion of quote above.)
|
|
I think you've missed the whole point of organized play in the first place. There is absolutely no difference between a player being a jerk and a GM being a jerk.
The point of organized play is that it's organized. Otherwise it's just play. If there is a larger point that you feel I am missing, please be kind enough to point it out to me.
Who's more the jerk? The jerk GM who says "I'm not about to spend 5 hours of my life playing a game where I have zero fun" or the player who decides that he's going to play a character that makes the other 6 players not have fun?
A GM who says "I'm not about to spend 5 hours of my life playing a game where I have zero fun" is not the same thing as a GM who says "I won't run legal option X because I don't approve of it," which is what this thread was specifically started to complain about.
There's a much bigger issue at hand here than GMs saying "I won't run legal option X".
No, actually, that's exactly the issue at hand here. I am quite confident of that, because I started the thread to complain about exactly that.
Look, I'm not saying "Bend over for the rules, GMs." I am saying, "There are better options than pitching a fit in public and declaring that you refuse to support a portion of the rules."
You can argue as many tangents as you want; I'm still going to stand by that: There are better options than pitching a fit in public and declaring that you refuse to support a portion of the rules.
|
|
But reliably hitting all 4 attacks can be difficult, especially on the iterative with Rapid Shot engaged.
Well with everything going for you basic I am archer build, your looking at between a +13 and +10 to hit for the first 3 attacks. Since your target AC is generally pretty abysmal, generally not an issue to hit the first 3. Yeah hitting all 4 is a bit of luck tho.
|
|
Are there documented instances of GMs not allowing PFS legal characters at their tables? Or is this all hearsay based on a few posts by people on a public message board?I started this thread based on people with various types of authority--in this case, social (based on experience) and official (based on rank)--stating that this is what they will do for situation X, where that situation varies from person to person.
The variety is the problem. Various GMs dislike various rulings. In fact, I'd say that everyone who plays PFS dislikes a ruling or two. Which is fine until someone starts declaring that they won't stand for it. Which they shouldn't be doing because the whole point of organized play is to have consistent rules.
There will always be table variation on some issues, so not everything will be consistent. That's just a fact of the game players and GM have to live with in PFS. When rulings in this gray area become a universal problem for the entire community (not just a local group), then something official might be said (and we have a thread dedicated to listing those cases).
As far a liking or disliking an official ruling... It's irrelevant. Liking is not a requirement. If a GM chooses to ignore a rule he's been made aware of, he'll lose players (and eventually come to the attention of his VC).
|
|
That's interesting. I've been told a GM can toss someone for whatever reason they deem necessary, which is basically and end around to trying to hold GMs to RAW. If someone speaks up too much, the GM can toss them, even if the GM is in the wrong. That's why I avoid certain GMs.
This policy is not hearsay in my area.
It's not quite like that. The GM is allowed to be wrong during play, but is still held accountable for it, but not until (usually) after the scenario is over. The player, however, can be tossed from the table if he's being disruptive. Insisting to halt the game to debate a rules issue and refusing to allow the other players to resume playing until the GM agrees with him is a valid reason to boot the player. The correct action for the player is to shut up and play, and talk to the GM afterward. If something is immediately important, he can call over the VC/coordinator (provided his GM is not that person) and ask for a ruling, but then must accept it, right or wrong.
If a GM is consistently doing something wrong, it should always be handled outside of game play.
That doesn't help a party being hosed by an arbitrary ruling *right then*.
|
|
As far a liking or disliking an official ruling... It's irrelevant. Liking is not a requirement. If a GM chooses to ignore a rule he's been made aware of, he'll lose players (and eventually come to the attention of his VC).
Bingo.
And when it's a VL or a 4-Star GM making that statement in public on the boards, I begin think we have a problem that needs some consideration.
|
|
Are there documented instances of GMs not allowing PFS legal characters at their tables? Or is this all hearsay based on a few posts by people on a public message board?
I can say with reasonable certainty this has never happened with my local group. I know of only a few instances where a character was not allowed because the player failed to produce the additional resources for it, but that's it.
|
|
As far a liking or disliking an official ruling... It's irrelevant. Liking is not a requirement. If a GM chooses to ignore a rule he's been made aware of, he'll lose players (and eventually come to the attention of his VC).Bingo.
And when it's a VL or a 4-Star GM making that statement in public on the boards, I begin think we have a problem that needs some consideration.
More accurately, that VL or GM would have a problem that needs some consideration. Should this happen, the rest of us can ignore him.
|
|
Three important questions for players. If you answer yes, continue to the next question.
1. Is it rules legal?
2. Have I asked my GM if he/she is comfortable with me using this tactic in a PFS environment?
3. Am I sure the other players are not going to be adversely affected or endangered by this tactic?
Three yes answers? Let's get rolling!I feel like a lot of players are simply asking question 1 and ignoring 2 and 3 as irrelevant. This is a social game people.
I have played in groups where a duo of tieflings with the feats to see through magical darkness just drop deeper darkness every battle. They get their jollies and the rest of the group as well as the NPC just stumble around. The NPCs lose miserably and the rest of the PCs do nothing. So while you might have some recourse against the battle bison, what's the plan for the darkness brothers as a GM? I myself can't see any reason to tell them they can't do that.
|
|
That's interesting. I've been told a GM can toss someone for whatever reason they deem necessary, which is basically and end around to trying to hold GMs to RAW. If someone speaks up too much, the GM can toss them, even if the GM is in the wrong. That's why I avoid certain GMs.
This policy is not hearsay in my area.
It's not quite like that. The GM is allowed to be wrong during play, but is still held accountable for it, but not until (usually) after the scenario is over. The player, however, can be tossed from the table if he's being disruptive. Insisting to halt the game to debate a rules issue and refusing to allow the other players to resume playing until the GM agrees with him is a valid reason to boot the player. The correct action for the player is to shut up and play, and talk to the GM afterward. If something is immediately important, he can call over the VC/coordinator (provided his GM is not that person) and ask for a ruling, but then must accept it, right or wrong.
If a GM is consistently doing something wrong, it should always be handled outside of game play.
If the ruling is just THAT bad and the GM and players can not come to an understanding, then you as a table stop play right then and there and get the VC (or mike if needed) involved instead of playing in a bad situation that leads to player deaths. Now this is hearsay as I wasn't there for this...but lets assume that the report I got is true. A local table here where the GM (who also happened to be the coordinator) made a gibbering mouther do 9 con damage instead of 1 and made it so engulfed PC took half the damage that the mouther took. There were several PC deaths. The GM even went so far as to say that one of the PC could not be raised even. Sorry...but that isn't something that waits til after the game. They should have stopped as soon as the rule violation was done and either made the GM run it correctly or stop play entirely and contacted the VC. The same location also had a GM that broke written tactics to specifically target a PC run by a player that the GM did not like and kill said PC (once again hearsay on my part...but I do know the GM and player did not get along). There are violations that are bad enough where there is no wait til after the game. If either of these really did happen, then no not after game, we either deal with this now, or the game stops, the session gets invalidated and we're gonna have a chat with VOs and possible Mike.
And no I do not play there anymore. While I never personally had any issues, I have found better places to play on that night with people I have more fun with. All this came down after I stopped playing there.
|
|
More accurately, that VL or GM would have a problem that needs some consideration. Should this happen, the rest of us can ignore him.As far a liking or disliking an official ruling... It's irrelevant. Liking is not a requirement. If a GM chooses to ignore a rule he's been made aware of, he'll lose players (and eventually come to the attention of his VC).Bingo.
And when it's a VL or a 4-Star GM making that statement in public on the boards, I begin think we have a problem that needs some consideration.
When somebody is a 4 star GM or VL, it's not that easy to ignore then. ESPECIALLY the VL. Those things means that they are pretty ingrained in the society culturally and so it's more then just a singular issue. And remember that you can always keep going up the chain of command as it were. You do not have to stop at the VOs...or hell even the coordinator or GM that I have seen. If you feel there is an issue, keep going up the chain until you find resolution.
|
|
If it's something that affects the entire group, and the entire group wants to stop play to discuss it, then the table isn't being disrupted. Fairly speaking the GM can't ask any one player to leave unless asks everyone to.
And if it's a situation such as Cold Napalm describes, then hell yes, halt the game, get help and/or run away. But make sure it is. I've called "what? that's now how that works, you're doing it wrong!" at my GM more than once only to find out it did indeed work that way, per the written scenario. Nothing like a borked mouther, but there is the occasional creature with a template drawn from an odd source (or hell a misprint the GM doesn't realize is a misprint).
|
|
I have played in groups where a duo of tieflings with the feats to see through magical darkness just drop deeper darkness every battle. They get their jollies and the rest of the group as well as the NPC just stumble around. The NPCs lose miserably and the rest of the PCs do nothing. So while you might have some recourse against the battle bison, what's the plan for the darkness brothers as a GM? I myself can't see any reason to tell them they can't do that.Three important questions for players. If you answer yes, continue to the next question.
1. Is it rules legal?
2. Have I asked my GM if he/she is comfortable with me using this tactic in a PFS environment?
3. Am I sure the other players are not going to be adversely affected or endangered by this tactic?
Three yes answers? Let's get rolling!I feel like a lot of players are simply asking question 1 and ignoring 2 and 3 as irrelevant. This is a social game people.
Until the demons that can see in darkness shows up...when they do this, tell them they win, the fight is over with their expenditure of the third level spell (I have ended fights with less...so not really a big deal honestly) and move on to more roleplaying. I don't feel the need to draw out fights after a SoS or the just suck effect goes off and it's basically over. Or since DD will basically nullify any written tactics, have them run away and com back at a later time...how many of those DD do they have per day again?
|
|
I have played in groups where a duo of tieflings with the feats to see through magical darkness just drop deeper darkness every battle. They get their jollies and the rest of the group as well as the NPC just stumble around. The NPCs lose miserably and the rest of the PCs do nothing. So while you might have some recourse against the battle bison, what's the plan for the darkness brothers as a GM? I myself can't see any reason to tell them they can't do that.Three important questions for players. If you answer yes, continue to the next question.
1. Is it rules legal?
2. Have I asked my GM if he/she is comfortable with me using this tactic in a PFS environment?
3. Am I sure the other players are not going to be adversely affected or endangered by this tactic?
Three yes answers? Let's get rolling!I feel like a lot of players are simply asking question 1 and ignoring 2 and 3 as irrelevant. This is a social game people.
"Hey guys, that was a nice trick the first few times, but the rest of us aren't having any fun. Any chance you could rope that in for a while?"
|
|
More accurately, that VL or GM would have a problem that needs some consideration. Should this happen, the rest of us can ignore him.When somebody is a 4 star GM or VL, it's not that easy to ignore then. ESPECIALLY the VL. Those things means that they are pretty ingrained in the society culturally and so it's more then just a singular issue. And remember that you can always keep going up the chain of command as it were. You do not have to stop at the VOs...or hell even the coordinator or GM that I have seen. If you feel there is an issue, keep going up the chain until you find resolution.
If it's not my VO and just some guy who posts something online, I can ignore him just fine. And so can anyone else not subject to his rulings.
Those that are are encouraged to discuss the ruling with said VO, and if not satisfied with the results of that discussion are free to climb the chain of command.
But if they just express their ruling online, I can ignore them. They've already taken any complaint I'd have to a higher authority for me.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Basic Composite Long Bow +2, Str. 14 Dex 19:
Point Blank Shot (+1 to hit, +1 dmg)
Precise Shot (I can hit things in combat, no -4 penalty)
Deadly Aim (-2 to hit, +4 dmg)
Rapid Shot (-2 to hit, +1 attack)
Weapon Focus (+1 to hit)
Weapon Training (F5 ability)
Manyshot (extra arrow, with first shot)
+6 BAB (+1 attack)Belt +2 Dex
Azata Blooded AasimarI have one other feat but its a skill feat, I didn't want to cheese all out with Weapon Mastery until later.
Not broken, just standard loadout for a fighter archer.
|
|
A GM who says "I'm not about to spend 5 hours of my life playing a game where I have zero fun" is not the same thing as a GM who says "I won't run legal option X because I don't approve of it," which is what this thread was specifically started to complain about.
Poh-tay-toe, Poh-tah-toe.
No, actually, that's exactly the issue at hand here. I am quite confident of that, because I started the thread to complain about exactly that.
I'm well aware what you started the thread saying. I am saying you are wrong.
You are choosing to look at the issue as a one sided thing. Like most things in life, there are more than one side to why things are the way they are. I'd suggest looking for a root cause analysis rather than just complaining about the symptoms.
|
|
More accurately, that VL or GM would have a problem that needs some consideration. Should this happen, the rest of us can ignore him.When somebody is a 4 star GM or VL, it's not that easy to ignore then. ESPECIALLY the VL. Those things means that they are pretty ingrained in the society culturally and so it's more then just a singular issue. And remember that you can always keep going up the chain of command as it were. You do not have to stop at the VOs...or hell even the coordinator or GM that I have seen. If you feel there is an issue, keep going up the chain until you find resolution.If it's not my VO and just some guy who posts something online, I can ignore him just fine. And so can anyone else not subject to his rulings.
Those that are are encouraged to discuss the ruling with said VO, and if not satisfied with the results of that discussion are free to climb the chain of command.
But if they just express their ruling online, I can ignore them. They've already taken any complaint I'd have to a higher authority for me.
Heh. A fair point, but two things:
One, campaign leadership isn't omniscient. They can't read every single post. So sometimes pointing it out is necessary.
Two, current campaign leadership is really good at handling things under the radar, which is generally a good thing in that it spares a lot of people a lot of embarrassment. That said, sometimes you want to point something out for all to see--not in a punitive way (which is why I didn't name names) but in a PSA way (hey, this is a problem, please help stop it from spreading).
|
|
A GM who says "I'm not about to spend 5 hours of my life playing a game where I have zero fun" is not the same thing as a GM who says "I won't run legal option X because I don't approve of it," which is what this thread was specifically started to complain about.Poh-tay-toe, Poh-tah-toe.
False. Statement one is acknowledging a problem. Statement two is an attempt to solve the problem which actually just creates another problem.
There are good ways to handle problem builds and there are bad ways. We need to stop espousing the bad ones.
|
|
I have played in groups where a duo of tieflings with the feats to see through magical darkness just drop deeper darkness every battle. They get their jollies and the rest of the group as well as the NPC just stumble around. The NPCs lose miserably and the rest of the PCs do nothing. So while you might have some recourse against the battle bison, what's the plan for the darkness brothers as a GM? I myself can't see any reason to tell them they can't do that."Hey guys, that was a nice trick the first few times, but the rest of us aren't having any fun. Any chance you could rope that in for a while?"
"Hey guys, that was awesome! Can you do that for the next fight?"
or
"Hey guys, before you do that again, do you mind picking up some extra potions of darkvision and elixirs of darksight so we can all do that?
It's never really fair to ask someone to stop doing what their character does after play starts. I've never asked the barbarian if he would mind not attacking with power attack/furious focus no matter how much damage he does.
|
|
False.A GM who says "I'm not about to spend 5 hours of my life playing a game where I have zero fun" is not the same thing as a GM who says "I won't run legal option X because I don't approve of it," which is what this thread was specifically started to complain about.Poh-tay-toe, Poh-tah-toe.
True.
See you're not the only one that can just make statements as if they're fact.
You see it as arbitrarily GM rudeness. It's well likely non-arbitrary GM anger based on the crap players keep pulling at the table under the guide of "it's in the rules, I don't care what you feel, I'll do what I want." Rude players who cross the lines when making characters under the guise that "it's in the rules, you can't stop me" make for frustrated and angry GMs. Angry and frustrated GMs start to refuse to run games. End result, exactly what you're complaining about.
Quit looking for symptoms and look for root causes.
|
|
"Hey guys, before you do that again, do you mind picking up some extra potions of darkvision and elixirs of darksight so we can all do that?"I have played in groups where a duo of tieflings with the feats to see through magical darkness just drop deeper darkness every battle. They get their jollies and the rest of the group as well as the NPC just stumble around. The NPCs lose miserably and the rest of the PCs do nothing. So while you might have some recourse against the battle bison, what's the plan for the darkness brothers as a GM? I myself can't see any reason to tell them they can't do that."Hey guys, that was a nice trick the first few times, but the rest of us aren't having any fun. Any chance you could rope that in for a while?"
Sure, that works too.
|
|
More accurately, that VL or GM would have a problem that needs some consideration. Should this happen, the rest of us can ignore him.When somebody is a 4 star GM or VL, it's not that easy to ignore then. ESPECIALLY the VL. Those things means that they are pretty ingrained in the society culturally and so it's more then just a singular issue. And remember that you can always keep going up the chain of command as it were. You do not have to stop at the VOs...or hell even the coordinator or GM that I have seen. If you feel there is an issue, keep going up the chain until you find resolution.If it's not my VO and just some guy who posts something online, I can ignore him just fine. And so can anyone else not subject to his rulings.
Those that are are encouraged to discuss the ruling with said VO, and if not satisfied with the results of that discussion are free to climb the chain of command.
But if they just express their ruling online, I can ignore them. They've already taken any complaint I'd have to a higher authority for me.
And what happens when people with high standings in the community do it and so it starts to spread? Hey that VL said it was okay so I'm gonna start to do it too. Hey that VL over there said it's fine so I as the VL of over here can say the same too right? So yeah...not something to exactly ignore.
|
|
False.A GM who says "I'm not about to spend 5 hours of my life playing a game where I have zero fun" is not the same thing as a GM who says "I won't run legal option X because I don't approve of it," which is what this thread was specifically started to complain about.Poh-tay-toe, Poh-tah-toe.True.
See you're not the only one that can just make statements as if they're fact.
You see it as arbitrarily GM rudeness. It's well likely non-arbitrary GM anger based on the crap players keep pulling at the table under the guide of "it's in the rules, I don't care what you feel, I'll do what I want." Rude players who cross the lines when making characters under the guise that "it's in the rules, you can't stop me" make for frustrated and angry GMs. Angry and frustrated GMs start to refuse to run games. End result, exactly what you're complaining about.
Quit looking for symptoms and look for root causes.
I accidentally hit submit and had to go back to edit. Please scroll up and note the rest of the statement.