|
There is a very big difference between playing a powerful character and using a powerful tactic which actively leaves the rest of your party incapable of acting. The Heavens Oracle may end an encounter quickly and easily with Colour Spray but they may well not if the enemy saves or is immune. The Deeper Darkness using jerk screws over the rest of their teammates every single time.
Same here with my bard. Do I a) cast a persistent cacophonous call and basically end the encounter for an NPC or b) throw up inspire courage and haste, followed by gallant inspiration? The later is often seen as more fun by the rest table...
|
|
No GM or VO has the authority to ban a powerful legal build played by a non-jerk player.Your problem here is that "jerk" is subjective and often impossible to quantify by the offending party.Totally agree with the subjective nature of the word "jerk".
How can a GM or VO determine jerkhood of a player based solely on the abilities written on a character sheet?
It's very hard to objectively identify it from the writing on a character sheet, but there are stereotypes associated with certain builds and tactics. They exist for a reason, but of course aren't going to apply to everyone who is playing/using such things.
Where the "jerkhood" CAN be identified is in the initial discussion with players about their character. Asking the right questions helps identify and hopefully negate any problems before they happen.
|
|
Banning a build (and therefore a player) violates the most basic principle of an organized campaign: namely that it's organized.
TL;DR
Is there someone in here advocating banning a player based on a certain build or tactic without first discussing it with them first?FWIW, if I had a player stupid enough to sit down and say that he uses fiendsight, deeper darkness, and doesn't give a crap about anyone else at the table, I was ask them to reconsider or feel free to find another table. I have no doubt in my mind that I would be supported by any convention organizer, VO or Brock on this decision.
|
That's exactly my point.
I have the option to not GM.
Is that what you really want? More avid and prolific GMs refusing to GM because they HAVE to let these ridiculous situations happen?
Yes, I'd rather you not GM for a while than make an a priori judgement about a player. If you can ascertain jerk behavior about a player prior to having played with that player, please tell me how to do it. If, on the other hand, you're stereotyping a player based on a build, then yes, please do not GM, since stereotyping is jerk behavior.
Thanks.
Did you read my posts in this thread?
Did you see me specifically advocating what you are suggesting?
And can you not see that there is a serious amount of frustration here?
Sure, maybe all these frustrated GM's should take a break. But then, who's going to GM the tables?
If even 20% of the GM's stop judging because of their frustration, and with threads like this that slam GM's for being frustrated and venting about it, will likely mean 20% less tables of PFS run around the world.
If there there were enough GM's to even remotely be able to fill those 20% of the shoes, they would have already done so, and given those GM's short breaks from time to time to help them re-energize.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do have a question for folks advocating banning builds at their table.
What if MY build is the only thing that keeps a player from being shredded?
Literally, this Saturday, I played my ranged fighter, in what would commonly be a potential 'banned build,' because it means my fighter earns a nickname of Rambo, due to his machine-gun bow.
Our other fighter who was digging in the ground got grabbed by a Rhamorazz's tongue, in a surprise round.
In the 1st round he was going to be swallowed and KOSed. Probably, there wouldn't even be anything to resurrect, since he was going to be dissolved in the stomach juices of the Rhamorazz.
My archer who was standing 20 feet away from our intrepid miner, who was only armed with a pick. The fighter with the pick, was going to eat it, when he got eaten. My ranged fighter went Rambo on the Rhamorazz and killed it before it could do its bite, swallow attack.
So, you ban my PC 'ranged fighter' from your table. Next game, similar situation comes up. 2 PCs die. Congratulations, mission accomplished. Now tell me, what exactly was your mission as a GM? To kill a PC or to drive away a player, from PFS by banning the build that would have kept his PC alive?
|
|
Sure, maybe all these frustrated GM's should take a break. But then, who's going to GM the tables?
Our GM is feeling a bit tired and burned out.
Guess who's not running any scenarios next Saturday? And guess how many people were tapped on the shoulder and were told, if they want to play, they have to take one of the GM spots next Saturday? Problem solved, GM burnout happens, everyone else gets forced to GM or the games stop. And then every one of the players at the table has to show up with a chambered scenario, or they don't get seated.
You'd be amazed how many people show up with a scenario ready to go, when its a choice between having to run a 1 scenario in 6 session and not being seated at the table. Its almost magical.
|
Banning a build (and therefore a player) violates the most basic principle of an organized campaign: namely that it's organized.TL;DR
Is there someone in here advocating banning a player based on a certain build or tactic without first discussing it with them first?FWIW, if I had a player stupid enough to sit down and say that he uses fiendsight, deeper darkness, and doesn't give a crap about anyone else at the table, I was ask them to reconsider or feel free to find another table. I have no doubt in my mind that I would be supported by any convention organizer, VO or Brock on this decision.
No, they'll just start doing it. And by the time the GM realizes its not going to stop, the scenario is halfway over. Again, I've never seen a character audit ever occur, and many GMs wouldn't even know what to look for. I'm sure there's tons of combos out there I've never seen. If I audit such a character I won't know until its too late anyway.
As for archery builds, the authors of scenarios are perfectly capable of putting in NPCs that utilize wind wall and/or the feared fickle winds. It's not the fault of archery builds that authors never put in foils for them. I guess the deeper darkness spamming devils do it, but that's a whole other level suck for the whole party. And frankly, I think deeper darkness is a douchy overpowered effect in general. Especially with the FAQs we have.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I get your point, and everyone else's here, that GM's should not be stereotyping.
But what you are not getting, is that the frustration of seeing the same thing over, and over, creates the stereotypes.
We aren't talking about banning Witches, because they are boring to GM.
We are talking about EVERY time I see a purchased pet (tiger, bison, whatever) at Tier 1-5 scenarios, the player uses it willy nilly, and it breaks the scenario. So the next time someone brings a Bison or a Tiger to my table, my initial reaction is GOING to be, "NO!"
Now, would that be entirely appropriate? Probably not. Might it actually happen if my frustration level is at a certain point? Maybe. I'm human.
What many of you are missing, is that the problem is not the GM's making these sweeping statements out of frustration and venting, but rather the fact that the community actually puts up with ridiculousness.
|
|
Also, I consider the heaven oracle on the same order of magnitude of douchebaggery as the DD twins, if not as functionally crippling. I mean it's not quite as bad, but the intent is clearly there, and it makes for miserable sessions. Miserable sessions via one mechanism = miserable sessions via another mechanism.
|
|
It is my perception that the vast majority of this debate is "what if" situations. Talking about that is perfectly fine, but maybe we should save the frustration and vitriol for if/when it actually happens to someone, hmmm?
These things are not mere conjecture. They have happened, repeatedly, and do cause massive frustration.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Here's a question to ponder.
A sorcerer shows up with 7 int, and his first level spells are floating disk & identify[/i] and rope trick is his go to second level spell. His higher level spells are likewise not effective.
Do you walk away as a GM? Do you ban him from the table?
edit: Fixed that for nitpickers. :P
|
Andrew, with my high initiative, I can literally take down 80% of the fights before anyone even gets a chance to look at the monsters, while they are still alive.
Now, I've promised to the people I play with, that I'll wait for everyone to have their turn from now on but if I crank up my ranged fighter build to maximum velocity, I can ruin it for everyone.
Mind you it was my first game at lvl. 6, so I wanted to see my build at full speed in the first fight and well, there was nothing left for anyone else to fight.
The Rhamorazz was a desperation attack because I had a bad feeling about our fighter's chances. But 2 of the 3 fights, begun and ended with me dominating them entirely. First one intentionally, just to see if it worked and the second one because I was worried the guy at our table was going to loose his only PC.
So my build can be used to dismantle an entire scenario. I won't do so, however it could potentially be a banned build according to the rules you've pointed out, of a build being able to break the scenario.
You're archer is strong. We get it. It's also in the high range of average for what a strong archer build does. The perception of a build being overbearing or not at a given table has more to do with how well it functions in comparison to the other player's builds at said table, and how courteous the player is willing to be.
For my particular circle of players, your archer would not be an issue at all, and we'd love to sit down with you at full tilt. When the heavens align, our group's 16th level gunslinger can pump out about 3,500 damage a round. We are difficult to impress :p.
|
|
I'm sure there enough scenarios with 5 foot wide hallways and/or doorways to make most of the bison argument irrelevant. They are basically unusable indoors or underground etc. Good luck riding a large creature in a room with a ceiling 10 feet high.
Squeezing rules do not prohibit riding a squeezing mount. And there's always narrow frame feat. I know this all too well......
|
|
Andrew, with my high initiative, I can literally take down 80% of the fights before anyone even gets a chance to look at the monsters, while they are still alive.
Now, I've promised to the people I play with, that I'll wait for everyone to have their turn from now on but if I crank up my ranged fighter build to maximum velocity, I can ruin it for everyone.
Mind you it was my first game at lvl. 6, so I wanted to see my build at full speed in the first fight and well, there was nothing left for anyone else to fight.
The Rhamorazz was a desperation attack because I had a bad feeling about our fighter's chances. But 2 of the 3 fights, begun and ended with me dominating them entirely. First one intentionally, just to see if it worked and the second one because I was worried the guy at our table was going to loose his only PC.
So my build can be used to dismantle an entire scenario. I won't do so, however it could potentially be a banned build according to the rules you've pointed out, of a build being able to break the scenario.
You're archer is strong. We get it. It's also in the high range of average for what a strong archer build does. The perception of a build being overbearing or not at a given table has more to do with how well it functions in comparison to the other player's builds at said table, and how courteous the player is willing to be.
For my particular circle of players, your archer would not be an issue at all, and we'd love to sit down with you at full tilt. When the heavens align, our group's 16th level gunslinger can pump out about 3,500 damage a round. We are difficult to impress :p.
The archer also wouldn't impress any NPCs behind a fickle wind but authors seem to forget that that spell exists.
|
|
It is my perception that the vast majority of this debate is "what if" situations. Talking about that is perfectly fine, but maybe we should save the frustration and vitriol for if/when it actually happens to someone, hmmm?These things are not mere conjecture. They have happened, repeatedly, and do cause massive frustration.
Fair enough. And that being the case, I can understand why just the mention of it brings you a headache. No one said being a PFS judge was an easy public service unfortunately.
|
What many of you are missing, is that the problem is not the GM's making these sweeping statements out of frustration and venting, but rather the fact that the community actually puts up with ridiculousness.
No I don't think we are missing this point at all. I know I understand it perfectly. As a VO you think your subjective estimation of "ridiculousness" is the only estimation that matters. Have you ever considered that the reason the community puts up with such things is that they have a different estimation. Or that maybe some of us do not let such things ruin our fun.
I, for one, am disgusted by the number of VO who seem to be so concerned about their fun. If the players are having fun and the GM is not, then the GM is the problem. I have found that if the players are having fun than so am I. Regardless of the challenge level. Builds do not create or take away fun. People do. This is the Stormwind Fallacy from a different perspective.
|
|
Here's a question to ponder.
A sorcerer shows up with 7 int, and his first level spells are floating disk & identify[/i] and rope trick is his go to second level spell. His higher level spells are likewise not effective.
Do you walk away as a GM? Do you ban him from the table?
edit: Fixed that for nitpickers. :P
Not as a GM, but as a player, I'd be sorely tempted.
Also, why are GMs getting burned out NOW? Didn't getting your face beat in for seasons 0-2 properly condition you for how PFS was going to roll? Or have people been taking liberties to make these scenarios harder? Because most of them are way, way easy for any PC group that built decent characters using teh maths.
|
|
Didn't getting your face beat in for seasons 0-2 properly condition you for how PFS was going to roll? Or have people been taking liberties to make these scenarios harder? Because most of them are way, way easy for any PC group that built decent characters using teh maths.
Find a competent GM and tell them you hate punches being pulled. Season 2 is so easy... I invite you to play at my table for Rebel's Ransom, The Heresy of Man series, Eyes of the Ten.
|
|
Didn't getting your face beat in for seasons 0-2 properly condition you for how PFS was going to roll? Or have people been taking liberties to make these scenarios harder? Because most of them are way, way easy for any PC group that built decent characters using teh maths.Find a competent GM. Season 2 is so easy... I invite you to play at my table for Rebel's Ransom, The Heresy of Man series, Eyes of the Ten.
Those are likely the exceptions. There are always exceptions. I've seen druid pets eat entire season 2 scenarios. That's weak sauce. Should I ban druid pets? I'd love to, but somehow I think there'd be quite a bit resistance to that. That's the problem I see with your approach.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What many of you are missing, is that the problem is not the GM's making these sweeping statements out of frustration and venting, but rather the fact that the community actually puts up with ridiculousness.No I don't think we are missing this point at all. I know I understand it perfectly. As a VO you think your subjective estimation of "ridiculousness" is the only estimation that matters. Have you ever considered that the reason the community puts up with such things is that they have a different estimation. Or that maybe some of us do not let such things ruin our fun.
I, for one, am disgusted by the number of VO who seem to be so concerned about their fun. If the players are having fun and the GM is not, then the GM is the problem. I have found that if the players are having fun than so am I. Regardless of the challenge level. Builds do not create or take away fun. People do. This is the Stormwind Fallacy from a different perspective.
Wow, just wow.
Lets put it another way. If I didn't have fun as a PFS player and PFS GM, I would never have become a V-L. I would have turned it down when offered.
If your estimation is that as a V-L (a volunteer mind you) that I have to just not have fun because its my job, then you do it. You GM 110 tables like I have, and tell me that 10% that aren't fun I should just deal with it because I'm a V-L.
That attitude is ridiculous.
And it isn't that I feel my opinion of ridiculous is the only one that matters.
You have tons of players complaining on these boards daily about this or that OP thing. The Bison thread was started by a player, not a V-O.
If I have tons of players in my community telling me that they won't play with certain players (or those players if they bring a certain character) (and I have), then I can't ignore that.
That's what I consider ridiculous. When the entire community that I oversees complains about it.
You sir keep putting words in V-O's mouths and assuming we are all petty tyrants or something... we are simply volunteers who's frustration level at volunteering and receiving this kind of entitled feedback is about at the boiling point.
|
|
Here's a question to ponder.
A sorcerer shows up with 7 int, and his first level spells are floating disk & identify[/i] and rope trick is his go to second level spell. His higher level spells are likewise not effective.
Do you walk away as a GM? Do you ban him from the table?
I would ask him how his previous scenarios have gone. I would ask him what he usually contributes during a scenario, both in and out of combat. I would also make sure that this information is presented to the rest of the players so they can all make informed choices.
I've had "I've made poor choices in life" characters plenty of times. Are they effective? Nope. I do my best to engage that player and work with the other players to offer that player advice for future character development.
Sometimes Venture Captains don't choose the best agents for the job. Seriously, who sends a goblin to a dinner party or wedding?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the players are having fun and the GM is not, then the GM is the problem.
Please provide peer reviewed data on this statement.
I have walked away from more than a handful of tables I didn't enjoy but the players had a good time. That makes me the problem? I've always considered any table where the players have a good time to be a success.
Some of the most fun tables I've run are were players completely trounced the NPCs. Some of the least fun tables are where the NPCs annihilated the PCs.
AND:
Some of the most fun tables I've run are were players were completely trounced by the NPCs. Some of the least fun tables are where the NPCs were annihilated by the PCs.
Fun doesn't have to be directly related to challenge and/or success of the players.
|
|
Lets put it another way. If I didn't have fun as a PFS player and PFS GM, I would never have become a V-L. I would have turned it down when offered.
If your estimation is that as a V-L (a volunteer mind you) that I have to just not have fun because its my job, then you do it. You GM 110 tables like I have, and tell me that 10% that aren't fun I should just deal with it because I'm a V-L.
I am sorry I did not realize that I must run a certain number of tables for my opinion to be valid. Your statement is a fallacy called (ironically, or maybe not) Argument from Authority.
You have tons of players complaining on these boards daily about this or that OP thing. The Bison thread was started by a player, not a V-O.
Hyperbole. If your justification is that people complain about it on a message board. Well than I doubt you will ever lack in justification.
If I have tons of players in my community telling me that they won't play with certain players (or those players if they bring a certain character) (and I have), then I can't ignore that.That's what I consider ridiculous. When the entire community that I oversees complains about it.
Again hyperbole. First of all, no on said ignore it. Just work within the system to fix it. Not use an arrogant usurpation of authority. Secondly, you just moved the goal posts. You just switched from "I have had enough!" to "Other people are bringing this problem to me." Thirdly, entire community? Every single person? Even the offenders? wow its a good thing you do not exaggerate for dramatic impact.
You sir keep putting words in V-O's mouths
Umm no I am not. Shall I go grab the thread quotes?
|
|
If the players are having fun and the GM is not, then the GM is the problem.Please provide peer reviewed data on this statement.
Nice try. You mean to imply that my inability to do so makes my argument invalid. Without noting that you are also unable to do so with your own claims. All any of us have to offer is our own perspective or anecdotes.
I have walked away from more than a handful of tables I didn't enjoy but the players had a good time. That makes me the problem? I've always considered any table where the players have a good time to be a success.
Your statements seem to be at odds. You considered it a success, but did not enjoy it? Please expound.
Some of the most fun tables I've run are were players completely trounced the NPCs. Some of the least fun tables are where the NPCs annihilated the PCs.AND:
Some of the most fun tables I've run are were players were completely trounced by the NPCs. Some of the least fun tables are where the NPCs were annihilated by the PCs.
Fun doesn't have to be directly related to challenge and/or success of the players.
I believe I made that exact point just a few posts up.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen druid pets eat entire season 2 scenarios.
I've knocked out an entire party with the stupid SEA ELVES in Throaty Mermaid. So what's your point? For every "we completely walked through that scenario" there's a story of "we were completely owned by that scenario."
The problem in your example isn't that Scenario 0-2 scenarios are too easy or that animal companions are overpowered, it's this:
The player CHOSE to make as powerful of an animal companion as they could AND made the CHOICE to "eat the entire scenario" (something my goblin tries to do every time, fwiw). What the player failed to do is think about anything other than "winning" Pathfinder. Did they think if it would actually be FUN for the entire table to trivialize the encounters?
If a player's sole intention is to "win," they can find another table. Hell I'll even just hand them the chronicle, congratulate them, and tell them to be on their way.
If, instead, they make the most powerful AC they can, but choose not to dominate the attention at the table and puts the enjoyment of the entire table ahead of their own personal enjoyment, then great! They've actually won Pathfinder.
|
|
If the players are having fun and the GM is not, then the GM is the problem.Please provide peer reviewed data on this statement.Nice try. You mean to imply that my inability to do so makes my argument invalid. Without noting that you are also unable to do so with your own claims. All any of us have to offer is our own perspective or anecdotes.
Your statements seem to be at odds. You considered it a success, but did not enjoy it? Please expound.I have walked away from more than a handful of tables I didn't enjoy but the players had a good time. That makes me the problem? I've always considered any table where the players have a good time to be a success.
Try? My point is that because you make a statement doesn't make it true. Even making a statement such as that based on experience, doesn't make it true.
I once ran a table at a convention for a group of players who all knew each other, but that I didn't know. I ran them through the scenario, didn't enjoy their company, their lack of interest in certain parts of the scenario that I greatly enjoyed, I didn't enjoy their OOC comments, but I ran the scenario, acted up the NPCs, ran the encounters with the same energy and passion that I always do. The players had a great time, laughing, thanking me at the end, but as they walked away, I couldn't have been happier to see them leave.