PaizoCon 2013 Wealth and Playing Up spoiler


Pathfinder Society

151 to 200 of 720 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge 4/5

rknop wrote:
Madclaw wrote:
rknop wrote:
trollbill wrote:
Deanoth wrote:
Trollbill. It might help if you not look at it as a form of dictation from the minority but rather a means to try and make people happy (including both the minorty and majority). Everyone involved.
I am looking at it that way. That is why majority rules works. Minority rules does not make everyone happy.

It's not a symmetric situation.

If you play down, some people may not feel challenged, and may not get as big of a gold payout.

If you play up, some people may be in over their head, with a greatly increased chance of their character dying.

The consequences faced by going one direction or the other are not equal. As such, simple "majority rules" can, in fact, be de facto bullying.

So, is the US election system bullying?

Utterly irrelevant.

Choosing one candidate for President vs. another candidate is a symmetric situation.

Choosing to make one set of people take excessive risks versus choosing to make another set of people receive reduced rewards is not a symmetric sistuation.

You completely and totally and utterly missed the point of what I said. You responded as if I had simply said "majority rules is bullying". That's not what I said. I said that given the asymmetry of the situation, it can be. It doesn't have to be. But if there was somebody at the table who really didn't want to play up, and who didn't agree to a vote, but the group still voted and hid behind "it's what the majority wants, it's fair!", that is bullying, and the fair business is baloney.

I was merely trying to make a bad joke.

Grand Lodge 5/5

TB, I agree it will, again this is the reason the rule is coming in to effect though. To try and minimize the problem with that. To make it so that the issue of playing down is not so bad and not as much of a penalty per se compared to what it is like now.

This will hopefully "fix" part of the issue that you are having with playing down and MM&J's hope. Mine too if that matters hehe.

But again in the situation as it is now. No one is truly happy but the best that one can truly hope for is no one to die. If someone has to play down and loose some gold, is it fair.. nope. But I would rather as a player (regardless if I am of the level that I "have to play down" or playing up) be happy and everyone at my table to be happy. Right now that is almost impossible. So Is it the lesser of two evils and play down. Or take the hard way for the lower level player and play up and possibly end in the characters death? It is a no win situation. Hence why there needs to be something done about it.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Mistwalker wrote:
Deanoth wrote:

Trollbill,

Even if it happens one time in any venue. Imagine if that was what the person at the table see's and then tells his friends that PFS sucks because of what happened. Now they in turn relay that same story to other people and so on and so on. Now there are a bunch of people that dislike PFS because of one bad experience at one table.

Word of mouth is what this organization is all about. So regardless of what is the "norm" is irrelevant. The goal here is to try and alleviate the problem by minimizing the so called penalty of playing down for the 5 people that are above the level. Instead of "forcing" someone to play up.

This is not about minority and majority or if it is fair or not. It is about trying to make the problem less then what it could be!

I am also wondering if there isn't something that can be done by Paizo to help with part of the "we will protect you and help pay for a rezzing if you die by playing up with us" promise to entice folks to play up - that is, to have a rule that would allow the GM the option of automatically deducting the said gold if such a promise were made?

I wish this could happen, but reporting is purely a numbers game and if you get audited at a game the GM is going to wonder why you didn't pay full price. It's a great sentiment but I don't think it's something that will can be implemented.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Madclaw wrote:
Mistwalker wrote:
Deanoth wrote:

Trollbill,

Even if it happens one time in any venue. Imagine if that was what the person at the table see's and then tells his friends that PFS sucks because of what happened. Now they in turn relay that same story to other people and so on and so on. Now there are a bunch of people that dislike PFS because of one bad experience at one table.

Word of mouth is what this organization is all about. So regardless of what is the "norm" is irrelevant. The goal here is to try and alleviate the problem by minimizing the so called penalty of playing down for the 5 people that are above the level. Instead of "forcing" someone to play up.

This is not about minority and majority or if it is fair or not. It is about trying to make the problem less then what it could be!

I am also wondering if there isn't something that can be done by Paizo to help with part of the "we will protect you and help pay for a rezzing if you die by playing up with us" promise to entice folks to play up - that is, to have a rule that would allow the GM the option of automatically deducting the said gold if such a promise were made?

Why not just have the GM note it on the "died" player's chronicle sheet, and also note the gold spent on the other players chronicle sheets?

I wish this could happen, but reporting is purely a numbers game and if you get audited at a game the GM is going to wonder why you didn't pay full price. It's a great sentiment but I don't think it's something that will can be implemented.

Edit for a typo

4/5

trollbill wrote:
I am not sure how MAJORITY RULES = BULLYING. Nor am I clear on why you think the minority should trump the majority. That is not to say that the majority can't bully the minority, just that the concept of taking a voted has always seem the fairest method I can think of and is hardly what I would call bullying.

Because losing out on some gold is a much lesser consequence than losing your character.

1/5

rknop wrote:

It's not a symmetric situation.

If you play down, some people may not feel challenged, and may not get as big of a gold payout.

If you play up, some people may be in over their head, with a greatly increased chance of their character dying.

The consequences faced by going one direction or the other are not equal. As such, simple "majority rules" can, in fact, be de facto bullying.

1. We don't know the net impact of forcing 5 players to play down to accommodate 1 player. Claiming it is simply less of a challenge and lost gold is overlooking any resentment toward the player or GM, or disillusionment with PFS. We are talking about all five players wanting to play up, not just one or two. Any objective look at psychology says that is not a net win.

As I stated, if I were that one player, I would agree to step aside so five other players could enjoy a better game (or I'd play a pregen). It's hard not to see a refusal to do that as one person imposing their will on five. As a GM, I'm not letting one person dictate to five. Nobody is forcing that one player to play up. They have a choice to join a group or not.

2. The situation we are looking at is a table which can legally play up, not five level 2's forcing a level 1 character to play 4-5. Playing up among five other players is not a "greatly increased chance of their character dying." In fact, depending on the scenario or the character's play style, it could be the exact opposite. I played up at 3 in Tier 6-7 and there was zero risk and exposure. Never even got hit or targeted. Now, if I had insisted on running into melee or trying to disable traps beyond my pay grade, then yes, I'd probably have face planted. More to the point, it's not like there is zero risk of death playing down for that low level character. So we are talking about percentages we don't/can't know.

The bottom line is that there should be no "bullying" either way. I would hope that players could have a mature discussion. I would hope the GM would let the players decide and that players exercise their right to withdraw from the game if they don't think they'll enjoy it on either side of the fence.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Can we try to refocus on the rules change versus the bullying aspect of the topic? I'm all for that discussion but let's take it to a new board if that's what you'd like to focus on.

In an effort to redirect the topic: How do people feel about the latter half of the rule about playing Out and Up for less gold?

1/5

redward wrote:
Because losing out on some gold is a much lesser consequence than losing your character.

Reducing it to a loss of gold undermines the credibility of this perspective. When you have five people who are in agreement and one that is not and the GM forces all five to accommodate the one, then you've crossed over into taking away people's freedom of choice.

Juxtaposing a loss of gold with character death is an inaccurate assessment of trade-offs.

Sczarni 2/5

Madclaw wrote:
I agree. As stated I enjoy playing up and enjoy the rewards (challenge and treasure) for such. My complaint and many others, is this reduced gold for playing Out and Up (totally coining that phrase as it relates to this). But I'm not sure it's going to fix the problem. Those that game the system to gain more gold are going to find ways to game the system anyways. It's the problem about reactive changes made to things. Those that are truly concerned with gaming the system are going to find a way. Simple as that. Thus, I don't see the need to reduce the reward to those who just enjoy playing up.

One bad apple spoils the bunch, unfortunately. That's why there's no item creation allowed. That's why modules were changed to require you pay for your deaths and reduce the the exp/prestige per death. That's why nobody can play evil characters.

Just because I can be a responsible adult and play an evil character that is not only a fantastic team player and an asset to the team while making sure everyone has fun doesn't mean that Joe Shmoe with his CE Ranger is going to do so responsibly as well.

Unfortunately, those that do game the system will always find ways to do it, regardless of the rules changes made, but sometimes it's the best that can be done given the circumstances to try to curb it somewhat.

I, too, will miss the magnificent rewards for surviving a scenario at a higher tier, but I was always doing it just for the fun of the challenge. In all likelihood, I will continue to vote for playing up, even if I'm getting a lesser reward than before because, hey, I like the challenge!

When I lost my lowbie character at that table of higher levels that left me for dead, I was upset. I lost a character, and that kinda sucks at level 3, but I wasn't absolutely broken hearted over it. What upset me was the attitudes of the people that forced me to play up and then threw me under the snarling, tooth-filled, bus. Yes, I could've gotten up and walked away, but at that time I had much less of a backbone and willingness to stand up for myself in a group campaign setting like this than I do now.

Tangent Time:
Recently, I was "forced" to play down at a table during Paizocon '13 due to the social pressure of a particular player at the table. I could've just walked away and saved myself the heartache of missing out on Waking Rune Hard Mode with the character I REALLY wanted to play through it with, but the player in question was my mother.

She'd just recently started her battle with quitting smoking (and she's still doing a great job!), had lost her wallet that morning, and hadn't gotten much sleep so she was pretty stinkin' cranky. If I had walked away, I would've been hearing about it for weeks afterward if it had gone poorly for them. As it was, not only did we play down, but we ran out of time to finish and failed by default. I got 2k gold on my level 11 retiring character.

But ya know what upset me about that? The lost gold? Nope. The lost prestige? Ehh. The fact that that cowardly Runelord escaped his explosively-shocking-grasp-crit-fest death? Ooooh, you betcha.

The fact of the matter is simply that we're going to have to wait to see what the final ruling really is. At this point, we're really only arguing over the principle of the thing and not how the execution will really pan out. As far as I can tell, the change in the play up/down reward level is really only going to have an effect on those that play out of tier regularly, and this should help encourage people to try to stay in their own subtiers as often as possible. If it's only once in a blue moon, why complain about it?

If you're only playing up for the challenge and the fun, then don't complain about the reduced reward.

If you're stuck playing down on a regular basis, perhaps you should consider making a new character or few to give you the option of playing with others of a closer level.

4/5

Madclaw wrote:

Can we try to refocus on the rules change versus the bullying aspect of the topic? I'm all for that discussion but let's take it to a new board if that's what you'd like to focus on.

In an effort to redirect the topic: How do people feel about the latter half of the rule about playing Out and Up for less gold?

Agreed. There's a thread for that.

2/5 ****

I've been playing PFS since 2009. I've got 9 characters, about 98 scenarios and a half dozen modules played, and I'm closing in on my 2nd GMing star.

I just got my first character to 12th - a fighter - including ~3600 in expended gear (potions purchased and used, old armor sold off for half price), he's got 143,466 in gear.

I played Curse of the Riven Sky, and played third fiddle to the Druid's velociraptor and the summoner's Eidolon making 8 attacks per round.

My character would've required some small measure of tactical thinking in Riven Sky. With the two pets, I was lucky to make one attack roll per combat if I got within position to use Improved Vital Strike.

Mostly by luck of initial positioning, I did manage to get a fully hasted Falcata full attack on the primary villain of the piece, after the Paladin burned two Smite Evils to give the Aura of Judgement.

5/5

Y'all need to calm your respective secondary sexual characteristics. We don't even know what the rule is yet.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since when has lack of knowledge ever stopped us from arguing?

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

TOZ wrote:
Since when has lack of knowledge ever stopped us from arguing?

My experience is it actually increases it. After all, there is soooo much that can be done with conjecture.

5/5

TOZ wrote:
Since when has lack of knowledge ever stopped us from arguing?

Argue away. I'm just saying this thread's getting slightly out of hand.

Silver Crusade

I think I will just go with the wait and see idea....

The Exchange 4/5 Owner - D20 Hobbies

Deanoth wrote:

It is not JUST about wealth when it comes to the above situation and Mike Brock and the team address this

but for now Mike and the team need to start somewhere and I think this is a good choice.

I think it is just about the wealth imbalance and I'm not convinced that a better place to start isn't softball GM, GM's that don't follow the rules in the Guide to PFS.

Jack-of-Blades wrote:
they left my corpse there, finished the scenario, and then refused to help me with my raise dead because I "Hadn't contributed meaningfully to the scenario, nor had I pulled my weight at any point."

This is the kind of reprehensible behavior I wish campaign leadership would tackle instead.

pathar wrote:
One final note: If they demand help, they're on their own.

If I'm at a table and player A dies (whether by their own stupidly or not), I'm chipping in to help them and I'll demand (in a polite way) that others help. When they don't, I chip in what they didn't. But I'm that way and some people can be rather selfish.

Chad Newman wrote:
making some extra gold worth alienating a player at a game night? Is that in the spirit of PFS?

Tonight's game was tier 3-7 with me playing a level 6, but two level 2 players showed and we had the GM switch to a tier 1-5 and I played a level 5 that I only play to "fill tables."

I'd rather have played my current character, but that would mean sending two players home.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Chad Newman wrote:

What is sad is if that means the sixth player doesn't get to play.

So ask yourself, is making some extra gold worth alienating a player at a game night? Is that in the spirit of PFS? If you answered yes you are playing for the wrong reason.

QFT.

Additionally, there is a reasonable chance that the lower level player in question is likely less experienced, newer, or enjoys games for the story/social aspects and not the combat. This kinds of actions not only drive players away from that game day but PFS.

I have one friend that got "voted by the majority" (bullied) to play a pregen he didn't want to play, he hasn't been back since. I know a less experienced player who died due to being asked to play up, quit PFS for a year.

Selfish players do not strengthen PFS, but I'm noticing that this is becoming a disturbing trend.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:


Jack-of-Blades wrote:
they left my corpse there, finished the scenario, and then refused to help me with my raise dead because I "Hadn't contributed meaningfully to the scenario, nor had I pulled my weight at any point."

This is the kind of reprehensible behavior I wish campaign leadership would tackle instead.

Ok I'm all ears on suggestions. Campaign leadership can't be all over the globe for every game and we can't physically stop someone from playing. So, what suggestions do you have for tackling this specific kind of problem? If we could stop the very few players out there from being jerks, we wouldn't have nearly as many complaints on this message board or in my email inbox.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Michael Brock wrote:
Ok I'm all ears on suggestions. Campaign leadership can't be all over the globe for every game and we can't physically stop someone from playing. So, what suggestions do you have for tackling this specific kind of problem? If we could stop the very few players out there from being jerks, we wouldn't have nearly as many complaints on this message board or in my email inbox.

Put in a new rule/GM option:

If the play up crowd says: "we will protect you and help pay for a rezzing if you die by playing up with us" promise to entice folks to play up, then have a rule that would allow the GM the option of automatically deducting the said gold if such a promise were made.

If the GM uses that rule, write on the chronicle sheets that gold was spent for the play up group, and on the rezzed character, write that other party members contributed to the rezzing (to explain the lower than expected gold cost for the rez).

Perhaps also encourage the GM to make sure the play up group is aware of said rule/option,

Scarab Sages 5/5

trollbill wrote:

...

Ironic, considering we are a Democracy.

We are not a Democracy, we are a Republic; what the Founding Fathers were quite worried about was the country becoming a Democracy. In a Democracy it is mob-rule - while the Republic limits the ability for a majority to dictate to the minority.

(assuming of course you were talking about the United States of America)

1/5

Eh, Mistwalker, I'm not sure how feasible such a rule could be. How would you enforce it?

Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

MisterSlanky wrote:

I have one friend that got "voted by the majority" (bullied) to play a pregen he didn't want to play, he hasn't been back since. I know a less experienced player who died due to being asked to play up, quit PFS for a year.

Selfish players do not strengthen PFS, but I'm noticing that this is becoming a disturbing trend.

This.

It's a game people. Everyone should have at least some fun.

I make a point that Ksenia's a b~@~&, I'm not. Heck, she's been sitting on a restoration boon from <redacted> for emergencies, but I've offered to cast it twice now for characters who were in situations. Both times the players declined, but the point is, metagamy, we're a team and having fun, even if our PCs don't get along.

Scarab Sages 5/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Michael Brock wrote:


Ok I'm all ears on suggestions. Campaign leadership can't be all over the globe for every game and we can't physically stop someone from playing. So, what suggestions do you have for tackling this specific kind of problem? If we could stop the very few players out there from being jerks, we wouldn't have nearly as many complaints on this message board or in my email inbox.

How about the ability to get a loan from the Pathfinder Society to pay for raise dead - and pay it off over the next X adventures - make there be a PP cost for getting the loan. Once you sell off all of your equipment to get the raise dead and the restorations - you are not going to be as useful as a Pathfinder agent.

Sovereign Court 5/5

TOZ wrote:
Since when has lack of knowledge ever stopped us from arguing?

You're wrong.

5/5

Dhjika wrote:
How about the ability to get a loan from the Pathfinder Society to pay for raise dead - and pay it off over the next X adventures - make there be a PP cost for getting the loan. Once you sell off all of your equipment to get the raise dead and the restorations - you are not going to be as useful as a Pathfinder agent.

Hmm...

4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mistwalker wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
Ok I'm all ears on suggestions. Campaign leadership can't be all over the globe for every game and we can't physically stop someone from playing. So, what suggestions do you have for tackling this specific kind of problem? If we could stop the very few players out there from being jerks, we wouldn't have nearly as many complaints on this message board or in my email inbox.

Put in a new rule/GM option:

If the play up crowd says: "we will protect you and help pay for a rezzing if you die by playing up with us" promise to entice folks to play up, then have a rule that would allow the GM the option of automatically deducting the said gold if such a promise were made.

If the GM uses that rule, write on the chronicle sheets that gold was spent for the play up group, and on the rezzed character, write that other party members contributed to the rezzing (to explain the lower than expected gold cost for the rez).

Perhaps also encourage the GM to make sure the play up group is aware of said rule/option,

I don't think we need additional rules for this.

How about instead, if 5 players desperately need to play up (you know, because of the challenge) and one player really wants to play down (because he's a bully that hates fun), the one player agrees to play up on the condition that all 6 characters pool the money for a Raise Dead and put it in escrow at the First National Bank of Absalom.

If lowbie dies, the funds bring him back. If he survives, everyone gets their money back.

Since it's about the challenge, and not about the gold, I'm sure the 5 players will readily agree.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
FanaticRat wrote:
Eh, Mistwalker, I'm not sure how feasible such a rule could be. How would you enforce it?

When the GM fills out the chronicle sheet, they put in the gold spent, without giving the play up group a choice if they don't voluntarily give up the gold for the rez (and if they do, then the chronicle sheet still needs to have the gold spent indicated - so just have the GM fill in that part, to keep things simple).

If there is insufficient gold, either the Ten cover the extra, or Prestige Points are deducted (this would have to be a exception to allow several characters to spend prestige to rez a fellow PC - and others may want to be able to do so even if it isn't a play up situation).

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mike,

What campaign leadership -- you and John, but more especially the Venture Officers -- can do is help set a tone. "This is the kind of community we are." It's not an in-character thing, although it could be:

"In this one hour quest, your team is sent to retrieve the fallen body of a Pathfinder after her team-mates -- all now on punishment duty -- left her in the were-bear's lair." This is a player-level problem, first and foremost. Addressing it on a character-level, instituting a prestige penalty on survivors for example, doesn't help.

We all need to be reminded that we're here to help one another have fun. (This is just one example.) Hey, now that I think about it, do the Venture Officers have any way to give a cookie to a player who is particularly selfless or rollicking fun to play with?

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Chris Mortika wrote:
Hey, now that I think about it, do the Venture Officers have any way to give a cookie to a player who is particularly selfless or rollicking fun to play with?

I can't think of any PFS venues in my area that don't sell cookies or similar treats, if you meant "cookie" literally. :)

The Exchange 4/5 Owner - D20 Hobbies

Michael Brock wrote:
Ok I'm all ears on suggestions. Campaign leadership can't be all over the globe for every game and we can't physically stop someone from playing.

My immediate thought is some sort of "training" videos for GMs released on a periodic basis. I'm not talking high production value. But basically a weekly or every other week video (10 minutes? 20 minutes?) talking about one subject.

Think sort of like what Magic the Gathering judges do, they have judge (GM basically) forums and they help teach each other how to handle a variety of problems. From better understanding the rules to how to handle offensive or disruptive players.

Most of the seminars subjects that they hold at judge conferences are designed, developed and "performed" by independent judges. So the development cost is minimal, as you may find GM's will volunteer the time to produce the content that will help their fellow judges.

But this is just my immediate thought, as I'm also a Level 1 Magic Judge and I see the benefit their training does for their community. Something that doesn't cost WotC anything to provide (since it is all done by the judges.)

The Exchange 4/5 Owner - D20 Hobbies

redward wrote:
Since it's about the challenge, and not about the gold, I'm sure the 5 players will readily agree.

I know I would, since I've always paid my share of another player's res cost and often other people's share if they refused to help.

Chris Mortika wrote:
Addressing it on a character-level, instituting a prestige penalty on survivors for example, doesn't help.

Sounds great, probably would work in practice. But the GM should be in control of enacting it to prevent some person who is purposefully disruptive from harming the other players. I can remember back to one RPGA game I was at when a player just started killing all the NPCs (even the good ones giving us a quest) and just utterly ruining the game for the whole table. That kind of player would die on purpose just so the other players are required to pay for his res. Or something similarly obnoxious.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 *** Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant

You mean training like GM 101 that can be run pretty much anywhere? Its not a video, because its very interactive, though I think there have been some podcast recordings of it.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

trollbill wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
If majority gets to decide, will they pay for the minorities death? Or is them forcing him to play up still his responsibility?

And if the minority gets to decide, when I die 10 mods down the road because constantly being forced to play down makes my WBL well below average will the minority pay for my death? Yes, I know that isn't as likely to happen, but the point is the same.

Again, to be clear, my arguments do not apply to situations where the APL should clearly dictate what tier the party plays. It only applies to borderline situations. In borderline situations, the increased risk should not be substantial.

And, for the record, I usually advocate the party pooling its wealth to pay for raise deads.

And, also for the record, I am not advocating for the people to play up (or down) to get their way. I am advocating for the method that makes the most people happy.

What I see are people claiming that they want to stop bullying, but in reality all they are doing is changing who gets to be the bully. To quote Pete Townsend, "Here comes the knew boss, same as the old boss."

The bullying comes in when you have an APL hit in the middle or because of rounding hits the middle. Typically this only happens when the majority of characters are within the sub-tier.

So if you have a 5 playing down in a 3-7, that is assumed to happen. GM credit assumes you always play down when you fall between sub-tiers.

So no, I don't think your counterpoint is valid.

But to demand that majority rules, and then the guy who wanted to play down has his character die and you refuse to help get him raised? That's just being a jerk and is extremely typical of a bully.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

trollbill wrote:
Deanoth wrote:
If the 5 play up and force the other to do so.. then it will be a form of bullying. So you as a group are not going to be left out for being friendly for the one person unable to truly not play-up.
There are more reasons than just gold for people to not want to play down. You are claiming it is bullying for 5 people to force 1 to play up, yet for reasons that escape all sense of logic, it is not bullying for one person to force 5 others play down. Bullying is bullying.

What are some of the reasons why someone might want to play down?

It might be:

  • They are a new player and don’t have confidence in the system or their character to play at a challenge level designed for a higher level character.

  • They are a veteran player and they know their character won’t survive at the higher level, for whatever reasons.

  • Other: I’m sure there are a plethora of other reasons.

But most often, the ones who allow themselves to get bullied, are the new players (or casual ones) who don’t have confidence in themselves or their game mastery enough to stand up for themselves.

If what happened to Jack-of-Blades happens to these folks just as they get a 3rd level character, and they don’t have the wherewithal to cover their own raise dead let alone the two negative levels without breaking themselves and selling all their gear… they probably won’t come back.

So do we want the culture of this game to be “Majority Rules” even if it might chase away a new or casual player?

The Exchange 4/5 Owner - D20 Hobbies

Eric Clingenpeel wrote:
You mean training like GM 101 that can be run pretty much anywhere? Its not a video, because its very interactive, though I think there have been some podcast recordings of it.

Yea, but also things like:

Weekly policy scenarios like "a player tries to attack another player's character, what do you do" in a forum discussion format.

Video with all the rules on Animal Companions as a primar.

Call it ongoing GM training

5/5

Michael Brock wrote:
James Risner wrote:


Jack-of-Blades wrote:
they left my corpse there, finished the scenario, and then refused to help me with my raise dead because I "Hadn't contributed meaningfully to the scenario, nor had I pulled my weight at any point."

This is the kind of reprehensible behavior I wish campaign leadership would tackle instead.

Ok I'm all ears on suggestions. Campaign leadership can't be all over the globe for every game and we can't physically stop someone from playing. So, what suggestions do you have for tackling this specific kind of problem? If we could stop the very few players out there from being jerks, we wouldn't have nearly as many complaints on this message board or in my email inbox.

Is there anything in the Guide about disputing GM conduct? I don't recall anything, and I just took a glance through at section titles without seeing anything leap out at me. Maybe a section somewhere in the player-oriented chapters about checking in with higher authorities when one feels wronged by the end result of a game?

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Mistwalker wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
Ok I'm all ears on suggestions. Campaign leadership can't be all over the globe for every game and we can't physically stop someone from playing. So, what suggestions do you have for tackling this specific kind of problem? If we could stop the very few players out there from being jerks, we wouldn't have nearly as many complaints on this message board or in my email inbox.

Put in a new rule/GM option:

If the play up crowd says: "we will protect you and help pay for a rezzing if you die by playing up with us" promise to entice folks to play up, then have a rule that would allow the GM the option of automatically deducting the said gold if such a promise were made.

If the GM uses that rule, write on the chronicle sheets that gold was spent for the play up group, and on the rezzed character, write that other party members contributed to the rezzing (to explain the lower than expected gold cost for the rez).

Perhaps also encourage the GM to make sure the play up group is aware of said rule/option,

Rule or not, but if this promise was made to entice the guy to play up, as a GM, I'm enforcing it regardless.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Andrew Christian wrote:
Mistwalker wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
Ok I'm all ears on suggestions. Campaign leadership can't be all over the globe for every game and we can't physically stop someone from playing. So, what suggestions do you have for tackling this specific kind of problem? If we could stop the very few players out there from being jerks, we wouldn't have nearly as many complaints on this message board or in my email inbox.

Put in a new rule/GM option:

If the play up crowd says: "we will protect you and help pay for a rezzing if you die by playing up with us" promise to entice folks to play up, then have a rule that would allow the GM the option of automatically deducting the said gold if such a promise were made.

If the GM uses that rule, write on the chronicle sheets that gold was spent for the play up group, and on the rezzed character, write that other party members contributed to the rezzing (to explain the lower than expected gold cost for the rez).

Perhaps also encourage the GM to make sure the play up group is aware of said rule/option,

Rule or not, but if this promise was made to entice the guy to play up, as a GM, I'm enforcing it regardless.

Well, if it is a rule, it is easier to enforce, will likely have less negative backlash and complaints from the play up side, and be more consistently applied around the world.

1/5

Andrew Christian wrote:
Rule or not, but if this promise was made to entice the guy to play up, as a GM, I'm enforcing it regardless.

This would be my response as well. In the US legal system, if you make a promise to someone to do something and that person relies upon your promise and would suffer harm if the promise were not kept, you can sue them under the doctrine of reliance. I promise to buy you a new car if you sell your existing car. If I don't buy you a new car, you can sue me.

Just as others have said, if five or even one player makes a promise of rezing to entice a lowbie to play up, then require that the money be subtracted before hand and returned if not needed. This will go a long way in having those who made the promise protect said lowbie.

But there are a couple of caveats:

1. You need to get the players who make the promise to write it down and sign it, preferably on the chronicle sheet before the adventure begins. We don't want situations where the players made no such promise and the GM imposes one. I have no doubt there are lowbies who want to play up for the loot without any encouragement.

2. Lowbies must sell half their goods in order to invoke the promise. Death is a risk regardless of what subtier someone plays at. It's unfair to stick the entire group with a players death, especially when that player might have died if everyone had played a character appropriate to the lower tier. As a result, anyone who dies under this contract should have expend half their total wealth as part of the rez. This motivates the lowbie to play smart and not take stupid risks.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

N N 959 wrote:


2. Lowbies must sell half their goods in order to invoke the promise. Death is a risk regardless of what subtier someone plays at. It's unfair to stick the entire group with a players death, especially when that player might have died if everyone had played a character appropriate to the lower tier. As a result, anyone who dies under this contract should have expend half their total wealth as part of the rez. This motivates the lowbie to play smart and not take stupid risks.

I agreed with every part of your post but this one.

No.

No. No. No.

Requiring any selling of equipment because someone was forced or cajoled or bullied into playing up, is IMHO, part of the problem.

The easiest way to solve this problem is to codify that playing up must be unanimous. If its a rule, then there is no more argument about majority or not.

1/5

Andrew Christian wrote:


I agreed with every part of your post but this one.

No.

No. No. No.

Requiring any selling of equipment because someone was forced or cajoled or bullied into playing up, is IMHO, part of the problem.

The easiest way to solve this problem is to codify that playing up must be unanimous. If its a rule, then there is no more argument about majority or not.

There should be no "bullying" whatsoever. You show up at the game store, and five people want to play Shadow Run. You either agree to play or you go home. Nobody is "bullied." You make a choice to be part of the group and accept some of the challenge and the risk or you refuse.

No GM should sit there and allow one player to intimidate another player. It's a simple questions to the one player, "Do you want to play up or not. If not, then you can play pre-gen or wait until next time." If one or more of the players in agreement make a promise to raise you if you die, then players write down and sign it.

Nobody is "forced" to do anything.

But if you agree to play up, then you are also intentionally accepting some of that risk. In fact, the risk might be greater if ALL the other players decided to play characters appropriate to the lower level. Playing down does not eliminate risk of death. There is zero way to prove that playing up with level appropriate characters increases your risk of death. Every single player accepts that risk when they start an adventure. Agreeing to play, means you have accepted some risk of death.

Allowing one player to avoid any consequences from death is going to create all kinds of unintended consequences. Seriously. There has to be some risk/consequence for bad decision making, regardless.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

Andrew Christian wrote:


So do we want the culture of this game to be “Majority Rules” even if it might chase away a new or casual player?

This has been mentioned by several others but I fail to see the reasoning behind the assumption that if one person has a bad experience they won't be back but if 5 people have a bad experience they will.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

trollbill wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:


So do we want the culture of this game to be “Majority Rules” even if it might chase away a new or casual player?
This has been mentioned by several others but I fail to see the reasoning behind the assumption that if one person has a bad experience they won't be back but if 5 people have a bad experience they will.

I have yet to see a tweener group that gets to choose to play up or down, play down and have a bad time because of it.

But the culture of attitudes needs to change, if any or all of those 5 tweener players are willing to tell the other player to play up or go home.

That attitude is not acceptable and should not be acceptable to anyone, anywhere.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

N N 959 wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:


I agreed with every part of your post but this one.

No.

No. No. No.

Requiring any selling of equipment because someone was forced or cajoled or bullied into playing up, is IMHO, part of the problem.

The easiest way to solve this problem is to codify that playing up must be unanimous. If its a rule, then there is no more argument about majority or not.

There should be no "bullying" whatsoever. You show up at the game store, and five people want to play Shadow Run. You either agree to play or you go home. Nobody is "bullied." You make a choice to be part of the group and accept some of the challenge and the risk or you refuse.

No GM should sit there and allow one player to intimidate another player. It's a simple questions to the one player, "Do you want to play up or not. If not, then you can play pre-gen or wait until next time." If one or more of the players in agreement make a promise to raise you if you die, then players write down and sign it.

Nobody is "forced" to do anything.

But if you agree to play up, then you are also intentionally accepting some of that risk. In fact, the risk might be greater if ALL the other players decided to play characters appropriate to the lower level. Playing down does not eliminate risk of death. There is zero way to prove that playing up with level appropriate characters increases your risk of death. Every single player accepts that risk when they start an adventure. Agreeing to play, means you have accepted some risk of death.

Allowing one player to avoid any consequences from death is going to create all kinds of unintended consequences. Seriously. There has to be some risk/consequence for bad decision making, regardless.

So what you are saying is, as a GM or game day coordinator, you will simply inform the less experienced player, whether it is because they are newer or casual, that they can go with what the other 5 want to do, no matter how much he is uncomfortable with it, or they can go home?

You feel this is acceptable behavior?

Seriously?!

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

Mistwalker wrote:


Well, if it is a rule, it is easier to enforce, will likely have less negative backlash and complaints from the play up side, and be more consistently applied around the world.

It is a rule. It's called "Don't be a jerk." The problem is that DMs and organizers do not seem to be enforcing this rule.

Part of the problem is that most people, for a variety of reasons, don't report problems like this immediately when they occur, which makes dealing with them much more difficult.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

Andrew Christian wrote:


But the culture of attitudes needs to change, if any or all of those 5 tweener players are willing to tell the other player to play up or go home.

That attitude is not acceptable and should not be acceptable to anyone, anywhere.

You have no argument from me on this point.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

James Risner wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
Ok I'm all ears on suggestions. Campaign leadership can't be all over the globe for every game and we can't physically stop someone from playing.

My immediate thought is some sort of "training" videos for GMs released on a periodic basis. I'm not talking high production value. But basically a weekly or every other week video (10 minutes? 20 minutes?) talking about one subject.

This idea seems pretty cool. I think that the podcast Mike, Mark, and John dropped on us earlier this year went over quite well. Having more of those (albeit shorter ones) would likely serve to improve PFS awareness across the globe as well as make everyone feel like they are part of a greater community.

Being unaware of that greater community often leads to the squabbling that derails games. Like players not contributing to party resources, or helping one another get revived. If everyone at the the table, even the GM, shares the mentality "that we're all in this together," everyone is going to have a better time.

151 to 200 of 720 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / PaizoCon 2013 Wealth and Playing Up spoiler All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.