|
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.
And what if the root cause is a jack ass GM who fudges the HP and AC of his guys which leads to players making more powerful characters because they are tired of getting whomped? The root cause isn't JUST the jerk player...it's the jerk...period.
|
Two, current campaign leadership is really good at handling things under the radar
This. I'm not among the campaign leadership, nor do I work for them as some sort of enforcer/nark. They've got this covered and are doing a great job (IMHO). If something does need to be brought to their attention, I attempt to do so discretely (via DM/email).
Otherwise, I can ignore something said by someone with no affect on how I experience the game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two, current campaign leadership is really good at handling things under the radarThis. I'm not among the campaign leadership, nor do I work for them as some sort of enforcer/nark. They've got this covered and are doing a great job (IMHO). If something does need to be brought to their attention, I attempt to do so discretely (via DM/email).
Otherwise, I can ignore something said by someone with no affect on how I experience the game.
Okay. Great. Awesome, even. Good for you.
I think it's worth discussing. If you don't, there's a super-simple option available to you at any time.
|
|
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.
Sure is. It's no different than finding any other player with a misunderstanding brought about by hearing it from another player. I just correct the player I have influence over and move on. The only player/GM I can't ignore is mine.
If something is truly epidemic, the campaign leadership can and does get involved. We have tons of threads documenting when this happens (and probably tons more we can't see in the form of DMs).
|
|
course that is 1500GP...so...meh.1,500gp per player, meaning you're going to have a tough time convincing them to spend that kind of cash every encounter.
Frankly, those two players are clearly being disruptive. Their GM needs to explain that, while the tactic they're using is perfectly legal, it is entirely unfair to the rest of the party. They are forcing their own party to either sit back and simply not play, or to use the appropriate tactics that they'd need to use to overcome deeper darkness in the first place, which kinda stops the "brother"'s tactic dead in its tracks (since a heightened light spell lets the enemies see, too).
If they continue to be disruptive, then they need to be removed from the game, just as any other disruptive player needs to be.
Right! Exactly. Which isn't the same thing as banning the build entirely.
Thank you. This is what I'm saying.
|
|
Two, current campaign leadership is really good at handling things under the radarThis. I'm not among the campaign leadership, nor do I work for them as some sort of enforcer/nark. They've got this covered and are doing a great job (IMHO). If something does need to be brought to their attention, I attempt to do so discretely (via DM/email).
Otherwise, I can ignore something said by someone with no affect on how I experience the game.
Okay. Great. Awesome, even. Good for you.
I think it's worth discussing. If you don't, there's a super-simple option available to you at any time.
Meh.
Worth discussing, certainly. Worth... what are you trying to accomplish by discussing it again?
There is no black/white course of action here that applies to every situation. And a situation you are not even part of cannot disrupt your game. When it does, discuss and resolve it. When it doesn't, all you are doing is talking.
The example of the the tieflings is great for this? Are they clearly disruptive? No. Did the actually disrupt the game? If it did, should those of us not involved discuss it, or should those involved discus it? If it didn't, should those of us not involved then find fault with the players for not being disrupted?
Simple solutions are good, especially when there is no need to make something more complicated.
|
|
course that is 1500GP...so...meh.1,500gp per player, meaning you're going to have a tough time convincing them to spend that kind of cash every encounter.
If they are so awesome, they are likely playing up. That's more gold for everyone. If everyone is contributing, then playing up should be a given.
And I'm recommending the players with the abilities that force other PCs out of the encounter to pay the gold, not the wallflowers. If you do something that normally prevents another player from playing, it's only responsible you provide a means for that player to join you.
Of course, if that player doesn't feel disrupted and is having just as much fun anyway... Where's the problem?
|
|
The example of the the tieflings is great for this? Are they clearly disruptive? No.I would disagree. This particular tactic is two people very much putting their own enjoyment ahead of everyone else leaving those people much less able to actually participate in the game. If they used this repeatedly they are not people I would want to play with or GM for.
And you'd be wrong. You are attributing qualities to the players you have no way of knowing exist. And I've clearly described a few circumstances under which such play would not be disruptive (it's all up to the people actually playing and not some 3rd party observer).
If it is disruptive, there are far more effective methods of handling it than just banning play or refusing to be seated at the same table. You know, cooperate.
|
And what if the root cause is a jack ass GM who fudges the HP and AC of his guys which leads to players making more powerful characters because they are tired of getting whomped? The root cause isn't JUST the jerk player...it's the jerk...period.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.
This is a different issue and not relevant to this topic.
GMs in PFS should not be doing that. Period.
If players are engaging in an arms race becauseof this, thats an entirely different and solvable situation.
Dont play with that GM. As a coordinator, if they continue after being told to stop repeatedly, then i dont let them GM for me. This is an easy fix for a community.
The root cause we are specifically discussing is the player who decides to engage in jerk behavior that in this specific case is them hiding behind RAW, to ruin the fun of everyone but themselves (and potentially a cohort or two).
This happens more than theoretically in the PFS community as a whole.
This isnt just some wonky build, spring loaded wrist sheaths, dual-double barreled pistol builds or bison. This is what the player(s) choose to do with those things. I try not to judge a build or purchase choice before i see it in play.
But if a player ruins the experience for the rest of the table, then something has to be done, or the health of your local community, the whole PFS community, general player retention, and more importantly GM retention is in danger.
If you argue that allowing any player, regardless of whether they make enjoyment ruining choices, to play any legal grouping of options, thexn that attitude actually adds to the problem.
Whether you feel it is peer pressure or ostracizing, it is the community`s responsibility to police rudeness, not coddle it.
Dont get me wrong. I dont put up with bullying or snootiness either.
But shame on you for arguing that just because a group of legal build choices is legal, that a GM and other players just have to grin and bear rudeness.
As our collective community grows, this problem is becoming very prevalent. And GMs are increasingly getting burnt by it. So dont blame the GM or V-O for trying to be proactive with the constantly recurring issues.
|
|
There is no black/white course of action here that applies to every situation. And a situation you are not even part of cannot disrupt your game. When it does, discuss and resolve it. When it doesn't, all you are doing is talking.
... yes.
I enjoy talking. And typing. I like discussion.
It's why I spend free time on a discussion board.
You know ... like this one.
|
|
The example of the the tieflings is great for this? Are they clearly disruptive? No.I would disagree. This particular tactic is two people very much putting their own enjoyment ahead of everyone else leaving those people much less able to actually participate in the game. If they used this repeatedly they are not people I would want to play with or GM for.And you'd be wrong. You are attributing qualities to the players you have no way of knowing exist. And I've clearly described a few circumstances under which such play would not be disruptive (it's all up to the people actually playing and not some 3rd party observer).
If it is disruptive, there are far more effective methods of handling it than just banning play or refusing to be seated at the same table. You know, cooperate.
How many times of getting burnt by the same build choices or players should you give them the benefit of the doubt?
After a few times Id rather slam my head into a brick wall repeatedly. At least after that id get some legal narcotics. Much more productive use of my time.
|
I think this is, to some degree, a chicken-egg problem. I talked to a couple people at Origins who power game their PCs as a hedge against table variation. They try to crush the NPCs so thoroughly that no ruling from the GM can make them lose. Contrast this to a more "reasonable" build that might be built around a mechanic that is subject to GM "discretion".
|
|
Sorry it's not quoting everything you said, but I hope I'm including the relevant statements.
This isnt just some wonky build, spring loaded wrist sheaths, dual-double barreled pistol builds or bison. This is what the player(s) choose to do with those things. I try not to judge a build or purchase choice before i see it in play.
Exactly.
If player is using to X to do Z, where using X to do Z is disruptive, then the issue not with using X to do Z, it's with the player.
Whether you feel it is peer pressure or ostracizing, it is the community`s responsibility to police rudeness, not coddle it.
Dont get me wrong. I dont put up with bullying or snootiness either.
But shame on you for arguing that just because a group of legal build choices is legal, that a GM and other players just have to grin and bear rudeness.
Community responsibility, yes. But that means to address it as it comes, not to seek it out or make preemptive rulings. Take the issues as they arise during the game.
No, you can never disallow a build you don't like because you think it is inherently disruptive, but you can ask a jerk player to leave because you think he's being a jerk. And that's the difference.
|
|
There is no black/white course of action here that applies to every situation. And a situation you are not even part of cannot disrupt your game. When it does, discuss and resolve it. When it doesn't, all you are doing is talking.... yes.
I enjoy talking. And typing. I like discussion.
It's why I spend free time on a discussion board.
You know ... like this one.
I suppose, and discussion is good... but where do you want to go with it? A discussion can't change the facts, and most of the facts here are simply unknown or circumstantial and unique to the situations involving them. You seem to want to discuss something in general that has no real general aspect to it to discuss.
|
|
How many times of getting burnt by the same build choices or players should you give them the benefit of the doubt?
After a few times Id rather slam my head into a brick wall repeatedly. At least after that id get some legal narcotics. Much more productive use of my time.
How man times? None. If I have a jerk player, I deal with the jerk player. Not his character.
If I have a lot of jerk players trying to do the same jerk thing with the same type of character, then I have a lot of jerk players. I do not have a problem character build.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose, and discussion is good... but where do you want to go with it? A discussion can't change the facts, and most of the facts here are simply unknown or circumstantial and unique to the situations involving them. You seem to want to discuss something in general that has no real general aspect to it to discuss.There is no black/white course of action here that applies to every situation. And a situation you are not even part of cannot disrupt your game. When it does, discuss and resolve it. When it doesn't, all you are doing is talking.... yes.
I enjoy talking. And typing. I like discussion.
It's why I spend free time on a discussion board.
You know ... like this one.
I can't tell if you're trolling at this point, so if so, I guess I'm playing right into your hands ... but let me try to say it again.
This phenomenon is occurring on the boards, and it's starting to come from people who should know better. So I am raising awareness of it and encouraging people to remember that "screw this I don't wanna" is actually not a legitimate part of playing in an organized campaign such as this one.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But certain build choices almost always are a result of rude attitudes. I can think of no other reason to bring a purchased bison or tiger to a sub-tier 1-2 table and use it in every combat after seeing how unbalanced it is after the first time.
GMs have every right to question the intention of such choices. If the player insists on using such a choice despite a GM asking them not to, what should the GM do? Ban the option or ask the player to leave and not come back?
Grin and bear it, or leave themselves?
You seem to be arguing that the only choice is to grin and bear it or the GM is doing something campaign illegal or being a heinous jerk.
Im arguing that a GM has every right to ensure the fun at there table for the majority and if that means banning a choice that 95% of their experience leads to rudeness, they have my blessing.
The issue i think those arguing against me and others who at least partially agree with me have is rooted in fear. Where does a GM draw the line? Thats a valid concern. But we cant have that discussion until the vocal minority community here can come to some sort of consensus that GMs do have some level of authority to police rude build and purchase choices.
|
|
I suppose, and discussion is good... but where do you want to go with it? A discussion can't change the facts, and most of the facts here are simply unknown or circumstantial and unique to the situations involving them. You seem to want to discuss something in general that has no real general aspect to it to discuss.There is no black/white course of action here that applies to every situation. And a situation you are not even part of cannot disrupt your game. When it does, discuss and resolve it. When it doesn't, all you are doing is talking.... yes.
I enjoy talking. And typing. I like discussion.
It's why I spend free time on a discussion board.
You know ... like this one.
I can't tell if you're trolling at this point, so if so, I guess I'm playing right into your hands ... but let me try to say it again.
This phenomenon is occurring on the boards, and it's starting to come from people who should know better. So I am raising awareness of it and encouraging people to remember that "screw this I don't wanna" is actually not a legitimate part of playing in an organized campaign such as this one.
It is legitimate if the alternative is wasting time not having fun and seeing 5/6ths of the table not having fun.
If you say im wrong about that, then you arent looking at the big picture.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... I can understand if a player brings something to the table, and the GM is either suspicious of its legality or is observing reduced fun around the table, and THEN decides to do something like adjudicate an unclear rule or boot a disruptive player or threaten to walk.
I think it's a different issue if, upon learning of a build/tactic outside of actual game time (i.e., on the boards), such that player behavior isn't even part of the equation yet, and the GM decides ahead of time that the build, regardless of who might bring it and how they might behave, will be categorically disallowed at their tables.
I *think* that pathar's concern is the latter, while folks replying to him are trying to talk about the former. Of course, I'm not pathar (nor am I everyone else), but that's how this thread reads to me.
|
|
So... I can understand if a player brings something to the table, and the GM is either suspicious of its legality or is observing reduced fun around the table, and THEN decides to do something like adjudicate an unclear rule or boot a disruptive player or threaten to walk.
I think it's a different issue if, upon learning of a build/tactic outside of actual game time (i.e., on the boards), such that player behavior isn't even part of the equation yet, and the GM decides ahead of time that the build, regardless of who might bring it and how they might behave, will be categorically disallowed at their tables.
I *think* that pathar's concern is the latter, while folks replying to him are trying to talk about the former. Of course, I'm not pathar (nor am I everyone else), but that's how this thread reads to me.
Speaking for my end, yes, that's exactly it.
|
I believe that key to making a fun game is in controlling the players. You have to know the limits of everything that someone can do. The more you know the rules, the better. In fact, you can always provide equal amount of fun for everyone especially when players try something you aren't usually familiar with.
I am rules junky. Some people hate it, some got used to it. I don't bother people, especially GM's much with it, but when I see that something stinks, it stinks. As a rule of thumb, if something is that good, it is usually too good to be true and I have found out that players make mistakes all the time even after they told me that they double-checked it.
At my table, players used to learn about Cover for the first time. They looked at me in surprise and ranged characters were shocked after I told them they have -4 or even -8 penalty to hit since they have zero ranged feats.
This is why at my table I try to play by the book. I want people to learn something along and have fun.
not to be snarky, but they would have a -4 for shooting into a melee. The target gets a +4 to AC for cover. So, it's not really a -8... Just figured I should help, one rules lawyer to another.
;)
I know, but most of time it turns out to be same as having -8 to hit. Thanks on correction tho. :)
|
|
Speaking for my end, yes, that's exactly it.So... I can understand if a player brings something to the table, and the GM is either suspicious of its legality or is observing reduced fun around the table, and THEN decides to do something like adjudicate an unclear rule or boot a disruptive player or threaten to walk.
I think it's a different issue if, upon learning of a build/tactic outside of actual game time (i.e., on the boards), such that player behavior isn't even part of the equation yet, and the GM decides ahead of time that the build, regardless of who might bring it and how they might behave, will be categorically disallowed at their tables.
I *think* that pathar's concern is the latter, while folks replying to him are trying to talk about the former. Of course, I'm not pathar (nor am I everyone else), but that's how this thread reads to me.
I don't think I've ever asked for builds ahead of time. I always find out there's a power build or two about the second encounter. Now the last thing I GMed was My Enemy's Enemy, which I think is a bit weak sauce anyway, so the fact that there were two very strong builds at the table made no difference at all. Some scenarios are written as cakewalks even for "average" parties.
I don't see how anyone can justify a priori banning someone before a single die has hit the table as long as the PC is legal. And I myself don't question legality until wonky stuff starts happening.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I don't see how anyone can justify a priori banning someone before a single die has hit the table as long as the PC is legal.
As I understand it, that's pathar's position as well. The reason he started this thread (again, as I understand it; don't want to speak for him) is because some GMs have voiced intent to do exactly that.
|
|
How do these GMs discover the build before the game starts? Seriously?
Do all GMs only ever run tables for players for whom they've never run?
The answer to this question is simple.
And what sparked this thread was purchased Bison, which there is rarely a reason to have it in the game at very low levels if not to dominate the scenario.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
How do these GMs discover the build before the game starts? Seriously?
Here on the messageboards: someone mentions seeing someone using X build/item/tactic, or posts their build to ask for advice, or asks whether an option from a new book has any special rules in PFS, or whatever; and every once in a while, a GM (and as the key part of pathar's complaint, sometimes a 4+ star GM and/or a VO) announces that if anyone "brings crap like that to MY table" they can expect XYZ (whether that's threatening to walk, booting the player, "interpreting" a rule in a way that nullifies part or all of the build, or whatever).
They haven't encountered a disruptive player, they've encountered an idea on the messageboards, and have declared in advance how they'd respond to its presence at one of their tables.
|
|
Okay, I guess I'm in convention mode in my thinking. The answer to that is pretty simple. This is giving me a headache just thinking about how people can't play like reasonable people.
The bison thing. I'm really torn about this. I'll say this: Paizo shouldn't have published it like that if they didn't want this happening. One part of me really puts the blame at the feet of Paizo and the devs and authors. If you give power gamers ammo, they WILL send it back at you, with interest.
At the same time, it's not asking too much to be a team player I feel. However, some people absolutely can not refuse the most abusive things they can find in any given system. Especially in society play, because in homebrew, I can fight abusive with even MORE abusive. You don't want a pissing contest of escalation with me in homebrew.
|
|
And you'd be wrong. You are attributing qualities to the players you have no way of knowing exist. And I've clearly described a few circumstances under which such play would not be disruptive (it's all up to the people actually playing and not some 3rd party observer).
If it is disruptive, there are far more effective methods of handling it than just banning play or refusing to be seated at the same table. You know, cooperate.
No, I wouldn't. If you turn up to a game day or a con and intentionally and repeatedly employ a tactic which you know will screw up the ability of two to five other peoples ability to participate then you are an ass and not someone I would be particularly interested in sitting at a table I was at.
If you put this tactic together as part of a regular group who regularly play together then that's cool, if likely to rather frustrate many PFS GM's whose hands will be tied about how to respond to it.
But the nature of much public play is playing with a fairly random group of people. As such doing stuff which leaves the rest of your team unable to act is being a jerk.
However, if I turn up to play a game with something written on my character sheet which someone else has intentionally and repeatedly employed in a way which was disrupted, the GM has no right to assume I will do the same and is wrong to treat me as if I already had.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
And what sparked this thread was purchased Bison, which there is rarely a reason to have it in the game at very low levels if not to dominate the scenario.
To be fair, someone might want it just as a back-pocket option in case things went south.
For instance, there's been discussion of a pair of Fiend Sight tieflings who sideline the other players by using deeper darkness when they're the only ones who can see through it. Meanwhile, I've considered the idea of possibly making a Fiend Sight tiefling ninja who carries oils of darkness (both deeper and regular), but would use it only as a "trump card" if things were going south (or, if I happened to be at an all-darkvision table, then party time!).
So if someone mentions on the boards that they're making a tiefling with 2x Fiend Sight and carrying oils of deeper darkness, no one knows whether they intend to use it disruptively like was described upthread, or as a panic button with the party's approval.
|
|
How do these GMs discover the build before the game starts? Seriously?Here on the messageboards: someone mentions seeing someone using X build/item/tactic, or posts their build to ask for advice, or asks whether an option from a new book has any special rules in PFS, or whatever; and every once in a while, a GM (and as the key part of pathar's complaint, sometimes a 4+ star GM and/or a VO) announces that if anyone "brings crap like that to MY table" they can expect XYZ (whether that's threatening to walk, booting the player, "interpreting" a rule in a way that nullifies part or all of the build, or whatever).
They haven't encountered a disruptive player, they've encountered an idea on the messageboards, and have declared in advance how they'd respond to its presence at one of their tables.
These people need to get a grip. 75% of the time the GMs job is to get stomped in PFS. Period. That's just the way it is. The GMs don't write these scenarios, so why take it personally? I prefer to judge my GMing on flow of the scenario and *lack of adjudication mistakes*. I can't help if the authors put in fights that can't stand up to even one or two power gamers.
|
|
And what sparked this thread was purchased Bison, which there is rarely a reason to have it in the game at very low levels if not to dominate the scenario.To be fair, someone might want it just as a back-pocket option in case things went south.
For instance, there's been discussion of a pair of Fiend Sight tieflings who sideline the other players by using deeper darkness when they're the only ones who can see through it. Meanwhile, I've considered the idea of possibly making a Fiend Sight tiefling ninja who carries oils of darkness (both deeper and regular), but would use it only as a "trump card" if things were going south (or, if I happened to be at an all-darkvision table, then party time!).
So if someone mentions on the boards that they're making a tiefling with 2x Fiend Sight and carrying oils of deeper darkness, no one knows whether they intend to use it disruptively like was described upthread, or as a panic button with the party's approval.
That's actually not a terrible idea. And used it that manner, it might save my cleric a scroll of breath of life. But using it as the alpha strike to every combat is just uncalled for.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
However, if I turn up to play a game with something written on my character sheet which someone else has intentionally and repeatedly employed in a way which was disrupted, the GM has no right to assume I will do the same and is wrong to treat me as if I already had.
I think that's exactly what this thread's about.
|
|
I suppose, and discussion is good... but where do you want to go with it? A discussion can't change the facts, and most of the facts here are simply unknown or circumstantial and unique to the situations involving them. You seem to want to discuss something in general that has no real general aspect to it to discuss.There is no black/white course of action here that applies to every situation. And a situation you are not even part of cannot disrupt your game. When it does, discuss and resolve it. When it doesn't, all you are doing is talking.... yes.
I enjoy talking. And typing. I like discussion.
It's why I spend free time on a discussion board.
You know ... like this one.
I can't tell if you're trolling at this point, so if so, I guess I'm playing right into your hands ... but let me try to say it again.
This phenomenon is occurring on the boards, and it's starting to come from people who should know better. So I am raising awareness of it and encouraging people to remember that "screw this I don't wanna" is actually not a legitimate part of playing in an organized campaign such as this one.
Let's not toss insults. Please.