|
I'm just amazed that its GMs that have a bigger problem with this stuff than the players sat at tables with say, the DD brothers. The GM gets their goodies no matter what and should be used to "losing".
So you know for a fact that the players who play with DD brothers will have less of a problem with it than the GM? Personally the only problem I have with DD brothers is if they're impeding the rest of the table from participating.
And what goodies do you think the GM's are after? To some, those "goodies" are a fun 4-5 hour experience. We aren't guaranteed that at all.
|
|
I'm just amazed that its GMs that have a bigger problem with this stuff than the players sat at tables with say, the DD brothers. The GM gets their goodies no matter what and should be used to "losing".
I love how you did "" on losing. A GM should rate their success on the how much fun the table had. Honestly as a DM I get my enjoyment vicariously from the table.
And if it doesn't? Why are we worrying about something potentially trending? Let's worry about it once it actually happens and then starts trending.
Sometimes it is easier to nip it in the bud before it trends. I think making this thread does a good attempt by saying this exsists and the general message that it is bad has been established to do just that. So undertsand it is wrong and when you see it happen say it is wrong will stop the trend. Evil only exsists where good men(or women) do nothing.
|
It is a fair point.
However, the reason many GM’s are 3, 4, and 5-stars is because there often is nobody else in the area who can or will GM. So that’s what they do. They GM for their community.
So who picks up the slack? If I choose not to GM for a month, who does it for me?
Afterall, there is a reason I’m 4-stars instead of just 2 or 3. I’m one of the willing prolific GM’s. I love GM’ing. So it isn’t a chore for me most of the time. But if I took a break for mental health reasons, who picks up my slack? (I’m not saying I need a break, just using myself to emphasize the point).
In many communities, if the prolific GM takes a break, those tables simply don’t happen. What then?
To clarify for other readers, the word "you" in my posts and Andrew's responses are generic, not specific.
The short answer is to your questions is:
1) no one, or
2) a less-prolific GMFrankly, both of those options are better than having a prolific GM who sometimes feels obligated to run games. The palace guard must change. Maybe the hint for prolific GMs is when they lose their ability to be impartial and fair.
Some prolific GMs run 3, 4, 5 or even 10 or more tables a month. How good is it for the community if those tables don't happen?
And all because the gm chooses to stereotype for the greater good of his table, game day, and community?
|
|
stuff
Ok this is a break in the PFS rules. So it is ok for GMs to break the rules if they DM enough games?
So if I GM 10 games a month I can start changing the stat block because it is better for the community to have me VS lose me doing this for them?
If GMs knwo they can not follow the rules they should not GM. If a DM has an issue with something they should remove themselves from that rules. IE a build they do nto like they should step aside and let someone else DM.
I have heard many many many time that some DMs will not run certain adventures because of X. I think that is a wonderfull solution.
I think it is a horrible solution to turn a blind eye and let them spoil the game.
|
DD and Daylight don't have to be so complicated. If they're both cast, normal lighting conditions exist where their radii overlap.
Things to keep in mind:
Range: Touch
In order to actually "dispel" one must either cast the spell and touch the affected object or use their turn to ready a counter-spell. Neither or these are likely to happen.
Also, Spell-like Abilities can't be used to counter-spell, so the bad guys can't ready a deeper darkness SLA to counter the PC's impending daylight.The way it should normally go: Bad guy uses SLA of deeper darkness on their self somewhere or random object. Good guy casts daylight on their [insert object]. Where these two 60-ft radii overlap reverts back to whatever lighting conditions were there before. As long as the fight stays within this overlap, just forget about it and
And if those "normal lighting conditions" are already Darkness? Do other light sources, mundane or magical, work in the overlap? How about newly cast Darkness spells?
Is there an official word on those questions? Or is there table variation, due to unclear rules?
Darkness spells, by text, don't stack. But the other matter is unsettled. I asked people of authority at Origins about this, but they had no idea how to answer it either.
|
|
I'm just amazed that its GMs that have a bigger problem with this stuff than the players sat at tables with say, the DD brothers. The GM gets their goodies no matter what and should be used to "losing".I love how you did "" on losing. A GM should rate their success on the how much fun the table had. Honestly as a DM I get my enjoyment vicariously from the table.
At the end of the day as a GM, I've had worse experiences from weak sauce scenarios than actual broken PCs. However, the broken PCs are far more disruptive to the other players. With weak sauce scenarios, I just shrug and commiserate with the players and just admit there's not much I can do as a GM with the tools given to me. Teh maths are a bit unrelenting. Broken PCs are played by people who purposely designed them that way are at BEST are hedging against bad GMs and WORSE intentionally showing off and ruining other players' experiences.
I had one table where the scenario was clearly outmatched by no real fault of the players. I suggested they practice their combat maneuvers one battle just to brush up on the rules. We had a blast, mission accomplished. Bull rushes are pretty fun it turns out.
|
|
stuffOk this is a break in the PFS rules. So it is ok for GMs to break the rules if they DM enough games?
So if I GM 10 games a month I can start changing the stat block because it is better for the community to have me VS lose me doing this for them?
If GMs knwo they can not follow the rules they should not GM. If a DM has an issue with something they should remove themselves from that rules. IE a build they do nto like they should step aside and let someone else DM.
I have heard many many many time that some DMs will not run certain adventures because of X. I think that is a wonderfull solution.
I think it is a horrible solution to turn a blind eye and let them spoil the game.
I didn't say anything of the sort. I'm asking pointed questions for a reason.
There isn't always someone or multiple people willing to step up.
So its the guy who runs crap loads of tables or nothing.
And yes, if the GM is crappy and the community is unwilling to step up and force their way into his place, it is their own fault.
But that isn't what this thread is about.
Banning troublesome albeit legal options from your table is not the equivalent of modifying stat blocks and creature counts.
Let's put this in the appropriate context and perspective. There have been a couple threads in the last year discussing loopholes in the game, that would break the game or wealth by level. Legal combinations of options that if it were a singular option it would have been banned by campaign leadership.
Mike Brock has noted that there is no way to forsee all broken combo choices. ( WotC does , or did a decent job with Magic, and even so they have to ban stuff they've published)
Mike Brock had also stated that using these loopholes, while technically legal, would be skin to cheating. He's asked people to not do it. He's given GMs the right to disinvite players that continue to abuse the RAW to essentially be disruptive at the table.
So GMs are not breaking any rules by disallowing disruptive choices.
However, pre-emptively disallowing choices without talking to the player first, is likely not a good idea. Although it is understandable that a GM would be tempted to do so based on a preponderance of empirical evidence.
|
|
Broken PCs are played by people who purposely designed them that way are at BEST are hedging against bad GMs and WORSE intentionally showing off and ruining other players' experiences.
this is a generalization. Some of my characters I admit are broken. But I do neither of those. I know my hcaracters are powerful and I do not need a bad GM to take advantage of that. I know my characters are strong I do not need the fellow players to agree. I often step out of battles to allow them to get their swords wet. I find most players I play with appreciate me, because I can always step into the battle and win it if things go awry.
When you imply all, you are (check this wording out) most often wrong.
|
|
How about newly cast Darkness spells?
New spell only create new points of origin, nothing more (unless they are cast to dispel the original point of origin, which of course you have to touch since the range is touch).
I would still expect table variation as too many people try to over-complicate things. It's a 4-5 hour slot. If the PCs have daylight, negate the effect between the two points of origin and move on.
|
|
stuffOk this is a break in the PFS rules. So it is ok for GMs to break the rules if they DM enough games?
So if I GM 10 games a month I can start changing the stat block because it is better for the community to have me VS lose me doing this for them?
If GMs knwo they can not follow the rules they should not GM. If a DM has an issue with something they should remove themselves from that rules. IE a build they do nto like they should step aside and let someone else DM.
I have heard many many many time that some DMs will not run certain adventures because of X. I think that is a wonderfull solution.
I think it is a horrible solution to turn a blind eye and let them spoil the game.
I see a large amount of concern about 'rogue GMs' in this here thread. I guess I am skeptical. I think I've been annoyed by other PFS players at least two dozen times, and every time I can think of, save one, my aggravation was triggered by someone playing their character, NOT the GM. Maybe I'm more patient with GM's because I have GM'ed enough to appreciate that GM's spend some of THEIR free (unpaid) time to prep scenarios to run for us. By this very act, they are showing they 'get' that it's not ALL ABOUT THEM. I wish I could say the same of people playing their characters. As a rough estimate, I'd say about one in six I've run across don't 'get it' (the cooperative/social gaming experience). I try to avoid playing with these people.
I have heard stories from other people about GM's that don't seem to get that it's not about them ... I guess I've been lucky enough in my extensive play experience (characters of level 11.2, 9.1, 8.1, 7.0, 5.2, 4.2, etc)to have never had to suffer under any of these GM's. '
Oh, and the one time I recall being annoyed by a GM? It was because he spent 1/3 of the slot talking about his own characters. XD
Edit: to fix typo
|
|
My only problem with that is how is using the blasted animal companion chart, having an armor class too high to be hit by anything in the scenario or casting deeper darkness using "rules loopholes"? Yeah, the battle cattle is dubious, but the rest of that is business as usual.
Maybe the authors should go "hey, animal companions exist, and maybe I should put stuff in my little adventure that can HIT them once in a while instead of just being eaten helplessly by Fluffy."
Maybe they should bring the darkness series back to this planet.
Again, we are back to me personally finding animal companions "disruptive". So I should disallow them?
|
|
How about newly cast Darkness spells?New spell only create new points of origin, nothing more (unless they are cast to dispel the original point of origin, which of course you have to touch since the range is touch).
I would still expect table variation as too many people try to over-complicate things. It's a 4-5 hour slot. If the PCs have daylight, negate the effect between the two points of origin and move on.
If only it were that simple. Maybe they could, say, rewrite the lighting rules so they are clear? It would take what? 20 minutes?
|
|
stuffOk this is a break in the PFS rules. So it is ok for GMs to break the rules if they DM enough games?
So if I GM 10 games a month I can start changing the stat block because it is better for the community to have me VS lose me doing this for them?
If GMs knwo they can not follow the rules they should not GM. If a DM has an issue with something they should remove themselves from that rules. IE a build they do nto like they should step aside and let someone else DM.
I have heard many many many time that some DMs will not run certain adventures because of X. I think that is a wonderfull solution.
I think it is a horrible solution to turn a blind eye and let them spoil the game.
I see a large amount of concern about 'rogue GMs' in this here thread. I guess I am skeptical. I think I've been annoyed by other PFS players at least two dozen times, and every time I can think of, save one, my aggravation was triggered by someone playing their character, NOT the GM. Maybe I'm more patient with GM's because I have GM'ed enough to appreciate that GM's spend some of THEIR free (unpaid) time to prep scenarios to run for us. By this very act, they are showing they 'get' that it's not ALL ABOUT THEM. I wish I could say the same of people playing their characters. As a rough estimate, I'd say about one in six I've run across don't 'get it' (the cooperative/social gaming experience). I try to avoid playing with this people.
I have heard stories from other people about GM's that don't seem to get that it's not about them ... I guess I've been lucky enough in my extensive play experience (characters of level 11.2, 9.1, 8.1, 7.0, 5.2, 4.2, etc)to have never had to suffer under any of these GM's. '
Oh, and the one time I recall being annoyed by a GM? It was because he spent 1/3 of the slot talking about his own characters. XD
This is my experience as well. The problem I have is GMs either unknowingly or knowingly getting RAW blatantly wrong to the detriment of the whole party and then not wanting to take the time to correct it. I don't have a real good answer about what a GM is actually supposed to do about things like the DD brothers. In the case where it happened, the poor GM was completely blindsided (haha made a funny) by the scheme and it was too late to really do anything. Turning players away sucks, but so do heavens oracles.
|
|
Broken PCs are played by people who purposely designed them that way are at BEST are hedging against bad GMs and WORSE intentionally showing off and ruining other players' experiences.
this is a generalization. Some of my characters I admit are broken. But I do neither of those. I know my hcaracters are powerful and I do not need a bad GM to take advantage of that. I know my characters are strong I do not need the fellow players to agree. I often step out of battles to allow them to get their swords wet. I find most players I play with appreciate me, because I can always step into the battle and win it if things go awry.
When you imply all, you are (check this wording out) most often wrong.
Played *mostly* then.
I'm not talking about taking advantage of GMs. I'm talking about hedging against bad rulings by GMs. The thought is that if your PC is strong enough, you are largely proof from table variation. I'm almost sympathetic to this train of thought.
|
|
It is not jerk behavior to ensure the health of your table, game day, convention, community, or whatever.
Is there a line where stereotyping goes too far? Absolutely.
But making decisions on the health of your local community is actually part of the job description of a V-O.
Each community as a whole must decide where the line is.
And for the record, I am not suggesting a ban of whole classes, standard class abilities, or whatever.
Read my above post for a more detailed idea of what I'm referring to.
|
|
I stereotype all the time, both inside this silly little game and outside. Stereotypes exist for a reason. At some point (unfortunately) it falls to those being stereotyped to prove it wrong.
Example: I hate summoners. I hate them because 1) I hate all pet classes as they unbalance the attention of the GM and 2) because of the type of player the class attracts.
Is that fair? Probably not. Is it wrong? Who's to say? At my table, it's usually the job of someone playing a summoner to prove my beliefs wrong. Does it happen? Yep. If they live up to the stereotype, does it impact my ability to run a fun game? Certainly not.
|
|
said stuff about stereotypes
Sterotype all you want. As long as you understand and ready accept you can be wrong.
Kyle seems to admit he understand he can be wrong with his sterotypes. Kyle = cool with summoner sterotypes.
People sterotype all the time. It is a guess attempt to recognize from past expereince shared or involved in. It is human nature. The more you accept your assumption can be wrong the better you are at handling them.
I play this game because I trust and agree with for the most part with the rules Miek brock and whoever else decides what is legal. I think it is immoral to claim you are part of his orginization and not follow his rules. So a community or VO doing so I find immoral.
Here is why. I made character X. I leveled him up. I sign up for a con out of my area and signed up for and paid for events. An orginizer says well here in the area of [random place name] have decide to ban charatcers of the X variety. You have to play a pregen for the game you paid for.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Maybe one of the power gamers could take a break from scenario-breaking PCs and apply their system mastery to running NPCs in a correct fashion. Watch out, I'm almost making sense here.
Data point: I played at two tables this weekend run by the DD brothers, and had a good time.
|
|
Why summoners and not druids? I was just having this discussion with someone on the phone. Animal companions are on the order of eidolons (often have better armor class), AND they can summon with the AC out, AND they are personally much more powerful than summoners.
Because there's not a #2 reason why, druids attract a wider variety of players. FWIW, IME, most animal companions that seem overpowered aren't built correctly.
|
|
And if it doesn't? Why are we worrying about something potentially trending? Let's worry about it once it actually happens and then starts trending.
1. Because I like to see problems stopped before they start.
2. Because if a VL and a 4-Star GM say the same thing in two different threads about two different topics in one day, I can't help but wonder if it is, in fact, the start of a trend, or a sign of one already begun.
|
|
It is not jerk behavior to ensure the health of your table, game day, convention, community, or whatever.
Is there a line where stereotyping goes too far? Absolutely.
But making decisions on the health of your local community is actually part of the job description of a V-O.
Each community as a whole must decide where the line is.
And for the record, I am not suggesting a ban of whole classes, standard class abilities, or whatever.
Read my above post for a more detailed idea of what I'm referring to.
If you can't ensure the health of your table, etc., without using a method that could marginalize a non-jerk player playing with a build option you don't like, then please stop GMing.
I used the example of wizards and gunslingers because some GMs just don't like those classes. Some think that animal companions or eidolons are too powerful. Where would you say that PFS should draw the line?
My choice: be absolute about the whole thing. If a rules choice is legal, allow it. Ban players, not additional resources.
We obviously arent going to see eye to eye on this.
You feel it is black and white.
I accept the shades of gray.
Im not perfect and your expectations that any gm should be kind rankles.
|
|
Why summoners and not druids? I was just having this discussion with someone on the phone. Animal companions are on the order of eidolons (often have better armor class), AND they can summon with the AC out, AND they are personally much more powerful than summoners.Because there's not a #2 reason why, druids attract a wider variety of players. FWIW, IME, most animal companions that seem overpowered aren't built correctly.
I can see that. It's just weird that I've seen so many more ACs than eidolons be a problem.
|
I'm a baconvore.There are very few things that bacon doesn't make better. Like racial hatred, or taxes.
Especially bacon taxes. Stupid government, taking my bacon...
This is a question for the philosophers out there. Can bacon make bacon better? I'm envisioning a snake eating its own tail right about now.
|
I see a large amount of concern about 'rogue GMs' in this here thread. I guess I am skeptical. I think I've been annoyed by other PFS players at least two dozen times, and every time I can think of, save one, my aggravation was triggered by someone playing their character, NOT the GM. Maybe I'm more patient with GM's because I have GM'ed enough to appreciate that GM's spend some of THEIR free (unpaid) time to prep scenarios to run for us.
Just a quick point here. For the volunteer.GMs it is actually more than just their free time (which has a cost, for sure), but also the $3.99 per scenario (more for modules!). Plus, a GM will need to have a battlemat ($40-$110), or a good printer to do maps on (or the right lip-mats at about $12 each). Then , most will have a variety on minis, to enhance play (or perhaps the Betiary Box). On top of all that, they need to have rules mastery, which probably dans purchase of CRB, APG, UC, M, UE, the Bestiary (1-3). So, you friendly neighborhood GM has sunk many hours into learning the system, and he scenario. They probably have also spent more $$$ than you (and MUCH more than the average player).
Why do they do it?
To have fun. If selfish players are stealing their fu, why would they want to waste their time? The only way organized play works is if their are nough volunteers to make it an enjoyable experience for everyone included. It would brief ferment if GMs were paid. That, you could expect them to just grin and bear it. However, the reality of PFS play is that the GMs pay for the privilege to play (while many any players just mooch off of their good behavior)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some prolific GMs run 3, 4, 5 or even 10 or more tables a month. How good is it for the community if those tables don't happen?And all because the gm chooses to stereotype for the greater good of his table, game day, and community?
So...I started GMing PFS less then a month ago and I have my first star already...so I'm in the 10 or more class right now. So I can do whatever I want because I am a prolific GM now? Wow that's AWESOME. Well when I TPK a group because I triple the number of critters, I'll be sure to say that Andrew a VL said it was perfectly fine for me to do that because I run 10+ games a month. /s
A jackass running 10 bad games a month is STILL BAD. So instead of the jackninnie running 10 games, if you had somebody good running the games, maybe you would get more player retention. Which leads to more GMs. Which leads to not needing to have the same person running EVERYTHING. Which prevents burn out. Which means less bad games. Which means even MORE players. You grow a community with GOOD things...not repeating a lot of BAD things.
|
|
Some prolific GMs run 3, 4, 5 or even 10 or more tables a month. How good is it for the community if those tables don't happen?And all because the gm chooses to stereotype for the greater good of his table, game day, and community?
So...I started GMing PFS less then a month ago and I have my first star already...so I'm in the 10 or more class right now. So I can do whatever I want because I am a prolific GM now? Wow that's AWESOME. Well when I TPK a group because I triple the number of critters, I'll be sure to say that Andrew a VL said it was perfectly fine for me to do that because I run 10+ games a month. /s
A jackass running 10 bad games a month is STILL BAD. So instead of the jackninnie running 10 games, if you had somebody good running the games, maybe you would get more player retention. Which leads to more GMs. Which leads to not needing to have the same person running EVERYTHING. Which prevents burn out. Which means less bad games. Which means even MORE players. You grow a community with GOOD things...not repeating a lot of BAD things.
First, congrats on getting your 1st star, and thank you for supporting your local PFS community and the PFS community as a whole.
Second, please stop putting words in my mouth. It always irritates me when people throw the word “Straw Man” around willy nilly to support their own argument, but that’s what you did just there. I’m not even going to continue on with what my argument was. I’m just going to ask you to stop creating a false position for me, putting words in my mouth, and using ridiculous hyperbole in my name. Even in the name of sarcasm, it isn’t appreciated.
Lastly, a GM asking a player to not bring their Bison is not the same as outright cheating by changing a scenario. Call it what you will, but if a GM sees that EVERY time a Bison is brought to a tier 1-5 scenario, it ruins the fun of other players, then the GM is well within their rights to ask players to not bring a Bison into games they run. Furthermore, if the player refuses, the GM is well within their rights to ask the player to find another table. If the player refuses, the GM is well within their rights to remove themselves from the table.
Painting a GM who chooses the fun of the majority at the table over the rights of a singular individual as bad GMs, is a horrific misappropriation of the word bad, jackass or jackaninnie.
In other words, your right to play whatever you want within the legal bounds of organized play, stops as soon as your fun impinges on somebody else’s fun. And the GM is the arbiter to assist in making sure nobody’s fun impinges on anyone else’s fun. If that happens pre-emptively sometimes, that’s life. Life isn’t fair. Deal with it.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Jiggy:
There are several parts of your hypothetical scenario that I take issue with (amiable, well-meaning, well-balanced, team-friendly), but essentially yes.To be clear, I didn't mean to imply that anyone bringing such a build would meet those criteria; it's just that those who don't meet those criteria may need intervention anyway regardless of the build, so they're not what this thread is about.
This is about those cases (however rare they may be) when the player has done absolutely nothing wrong (isn't being a jerk, isn't overshadowing others, isn't relying on questionable rules interpretations, etc).
However, like the scenarios, I have every intention of identifying those PCs prior to sitting down at the table with them as well, which should not be hard for me locally.
In the unlikely event I find such a character is intended to be played, I will attempt to locate an alternate GM. Failing that, I will cancel the table ahead of time for lack of a GM. Failing that, I will ask the player to play another character. Failing that, I would not run that table.
It is the right thing to do, for me.
Taking measures in advance seems very responsible. Shuffing players/GMs to mutually-agreeable tables before or during muster is great.
I can even get behind cancelling the table ahead of time, though that has to get awkward when someone asks why, doesn't it?
Where it gets dicey (to me, at least) is when you get down to (probably because of a walk-in or GMing at a Con or whatever) already being at the table with a group of players, asking what everyone has, and then asking that player to play a different character or else the table doesn't happen. That's quite a pickle to put someone in when they've done nothing wrong, isn't it?
I was contemplating this last night, and came up with a question (for anyone).
What if it's the same situation with all the same qualifiers (the player's not being a jerk, the build isn't going to overshadow anyone, it's clearly legal and intended, and so forth), except that instead of the GM not wanting to share a table with such a character, it's another player? That is, what if you're going around the table doing introductions, and a player pipes up:
P1: "Wait a second, you're playing a gunslinger?"
P2: "Yep!" *smiles*
P1: "I don't really like guns in my fantasy; I wouldn't have much fun playing alongside a gunslinger. Could you play something else?"
P2: "Uh, this is my only character in tier..."
P1: "Well, then I guess I'll just bow out."
P2: "But we've only got three players; if you leave, there's no game!"
P1: "That doesn't mean I should have to play at the same table as a gunslinger; I always have the right to not play. It's the right thing to do, for me."
So, would this be considered acceptable behavior from P1? Why or why not? If not, then what's the difference between a GM doing it and a player doing it?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Jiggy, I agree with nosig. If a player just isn't gonna have fun with a gunslingr in the party, for whatever reason, then he should bow out, hopefully with grace, when a player pulls out a gunslinger.
If that makes for an illegally small table, then maybe there are other problems.
It occurs to me that there's another reason I've been tempted to decline as a GM: when someone brings to the table a character using rules I just don't understand. I've run a summoner through level 11, so I have a pretty good idea what they can and cannot do. I started the character under the Beta rules version, and changed over when the APG was released, so I know what the class can no longer do. And still, I know that over half of the eidolons at my tables have been built more powerfully than the rules allow. If I had never played a summoner, I would be at sea every time someone brought one to the table.
(And you know: I'll have players take out a summoner and its eidolon at the table, and start trying to bend rules, and I'll mention "I haven't figured out how to do that with my summoner. How are you dismissing your eidolon as a swift action?" And they stop trying to bend the rules. It's weird, huh?)
I'm playing a magus because I need to understand the Magus class. I've got a barbarian and a gunslinger in queue for the same reasons.
I don't mind a GM who says "I won't let a gunslinger at my table unless the player can explain the rules for it clearly, and I can trust her to play straight with the rules."
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
what ever else floats your boat, as long as it doesn't harm others
I think this is where I'm hitting a snag. Forcing someone else to either go home or play a pregen doesn't seem to qualify for "doesn't harm others".
Bringing a legal PC and a table-friendly attitude doesn't harm others.
Imposing an extra restriction on your tablemates and, if not accommodated at someone else's expense, send everyone home? That's no longer "doesn't harm others".