|
Is Demoyn being repugnant when he says players who choose gunslingers aren't human? (Yes! And it's really hurting his argument!) Does that mean that PFS GMs do not have a say in the games they run? Really?
It isn't right to sanction a player's character because you don't like it. This isn't about trouble characters or problem players.
This is him saying ' I don't like gunslingers and am going to kill all that come to my table, should I tell the player, (how might have invested upwards of 10+ games in it) that no matter how the play their character is dead '
Now substitute ANY other class for gunslinger. Magus, Witch, Alchemist, Inquistor, fighter Druid or whatever.
Is it still a fair statement? No, no fairer than when it was a gunslinger. When you turn to outright KILLING without cause, you have lost my support in your argument. You've gone from being a GM to being a bully hiding behind a screen.
You don't punish the players like that. Depending on how subtle, or not, he is..what message does this tell the new player that just sat down at his table? You've just killed a player..because you could. Not only is it a vast amount of resources to recover from it but now you have a new player who has seen you, on a whim, punish a player because he was 'wrong'.
This sort of action and attitude doesn't grow the society or the hobby. It reinforces the anti social gamer geek stereotype that you hear about.
Is it, for example, okay for a GM to kill my Kitsune because 'furries don't belong in MY DnD'?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An example. I am running a roleplay heavy game of Stolen Heir. All players are Andoran characters, with back stories related to the country and professions related to the details of military and politics. Everything is set for an awesome mature and complicated session. Then the final player signs up. It's a transvestite sociopath Gnomish illusionist with ADHD and a bright purple crocodile familiar named Bitey McBiterson. Do I just 'suck it up' or as GM, do I assert some control and protect the gaming experience? Does that mean I should leave PFS?
I would like to think that most GMs would give players the benefit of the doubt. If you have concerns about a PC's ability to share the spotlight, talk to the player and make sure they know that it's a roleplay-heavy scenario and they may need to tone down any perceived wackiness. Also, character build is not the primary factor around how much trouble a player/PC is going to be at the table; a player with a core build human fighter can be disruptive. Whatever the build, if the player exhibits jerkish behaviour at the table (even if they respond with 'but I'm playing my character!'), the GtPFSOP gives guidelines for dealing with it.
|
|
Is Demoyn being repugnant when he says players who choose gunslingers aren't human? (Yes! And it's really hurting his argument!) Does that mean that PFS GMs do not have a say in the games they run? Really?
But we don't have to encourage him to be a jerk. Also in the setting of a con or open game day, a DM who decides on the spot they don't like the table for either an intentionally malicious or some other reason creates a large disruption, potentially depriving players who paid for the slot and/or spent a lot of time getting to the venue of their chance to play. If a DM has publicly announced that they are prone to do that as Demoyn just has I see no reason why an organizer should allow the potential for that mustering headache into their event.
And in the case of Demoyn we know that whatever he does to gunslingers would be intentionally malicious and that is something we have to discourage in PFS even to the tune of stopping him from DMing at cons and game days. In his own play group he can be as much of an a%%!!*% as he wants.
Yes, didn't you know?
If you do not share the same opinions as Demoyn, you in fact are an irrational idiot.
Wonder if it's a GM handle for Scott Betts...
|
|
I've been GMing quite a bit again lately, and I have run into an issue. What would you think is the best way to handle a gunslinger who sits down at your table?
Should I:
A) Not say anything and attempt to kill his character every chance I get
B) Be up front about my intent to kill his character so that he has the chance to leave the table or switch characters
C) Leave the table without a GM to avoid the confrontationYes, these are pretty much the only options. It's sad, but it's true. I appreciate your input.
I'm gonna go with option D. GROW UP. Because if it's me and you use option A I'm gonna haul your butt in front of a Venture-Captain and make you explain your problem to him. Same with B as well. As for C, that's again, your problem.
|
Seriously? Gunslingers? What's the functional difference between gunslingers, arcane archers, archer rangers, zen archers, fighter archers? They all have the same schtick.
Also, wait till higher tier. If you gunslinger is close enough to get touch attacks, then they're dangerously close the the full attack from that Glabrezu. They're good; they're not THAT good.
Oh, and for any GMs anywhere that choose option A from the OP, please don't GM ever again. Grow up and realize that you are not at fault; the authors/CR system is. Thanks.
|
The alchemist doesn't "slide right past me". I'm not a fan of ANY of the classes that have come after the core rulebook except for oracles (the witch would be cool if it weren't so possibly broken). They just all happen to be close enough to the realm of "fantasy believable" that I don't make a huge deal about them.
|
|
Demoyn, why are we all "random inconsequential people?" Becuase we haven't had the chance to meet you in person?
Rest assured that we are all real people. Some of us share our opinions more strongly on the internet than others, but we are all real people with real lives.
I, for one, am married with two young boys. I work as a tax accountant and am a licensed CPA. My company doesn't think my expertise in income tax compliance is inconsequential, and my family doesn't value my role as a husband and father as inconsequential.
I feel for you, because there are a number of things about running PFS games that I don't enjoy. Andrei Buters made a good point: no one can force you to GM for a given group of players. It's entirely voluntary. Once you've committed, it would be rude ot leave at the last minute, but if your local group had advance sign-ups and such, then I see no problem with trying to get certain players at your table.
There's no point in trying to convince you to like the Gunslinger class. Make your choice and own it (and I think you have).
If you're posting here on the boards, though what are you trying to accomplish? Are you seeking validation from "random, inconsequential" people, or are you attemtping to incite anger?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're not a random, inconsequential person in your life. You are, however, in mine. I say that because (and this doesn't seem to quite apply to you) most of the people are basing their opinions of who I am and how I run/play on one opinion I have. I did not come here to see whether my opinion was "right" or not.
As such, comments about how I feel or whether I'll keep playing are inconsequential to me. Since all I have to base my opinion on about that person is their inconsequential comment, they become inconsequential. See how I get to turn that around?
As for why I came here: I honestly wanted to know from people that could, in theory, be playing at my table which option they felt would be the least hostile. I sometimes have problems deciding what action is the least confrontational, because I don't mind confrontation. I do, however, prefer to not make a scene at a convention or what have you. Thus my question.
There was also a very small part of me that hoped gunglinger hatred was still as rampant as it was when they came out, and a larger populace could convince Mike to remove them from the campaign altogether. Obviously that is not the case, judging by this thread, though.
|
FYI - as of season 5, we have a reliable method of handling ammunition tracking... the ITS. Now, granted, you don't have to track anything with a cost of <20gp but for my gunslinger (and any other character that uses ranged weapons), I track all of my ammunition usage on the ITS, just like wand charges.
The primary cost to doing this for me as a player is that I have decided to buy ammunition in lots of 25 or 50 (which gets spendy for special ammunition). Before that, I would create tracking sheets for my ammunition each scenario, depending on what I had available.
I just mark 'em off as I use them. Actually, I think I sometimes mark a round twice (because I always reload after shooting, so that I can use Target of Opportunity). But, not a big deal at my current level.
Anyone using consumables should be doing this.
In any case... Gunslingers don't ruin games... self-centered jerks ruin games.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for why I came here: I honestly wanted to know from people that could, in theory, be playing at my table which option they felt would be the least hostile. I sometimes have problems deciding what action is the least confrontational, because I don't mind confrontation. I do, however, prefer to not make a scene at a convention or what have you. Thus my question.There was also a very small part of me that hoped gunslinger hatred was still as rampant as it was when they came out, and a larger populace could convince Mike to remove them from the campaign altogether. Obviously that is not the case, judging by this thread, though.
+1. When i read his initial post I got the gist of these points above that he's trying to make (albeit with some hostile solutions thrown in).
Its a little late for this thread, which got all pitch forky, but lets stay on target and actually keep these comments productive. If you think the guy is a jerk that's fine, say "I think you have the wrong attitude GM-ing but in my opinion Gunslingers are balanced and comparing this zen archer (5) to gunslinger (5) proves that."
re: gunslingers
As for my take on gunslingers they do make quite an impact in PFS. This is primarily because the default builds (PFS has a lot of new players) are quite effective as well as PFS emphasizing lvl 1-10 content. The power gamer guy at the table will have a build comparable to the gunslinger power level but the rest of the characters are usually a solid step(s) behind. This effectively makes the powergamer guy and 1 or 2 gunslingers kill nearly all the critters and the rest of the party just gets to do the skill checks.
re: game masters who are jerks
It seems like the people in this thread have had much better success with GMs than I have. In my experience GMs are human and often times exhibit some downright bad behavior. The GMs i've dealt with are often arrogant, rules lawyer-y, preferential to some PCs/unfair to other PCs, metagame, change the encounter when the PCs find an easy creative solution, etc. Some of my best GMs were jerks and some of my worst were really nice. GM-ing is an art, and i think we need to give the poster good advice so he doesn't come across as a jerk to the players (even if he is one).
|
|
As such, comments about how I feel or whether I'll keep playing are inconsequential to me. Since all I have to base my opinion on about that person is their inconsequential comment, they become inconsequential. See how I get to turn that around?
There was also a very small part of me that hoped gunglinger hatred was still as rampant as it was when they came out, and a larger populace could convince Mike to remove them from the campaign altogether. Obviously that is not the case, judging by this thread, though.
This is fair enough. I don't know you personally, so any comments I would make regarding your personality are rather irrelevant. Believe me, having a thick skin on any messageboard is important. We all have to decide how much credence we give to another person's opinions.
I think the least hostile way to deal with things is to be open and honest about your opinion. You may not mind confrontation, but there are ways to handle it constructively and destructively. I am no font of wisdom here, as I often err toward the latter camp. I would simply suggest that you do your best to treat the players with resepct and dignity.
As to your last point, I know this is a flexible, open campaign and I certainly do not fault you for attempting to gather support for your cause.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for why I came here: I honestly wanted to know from people that could, in theory, be playing at my table which option they felt would be the least hostile. I sometimes have problems deciding what action is the least confrontational, because I don't mind confrontation. I do, however, prefer to not make a scene at a convention or what have you. Thus my question.
The options you presented (A-C) represent a false dilemma. The preferred option in almost all cases would be D: respect the players' chosen PFS-legal character options, whether or not you would choose them yourself, and get on with GMing the game.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for why I came here: I honestly wanted to know from people that could, in theory, be playing at my table which option they felt would be the least hostile. I sometimes have problems deciding what action is the least confrontational, because I don't mind confrontation. I do, however, prefer to not make a scene at a convention or what have you. Thus my question.The options you presented (A-C) represent a false dilemma. The preferred option in almost all cases would be D: respect the players' chosen PFS-legal character options, whether or not you would choose them yourself, and get on with GMing the game.
While normally you would be correct, if the dilemna was phrased as "what would you chose to do" I get the feeling from the poster that it is a true dilemna, in that he is saying "These are the three options I am capable of." In otherwords, I don't believe he is capable of D.
His attempts to back track and de-escalate are completely at odds with his earlier tack such as reading Mike Brocks cautionary post as an endorsement by Mike of killing gunslingers to drive their players away from PFS, and his dismissal of anyone who plays a gunslinger as "unintelligent" along with his complete inability to acknowledge that PFS is a pulp fantasy setting and his insistence on maintaining it as high fantasy.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since I can't extricate the posts calling people subhuman and the personal sniping from this thread without deleting so much that a reader wouldn't be able to follow it any more, I'm locking it. Please revisit the messageboard rules.