|
Just wanted to address this:
1) This entire thread is kinda in bad taste, since it was a single perspective from another thread that got turned into its own thread by another poster who made an assumption that the original OP was 100% correct.
Not so much that they where correct as that they might be and there are a lot of accounts like this that seem to be putting a bad taste in people's mouths about the leadership (in general).
2) Why do you have to have public proof that a V-O has been chastised? For the same reason that I won't call out a GM by name for making a mistake publicly, nor change a GM's decision for a mistake they might have made, if you start airing dirty laundry of the volunteers who essentially make this campaign go, they will...
Might just be that they wanted to vent. Or that it is important to see that things like this are handled openly, both so that they are actually handled and so that the various rulings are more out there. It isn't to punish, or to make a spectacle of the punishment. Especially if it seems like they have the attitude that they can do whatever they want. Maybe they just want to vent, or just feel a bit of empathy or sympathy from the community. There a lot of reasons I can think of honestly.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So instead of openly calling for a VOs head, just ask the rules question. Mike will publicly post the correct PFS answer and even some regular rules stuff. He has corrected me, publicly, on a rules thing before. I appreciated it, because I learned something.
But to have a V-O publicly vilified and to have Mike publicly chastise them does no good for anyone. Puts a public target on that person's, a volunteer, back. How long do you think they continue to volunteer at extreme expense of personal time and money if they become a public pariah because if public chastisement?
And how many others will choose to take in the thankless responsibility when they know that even should they be right, they could be publicly chastised?
Bad, bad idea. Is it so hard to trust that Mike knows what he's doing and that if action is necessary he will take it quietly?
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
Just wanted to address this:
Not so much that they where correct as that they might be and there are a lot of accounts like this that seem to be putting a bad taste in people's mouths about the leadership (in general).
I'm curious of what your definition of "a lot" is? I've seen three publicly in the last few months. With more than 320 VCs and VLs and more than 5,000 reported game sessions, I hardly call that "a lot." Could you please email me links so I can address any incidents I've missed?
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I'm just going to chime in with this:
Being in a position of "leadership" such as a venture officer (or coordinator or GM, for that matter) exposes you to criticism. Taking that criticism, and knowing what is legitimate and what is not, is part of the "leadership" role you have assumed. The higher you are, of course, the more likely you are to experience some very vocal criticism. After all, we all know what kind of criticism Mike (and his predecessors) have regularly endured.
But if you are the kind of person who can do these jobs, you are also the kind of person who can filter out the "noise" and know what you have to pay attention to.
Being occasionally questioned publicly is not the end of the world. Sure, it may be in poor taste on the part of whoever does the questioning, but most often the person doing the criticizing is the one subsequently getting the blow back. There is no real reason to argue the validity of this thread.
Meaning, by the way, that people get mad about things. Let them get mad and air their grievances. How you then handle it is what matters.
|
|
To be honest, Andrew, which is better?
Have a potential issue brought up so that people who are peripherally involved have a heads up that there are dissenting viewpoints, or to go to your local Game Day, and find out, cold that your local VC is now the former local VC, and that, despite not being handled in any way publicly, that the difference of opinion was obviously fairly major?
|
I question Drogon's willingness to be a reasonable and thoughtful person. Because of this, I assume him to be a robot. I don't think it's fair that robots can be 5-star gms.
Also. I agree with everything Drogonbot has stated, and the position of Mike Brock and PFS to punish privately, and praise publicly.
this situation was a simple case of a gm, who happened to be a venture captain, making a mistake
Our friendly gnome-toting VC made an error, he was clearly wrong as per the rules of pathfinder.
Both sides have plead their case, and I fully believe that neither is telling the whole truth, or at least failing to explain it in perfect neutrality. That is a nearly impossible thing to do; especially for people who aren't trained in doing it, like say, a lawyer or police officer.
Perception is reality. In this case, the player perceived the GM was attempting to remove his actions through spite or poorly applied inference.
The GM perceived this player had a different interpretation of the rule, and overly boisterously argued, to the detriment of the game.
clearly, and impasse was come upon, and mistakes were made, then posted on these here internets for us to speak about.
Now i wasn't there, I can't read the emotional level or what constitutes "blew up" I do think a mistake was made, and it wasn't handled as appropriately as it could have been, oh well.
I will make this note however.
"Blew up" can mean, VERY different things based on the situation. It's an evocative phrase intended to make the user seem calm and controlled by comparison, I don't think it's a good phrase to use when trying to accurately describe a situation, unless a bomb or grenade literally exploded.
I could certainly be called out for "blowing up" at a GM of mine at gencon.
sorry this is a long one, i'm trying to be as objective and factual as possible, but I don't think i'll succeed.
I will preface this by saying, I didn't email anyone and i'm not going to call out this GM, myself and 2 of my friends played at this same table, and only I had an issue with him, which I will try to detail as neutrally as possible.
I don't think he's a bad GM, or a Bad person, but I was certainly very frustrated at the time.
So i sat down, and I have a blaster wizard with both wayang spellhunter, and magical lineage, applied to burning arc.
The GM asked if there are any special things characters do, that he should be aware of. I informed him of my burning arc's dazing spell, and save DCs and (if he needed it, i cant' remember) how the spell functions.
He told me "oh you mean metamagic mastery* and magical lineage, those don't stack, but it's fine go ahead and use them".
I said "they do stack, it's been stated and asked for FAQ and the FAQ response is "not required" meaning the stipulation is correct.
He replied "do a little more research, and you'll find it, but they don't stack".
*Metamagic mastery is what d20pfsrd changed wayang spellhunter to after they opened a store.
Now I took some offense to this, as I have asked the question at least 4 times, and still search regularly to see if a ruling has been made.
I also put a good deal of research into how/if ideas work, so my ego flared a bit when my research was so offhandedly* dismissed. *
(an emotional, and mostly unreasonable reaction, but trying to be objective here)
I also took offense to the fact that he was allowing me to cheat*.
*I felt like he was allowing me to cheat, by the way he stated it, it is possible his intention is that it wasn't clear enough to define either way and therefore was fine with it's inclusion.
Lastly, I don't want anyone else to be allowed to cheat, so I'm not hugely fond of "oh that's illegal, but go ahead" which is how I took his statement, not assuredly how he meant it.
on to the game, all went well.
Then chronicle sheets.
I was level 8, I got proper gold, one of my friends was 6, he got OOS gold, the other friend was 7. he got 8-9 gold. I saw the sheet and said "you're supposed to have OOS gold, because you're level 7, no worries just have him change it"
Now this is day 1 of gencon, new OP guide, mistakes happen, i'm not worried about it at all.
GM says "no you're supposed to get that gold."
I Chime in and (trying to be nice, but still a bit miffed that I played under the pretense of cheating) "Nope, if you're not one of the 2 levels of the sub-tier, you get out of sub-tier gold."
He tells me "this is what I was told at the ops desk"
I say "Well, that person was mistaken, this is the reason OOS exists."
at this point he was clearly frustrated, and said something along the lines of "I'm going to talk to Brock myself and get it figured out"
I responded (exasperated) "Good!" at this point I am certain I was being far from quiet. not yelling, but certainly raised voice.
Then I *threw my hands up* and said "whatever".
He then said "i'm sick of people throwing their hands up at me"
now, I believe i was able to stifle myself at this point, left and adjusted my friends chronicle sheet myself.
I remember saying (though I can't remember if I bit my tongue and only mentioned it to friends or not) "If you don't want people to throw their hands up and say whatever, you have to listen when they speak."
I tell this story because I think it's relevant to what happened hear.
A good GM who believed he knew a rule, made a mistake, a well-meaning player attempted to correct that mistake, and got frustrated when shut-down/ignored.
I was, actually very annoyed immediately after the situation. So much so, that i was unhappy with scenario. Once I calmed down and remembered that it was only before and after the game that I had problems with this GM, I realized the actual PLAYING PATHFINDER part was a fun and excellent experience.
|
|
I don't think it's fair that robots can be 5-star gms.
Disagree.
I agree with everything Drogonbot has stated, and the position of Mike Brock and PFS to punish privately, and praise publicly.
Agree.
Both sides have plead their case, and I fully believe that neither is telling the whole truth, or at least failing to explain it in perfect neutrality. That is a nearly impossible thing to do; especially for people who aren't trained in doing it, like say, a lawyer or police officer.
Agree. Two out of three is acceptable.
There are two sides to every coin. It is our choice whether to focus on one side or the other. In order to actually use any coin, you have no choice but to accept both sides.