"Well not at MY table"


Pathfinder Society

251 to 300 of 796 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Just double-checking about the deeper darkness tactic: the area is am emenation from the target object, yes? Does something like web take care of the problem?

3/5

Kyle Baird wrote:
Rubia wrote:
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?

5/5

andreww wrote:
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...

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
andreww wrote:
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.

How do you know that the Deeper Darkness using player (accused of jerkhood) is actually a jerk without talking with the player? Again, I'm not saying that you shouldn't disallow a jerk at the table. I'm actually saying that determining jerkhood involves talking to a player, rather than SOLELY auditing a build.

Banning a build (and therefore a player) violates the most basic principle of an organized campaign: namely that it's organized.

5/5

Rubia wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
Rubia wrote:
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.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Kyle Baird wrote:
nosig wrote:
This SHOULD work, depending on the judge.

It wouldn't (need to) work at my table...

** spoiler omitted **

I couldn't have said it better myself.

5/5

Rubia wrote:
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.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

wraithstrike wrote:


You do have to grin and bear it or not run the module.

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?

3/5

Kyle Baird wrote:
Rubia wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
Rubia wrote:
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.

The concern and the complaint is about an assessment that is drawn based only on the details written on a character sheet, without regard to the player himself/herself. Stereotypes aren't fair to impose on a player, without consideration of a player.

After an initial discussion with a player, a GM has a basis to determine jerk behavior (which is where subjectivity enters the conversation). Prior to that, it isn't possible to ban a powerful legal build that is being played.

The key point here is that, in order to determine whether one is a jerk player or not, the GM must at least vaguely interact with said player. Then let subjective opinions fly on the jerk behavior! That, however, is a different conversation.

3/5

Kyle Baird wrote:
Rubia wrote:
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?.

Yes, that is exactly what is being advocated. Links to this were posted by other posters, but in short, included 4+ star GMs and VOs.

3/5

Andrew Christian wrote:

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 so that I too can avoid these jerks. 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.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Rubia wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

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.

Grand Lodge 1/5

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?

Grand Lodge 1/5

Andrew Christian wrote:
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.

3/5

Andrew Christian wrote:
Rubia wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

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.

First of all, I did not say that you did or did not advocate the behavior suggested. I simply said that IF you were going to make an a priori judgement, then don't GM. If that doesn't apply to you (or anyone else), great! If it does, please don't GM.

Second, as a PFS GM myself, I don't believe it is my job to make decisions about which additional resources get used, despite the consequence. Those decisions are firmly in Paizo's court. If there were suddenly 20% fewer tables worldwide (and that reduction could be attributed to broken builds being allowed in PFS), I can PROMISE you that Paizo would fix it.

Finally, I have been on the receiving end of such episodes, both as a player and a GM. But I, unlike the GMs I am referring to, have the awareness that the problem is the player, not the build.

It's not a job. If such a GM is frustrated, that person should quit, rather than marginalize a non-jerk player. If a GM cannot remain objective until such a time, that GM needs to quit.

5/5 *****

Eric Saxon wrote:

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?

No-one has suggested banning anything of the sort. You posted the archer build earlier and it was a fairly bog standard fighter archer set up.

The discussion has revolved around jerks screwing over their own team with Deeper Darkness and people using random purchased pets which trample over low level scenarios leaving the rest of the group with not much to do.

The Exchange 5/5

This problem appears to be just on the boards. I have not encountered it in PFS yet. Close, but not quite.

I have yet to see a judge ban someone from playing at a table because of his PC build or tactics.

I have in PFS games seen judges target PCs due to players actions that the judge found objectionable. In PFS it is very rare, but it does sometimes happen.

I have seen A LOT of people on the boards say they would ban something from their table. Often the people saying ".. not at MY table" are VOs or multi-star judges. I assume these individuals are different in person... I like think the best of the people I play with.

It would be best if we all remembered that most of the people reading what we post do not know us. They are judgeing us by what we post. Saying thing like "I'll not let someone with that build sit at my table..." or "Go ahead and TRY it..." may make you feel good, but I don't think the Dirty Harry personality would make a good judge... not someone I would want to play for. Would you? Really?

Silver Crusade 2/5 *

Kyle Baird wrote:
Rubia wrote:
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.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

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.

Lantern Lodge 3/5

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?

The Exchange 5/5

andreww wrote:
Eric Saxon wrote:

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?

No-one has suggested banning anything of the sort. You posted the archer build earlier and it was a fairly bog standard fighter archer set up.

The discussion has revolved around jerks screwing over their own team with Deeper Darkness and people using random purchased pets which trample over low level scenarios leaving the rest of the group with not much to do.

This thread was started in response to "well not at MY table" comments from more than one "person of authority". I have seen these posts (and been on the recieveing end of them several times) for a number of years. They are nothing new, and I expect they will continue to occure in the future.

Silver Crusade 2/5 *

When it happens is a bit late to come up with a plan/policy. Especially if you don't know the person in question.

Silver Crusade 2/5 *

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.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Lormyr wrote:
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.

Silver Crusade 2/5 *

Just be glad they banned the master summoner, or this thread would include that incredible cheese as well. The super ironic thing about that archetype is that they would be butchered in my home brews but own face in PFS. Not enough NPCs with power attack, cleave, and rage in PFS. :)

1/5

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.

Sovereign Court 5/5 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

Lantern Lodge 3/5

Eric Saxon wrote:

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.

Silver Crusade 2/5 *

Robert A Matthews wrote:
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......

The Exchange 5/5

Matthew Morris wrote:

Here's a question to ponder.

A sorcerer shows up with 7 int, and his first level spells are floating disk, identify and rope trick. his higher level spells are likewise not effective.

Do you walk away as a GM? Do you ban him from the table?

minor point... sorry!

rope trick is a 2nd level spell for Sorcerers...

Silver Crusade 2/5 *

Lormyr wrote:
Eric Saxon wrote:

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.

Lantern Lodge 3/5

Andrew Christian wrote:
Lormyr wrote:
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.

Scarab Sages 3/5

Andrew Christian wrote:


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.

Silver Crusade 2/5 *

I don't put up with it as a player. If I know a priori that a table can be handled by two PCs already at that table, I go do something else. I'll go play at a table where they need my cleric's abilities. Because the DD brothers don't need help. However, this is not always immediately obvious.

Silver Crusade 2/5 *

Matthew Morris wrote:

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.

5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
No, they'll just start doing it. And by the time the GM realizes its not going to stop, the scenario is halfway over.

What part of talking to players about their characters is so difficult?

5/5

David Bowles wrote:
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.

Silver Crusade 2/5 *

Kyle Baird wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
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.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joko PO wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:


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.

5/5

Matthew Morris wrote:

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?

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Kyle Baird wrote:
Seriously, who sends a goblin to a dinner party or wedding?

Drendle Dreng, so he can get everyone else killed.

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joko PO wrote:
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.

Grand Lodge 4/5

David Bowles wrote:
That's the problem I see with your approach.

I'm sorry, are you talking about his approach of talking to his players about problematic builds?

5/5

Chris Mortika wrote:
Just double-checking about the deeper darkness tactic: the area is am emenation from the target object, yes? Does something like web take care of the problem?

Where do you see that darkness is an emanation?

Scarab Sages 3/5

Andrew Christian wrote:


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.

Andrew Christian wrote:


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.

Andrew Christian wrote:


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.

Andrew Christian wrote:


You sir keep putting words in V-O's mouths

Umm no I am not. Shall I go grab the thread quotes?

Scarab Sages 3/5

Kyle Baird wrote:
Joko PO wrote:
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.

Kyle Baird wrote:

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.

Kyle Baird wrote:


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.

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
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.

5/5

Kyle Baird wrote:
Is there someone in here advocating banning a player based on a certain build or tactic without first discussing it with them first?

YES. YES THERE IS. THAT IS WHAT

THE THREAD

IS ABOUT.

WHY DO I HAVE TO KEEP POINTING THIS OUT TO PEOPLE

5/5

Joko PO wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
Joko PO wrote:
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.

Kyle Baird wrote:

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.

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.

251 to 300 of 796 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / "Well not at MY table" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.