|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My view boils down to this.
Don't argue at the table.
Asking questions, clarifying things, discussing what is and should be happening is all fine.
As soon as you are trying to beat the other person, whichever side of the screen you are on, you have crossed the line. Ask yourself, is NOT getting my way here going to hurt anyone? Is someone going to have to pay for a raise dead if we let this lie?
If you are doing it to prove you are right, and not to make the game more enjoyable, for heaven's sake shut up. We run as written, but that doesn't mean you have to adhere to the rules like a Hellknight.
As a GM, I will ask you if I'm fuzzy on a rule and want clarification. I will welcome a quick interjection about how the rules are. I will do my best to discuss my understanding and make sure we follow the RAW. But I am not wasting our timeslot calculating every bit of minutia.
If following the rules detracts from the fun, I side with the fun every time.
|
The real problem is players who suck the fun away from other players by either hogging play time with pointless arguments or dominating the table with power builds so that the other players can't shine.Ummm, it sounds like you are using a lot of words to express what most people express by saying/typing, "rules lawyers" or "power gamers" ... Perhaps I am missing the nuance. ;-)I think what he's getting at is that many people use the terms "rules lawyers" and "power gamers" to include (and to deride) players who aren't actually being disruptive.
I've seen people verbally assaulted for being "power gamers" because of what's written on their sheet, regardless of how they use it at the table—although you and the OP seem to only refer to players who use their PCs to be disruptive, it's more commonly an attack against "anyone who builds a more powerful PC than I did".
I've seen people verbally assaulted for being "rules lawyers" just for posting a thread asking whether their GM's ruling (that they politely accepted during the game) was correct or not. Again, it's often a term used to attack someone for being interested in rules, even if that interest isn't disruptive to the game.
Often, those who use the terms "rules lawyer" and/or "power gamer" seem (or even outright declare) to believe that there's no such thing as using rules and power responsibly, that everyone who invests in those skills is being disruptive.
So when someone posts a thread expressing frustration with "power gamers and rules lawyers", are they only talking about people who use rules and power to disrupt the game? Or are they the next in the neverending line of people who indiscriminately attack anyone who exercises rules proficiency and system mastery no matter how responsibly they do so?
That, I think, is where trollbill is coming from. But of course, I'm not him. :)
I guess if I refer to any players I know that make all optimal (MECHANICS-wise) choices, but don't insist on 'maximizing their output' in every scenario, at all, I refer to them as 'optimizers'. I guess maybe I might refer call them 'power-gamey' sometimes, but I generally don't have issues with them. In our particular area we dont have that many actual full on power gamers, that make it their goal to one-shot the BBEG (and by one-shot I dont mean with a charm spell or something like that ... just with high damage output).
Rules lawyers are different. I work as an engineer in the aerospace industry. It's a logic/mathematics and regulations (read:rules) heavy field. Ergo, I find the exercise of rules lawyering at the table very annoying (I get enough of that at work from QA, regulatory agencies, etc). Unfortunately, we have had and do have enough of the rules lawyer types around here. Ironically, at least half of them are quite often wrong in their recollection and/or interpretation of the rules. Perhaps because we have more of this 'type' of gamer here, we have more of them that just can't seem to NOT argue the rules with the GM. Because of the (what I consider) precious loss of my time (I'm an old gamer, I'ma be ded sooN!) to bickering over rules minituae (again, not where's it's a character's life or death on the line), I admit to a sometimes 'shoot first, ask questions later' behavior towards players that balk at GM rulings.
TLDR: rules dickering kills my immersion in the culturally rich, well-written world of Golarion and the story that the GM (hopefully) is trying to help us tell.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
My personal opinion: when I make a mistake in a game, I like to know immediately.
Things like that are great. I have a lot to manage, often I'm managing more than just my table. I have to worry about other tables, new players, people with questions, customers that walk in, etc. So it helps that I can trust the other experienced people at my table to help keep everything honest. For extended discussions, I usually try and implement a "5 minute rule."
If we can't hash it out in 5 minutes, I'll make a judgement and we'll keep going. I always try to work something out with players when it comes to specific things that hurt their build (like chains of perdition and it's casting stat for Oracles), and do what I think would be a fair compromise in any situation where I might be mistaken.
It takes everyone to have a great time at a table and so as long as my players are courteous, regardless of how they go about correcting me, I'm happy at the end of the night. This system has worked well for me as a GM. But I know other GMs prefer other methods of communicating when it comes to rules clarifications or questions during a game.
I think either way is fine, so long as the GM is clear about their preference up front.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I made the first mistake of not clarifying my definition of "rules lawyers" and "power-gamers". That has since been defined and we will now just call them "jerks". If anyone is not okay with that just say so
*raises hand*
Yes there are some gaps in the rules as said earlier and we do need to discuss them. But we should be responsible with our dialog with each other and how we use those gaps at the table.
I believe a good place to start would be to stop calling an entire group of people that you disagree with "Jerks".
(please use above definition of jerk)
I see no reason to abide by your perception of reality.
It is also the right of the GM to tell you to leave the table.
Seriously, how did you become a VO? The VOs I know aren't the type to announce in a public forum their disdain for 2/3rds of the player base. They arent the type to force their idea of "fun" onto other players, or attack them for enjoying their "badwrongfun". How can players possibly come to you with a problem if you categorize the world into Box A and Box B?
Make up all the arbitrary definitions of whatever words you want, but next time consider the impact they may have on people who don't share your mindset.
|
|
Fight the fights that matter. Some players/GM's get so caught up in the rules they confuse the 'rules' for the 'game'.
This, this, THIS, a thousand times, THIS. Sadly there is an annoying minority that seem to forget we aren't playing Warhammer or some other fantasy wargame, where rules and tactics are the vast majority of 'the game'. Yes, there ARE fantasy skirmish wargaming elements to Pathfinder (and I like many of them, part of why I enjoy the challenge of trying to play a melee rogue effectively). However, there is supposed to be a (relatively) equal part story-telling/story-creation element. In my opinion, when combined, these two facets allow the game to give the players something computer RPGS, MMO's, fantasy miniatures wargames, and diceless story-telling games cannot.
Game derailing or problem players simply don't get invited back, likewise, if I see a GM who's chops I don't like I don't sign on to their table. Even when I have thought the GM was all over the shop and making bad calls (I politely questioned them at the time), I just finished out the session politely without needing to have a fight over it and moved on.
You seem to have a mature attitude and approach. Clearly urdoinitrong. ;-)
|
|
I don't understand how most of that is a reply to the post you quoted.
Eh, it's probably not. Probably just me rambling, partly because work (GASP!) interrupted my writing of the post. I guess I'm just reiterating that in my opinion in our area of PFS I think that pedantic rules lawyers are a much bigger problem than killer GM's.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I'm ever in the situation of playing under a GM who abuses and misuses the rules, I'm going to be a "rules lawyer" and tell them how its supposed to be. They may overrule me, but at least my obiection was made. If even one other player looks at the rule themselves instead of just blindly taking someone's word for it, then it was worth it.
If that means I'm not welcome at your table, then please let me know that up front. It will save us both time better spent elsewhere. But I will say it makes me... nervous? It doesn't sit well with me that someone with a "Venture" position would make such broad sweeping generalizations about who he considers "jerks" and that aren't welcome at his tables. Maybe PFS is expanding too fast, and needs more quality control in who they let be the face of organized play.
|
|
there is supposed to beStatements about what's "supposed to be" in my gaming experience make me leery, even when I like that thing.
Perhaps 'can be' would be better. I think (to me) the important part of what I wrote is, "In my opinion, when combined, these two facets allow the game to give the players something computer RPGS, MMO's, fantasy miniatures wargames, and diceless story-telling games cannot." Agree? Disagree? Don't care?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I remember a thread quite a while back which discussed times when GMs declare on the boards that they won't allow a given thing at their tables despite it being irrefutably legal. There was a discussion much in overlap with what's starting to emerge here, regarding folks who use powerful builds versus folks who abuse powerful builds. People were upset about some GMs declaring "table bans" against builds with no distinctions made about whether it was used responsibly or not—anyone using the build was assumed to be inherently disruptive.
Eventually, someone made a comment that really stuck with me. I can't quote it exactly, but it was something like this:
After a GM has seen enough examples of seeing a powerful PC ruining the experience for everyone, they start to develop a knee-jerk response that if they see an overly powerful PC, they think the disruptive behavior will follow.
If memory serves, the idea was that while a GM might be fair and responsible in general, they might emotionally react with a declaration of table-banning because—in the moment—the event of learning about this new, powerful thing triggers an expectation that something bad is coming and they react prematurely.
It was suggested (and I agree) that when the latest bit of power shows up and a GM immediately declares it banned at their tables, that we should not take it too seriously because it's probably just a learned response and everything is going to be fine.
When we see a GM getting too worked up over a build, we shouldn't assume they're just being a jerk.
So...
How do you all suppose we should interpret it when a player seems to be getting too worked up over an allegedly incorrect ruling?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Perhaps 'can be' would be better. I think (to me) the important part of what I wrote is, "In my opinion, when combined, these two facets allow the game to give the players something computer RPGS, MMO's, fantasy miniatures wargames, and diceless story-telling games cannot." Agree? Disagree? Don't care?there is supposed to beStatements about what's "supposed to be" in my gaming experience make me leery, even when I like that thing.
That's more palatable to me, yes. :)
|
|
Nefreet, the term "jerk" is just a descriptor in this scenario, he explained that in the first post on this thread. Please do not directly attack the person on the forums and just explain your point of view.
Also, i hardly believe that 2/3 of the player base fit into this discussion as power, meta, rules lawyers, cheaters, cherry pickers, and similar term named type gamers. This is the reason he used that term and why it is in quotes.
In my opinion, the point of the game is to have fun, that includes everyone at the table. The GM should be flushing out a wonderful story and not be forced to rush things to fill a slot taken up by arguing. The players should have faith that their GM is not out to destroy there characters. They should also have a chance at a equal amount of game time spent playing there characters. To me that sounds pretty cut and dry, simple... easy peezy even.
suggestion, if your at a table, have someone look up the rule for you if there is a question... not everyone has the rules memorized. That person does not even have to be playing.
|
|
I made the first mistake of not clarifying my definition of "rules lawyers" and "power-gamers". That has since been defined and we will now just call them "jerks". If anyone is not okay with that just say so*raises hand*
Yes there are some gaps in the rules as said earlier and we do need to discuss them. But we should be responsible with our dialog with each other and how we use those gaps at the table.I believe a good place to start would be to stop calling an entire group of people that you disagree with "Jerks".
(please use above definition of jerk)I see no reason to abide by your perception of reality.
It is also the right of the GM to tell you to leave the table.Seriously, how did you become a VO? The VOs I know aren't the type to announce in a public forum their disdain for 2/3rds of the player base. They arent the type to force their idea of "fun" onto other players, or attack them for enjoying their "badwrongfun". How can players possibly come to you with a problem if you categorize the world into Box A and Box B?
Make up all the arbitrary definitions of whatever words you want, but next time consider the impact they may have on people who don't share your mindset.
Well, thank you for raising you hand. Apparently you didn't read the rest where I asked not to blast away. Your wanting to do that makes me question on whether or not you want to be a positive contributor to the PFS community. I have not read (to my knowledge) any of your posts in other areas. Apparently I have hit a nerve with you. If you want to hash it out, please send me a private message, there is not need to do it on the forums.
Now to the next part of your statement, if 2/3 of the players were doing this, then I would have never spent my time or money on this game. I would not have spent 1000's of hour developing other GM's, recruiting, setting up stores and championing the cause of PFS.
Now this term of "badwrongfun" is real. If I was a person who is on the outside and looking in saying that person is doing it wrong, I have no leg to stand on. Now, if I am at a table where there is a "power-gamer" making everything a face-roll, I then have a stage and pulpit to say you are destroying my fun.
Nefreet, I have asked earlier for people to keep things civil and not troll. Now I am going to ask that specifically of you.
|
|
I remember a thread quite a while back which discussed times when GMs declare on the boards that they won't allow a given thing at their tables despite it being irrefutably legal. There was a discussion much in overlap with what's starting to emerge here, regarding folks who use powerful builds versus folks who abuse powerful builds. People were upset about some GMs declaring "table bans" against builds with no distinctions made about whether it was used responsibly or not—anyone using the build was assumed to be inherently disruptive.
Eventually, someone made a comment that really stuck with me. I can't quote it exactly, but it was something like this:
After a GM has seen enough examples of seeing a powerful PC ruining the experience for everyone, they start to develop a knee-jerk response that if they see an overly powerful PC, they think the disruptive behavior will follow.If memory serves, the idea was that while a GM might be fair and responsible in general, they might emotionally react with a declaration of table-banning because—in the moment—the event of learning about this new, powerful thing triggers an expectation that something bad is coming and they react prematurely.
It was suggested (and I agree) that when the latest bit of power shows up and a GM immediately declares it banned at their tables, that we should not take it too seriously because it's probably just a learned response and everything is going to be fine.
When we see a GM getting too worked up over a build, we shouldn't assume they're just being a jerk.
So...
How do you all suppose we should interpret it when a player seems to be getting too worked up over an allegedly incorrect ruling?
If I remember correctly ( a highly dubious proposition), that thread ended with everybody pretty clear that GM's could not disallow legal builds and any such posts to the effect that they would was basically empty sabre-rattling.
If someone brings an extremely combat effective character to a table I GM and proceeds to severely dominate most of the combats, basically making it a, "Hey, I got this, you all just ride my coattails" deal, I will not refuse them a chronicle or petition for whatever broke-@ss stuff they've cobbled together to be banned ("It's not that I'm lazy, Bob, it's that I just don't care."). I will likely gift them with a, "Really, dude? REALLY?!", though.
As far as rulings on how things work at the table, if it looks like it's going to be a character death or, even worse, a TPK, then by all means, let's take the time to get the ruling right. If it's not at that level of critically, PLEASE limit your rules discussion with the GM to a reference to the specific rule (with book or SRD in hand, NOT from your memory). If you have something that has been clarified on the board by a ruling by M. Brock or someone else with the authority to issue those rulings, then have THAT printed out or brought up on your lap top or tablet for the GM to see immediately. Frankly, if you've built a character with one of these spells, abilities, or whatever, then I think the honus should be on YOU to provide the clarifying rule quotation (digital or hard copy again, no 'I read', or 'I remember') at the time (or even at the start of the table). The GM has other things to do before the slot (like read and prepare the scenario). Excellent rules mastery, like cool accents, are a 'nice to have' for GM's, but there is no requirement that I can find for it.
I made the first mistake of not clarifying my definition of "rules lawyers" and "power-gamers". That has since been defined and we will now just call them "jerks". If anyone is not okay with that just say so*raises hand*
Yes there are some gaps in the rules as said earlier and we do need to discuss them. But we should be responsible with our dialog with each other and how we use those gaps at the table.I believe a good place to start would be to stop calling an entire group of people that you disagree with "Jerks".
(please use above definition of jerk)I see no reason to abide by your perception of reality.
It is also the right of the GM to tell you to leave the table.Seriously, how did you become a VO? The VOs I know aren't the type to announce in a public forum their disdain for 2/3rds of the player base. They arent the type to force their idea of "fun" onto other players, or attack them for enjoying their "badwrongfun". How can players possibly come to you with a problem if you categorize the world into Box A and Box B?
Make up all the arbitrary definitions of whatever words you want, but next time consider the impact they may have on people who don't share your mindset.
I would like to respectfully suggest that Paizo.com implement an effective tool that my wife made for her preschool class: the tattle turtle.
The tattle turtle is a laminated paper turtle with a mirror on his shell and he lives in the corner. When one is mad or needs to tattle, one can stand in the corner and tell the tattle turtle all about it for as long as you like. Wouldn't it be wonderful to have a "tattle turtle" page on this site?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Now, if I am at a table where there is a "power-gamer" making everything a face-roll, I then have a stage and pulpit to say you are destroying my fun."
At lot of this has to do with how NPC power scales non-linearly with PC level. Some groups seem to have no problem with tier 7-11. But I have seen just as many or more cases of PCs being brutalized by being unprepared for this tier of game.
Around 7-11 is where, in homebrew, item creation really starts to become useful. No such luck in PFS; you have to fight this stuff with everything bought at full price. The result? We all have to lean on builds over cash money to win. Many builds have to be built up to, which means that to be functional at level 9, I might be curb stomping at level 4.
The "power gamers" become functionally very valuable at the higher levels because you might have a couple of group members who can't even contribute against certain opponents. One obvious example is how arcane blasters suffer pretty mightily when facing evil outsiders.
I also personally know some folks who power game specifically as a hedge against dubious GMing. If a given GM can't run a tier 1-5 without making non-trivial errors, they're to be trusted running a CR 13 monster?
|
|
I think what it boils down to is this:
Don't be a jerk.
That's kinda ambiguous though, on the surface of things, because everyone will define "jerk" through their own lenses.
Basically, each person has to now how to gauge the atmosphere of the table they are at, and self-police on whether they think what they are doing is being jerky or not. Self-policing is hard to do. Not many people can do so on a regular basis, despite the fact its part of the social contract of being a human. I'm not perfect (or even particular proficient) at self-policing. Although I think I generally do a good job at the gaming table of making sure I'm not the one everyone is aggravated with.
I definitely don't want to tell anyone they are having "badwrongfun", but at some point, there does become a distinction between "your style" and "badwrongfun".
Your right to have fun your way, stops at my nose.
In other words, you have every right to play this game in whatever way you find fun. Whether that's power gaming, rules lawyering, winning, etc. As long as your style doesn't create a toxic atmosphere for everyone else, including the GM, who are just trying to have fun too.
I've been extremely lucky, in that we really don't have a ton of rules abusers in the Twin City region. Sure, every community is going to have people that ride that line of creating a good character, and specifically searching for loopholes to negate all challenge or risk.
So is there such a thing as "badwrongfun"? Yes.
"Badwrongfun" is when your fun interrupts the ability of anyone else to have fun.
And lets please not turn this definition on its head and say that the one guy who creates a roleplaying character could be the one having "badwrongfun" because his character isn't good enough to legitimately contribute to a table of 5 rules abusers.
We all know what the discussion here is about, so lets stop being apologists for the unabashed and shameless way some folks abuse the rules, their table mates, the game, the GMs, the campaign, and the community as a whole.
|
|
"Now, if I am at a table where there is a "power-gamer" making everything a face-roll, I then have a stage and pulpit to say you are destroying my fun."
At lot of this has to do with how NPC power scales non-linearly with PC level. Some groups seem to have no problem with tier 7-11. But I have seen just as many or more cases of PCs being brutalized by being unprepared for this tier of game.
Around 7-11 is where, in homebrew, item creation really starts to become useful. No such luck in PFS; you have to fight this stuff with everything bought at full price. The result? We all have to lean on builds over cash money to win. Many builds have to be built up to, which means that to be functional at level 9, I might be curb stomping at level 4.
The "power gamers" become functionally very valuable at the higher levels because you might have a couple of group members who can't even contribute against certain opponents. One obvious example is how arcane blasters suffer pretty mightily when facing evil outsiders.
I also personally know some folks who power game specifically as a hedge against dubious GMing. If a given GM can't run a tier 1-5 without making non-trivial errors, they're to be trusted running a CR 13 monster?
I have played in 5 high level home campaigns over the last 14 years.
In none of them has item creation really played much of a part. All our gear was found or purchased at full price (with sometimes a small discount of up to 10% for good negotiating rolls).
Part of the problem with the power creep in PFS, is the fact you can buy whatever you want to specifically optimize what your character is best at. If PFS characters were limited to what they found, instead of being able to purchase whatever they wanted based on Fame, we'd have far less of an optimization problem that we have today.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nefreet, I have asked earlier for people to keep things civil and not troll. Now I am going to ask that specifically of you.
You're hitting another nerve again.
You ask us "Jerks" to be civil? You respond to someone by saying "don't troll"? You blast other people but do not wish to be blasted back?
There's a real-world definition for that kind of behavior, and it's called being a "Hypocrite".
If you can't take it, then you shouldn't have started this thread.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know people are probably going to throw troll responses at this, maybe you that do or want to should take this to heart. (I kind of lump rules lawyers, jerks and power gamers in one category)
You know what this is, Jeff? This is a guilt slap. It's the same steps as "I know 95% of you won't share this, but.." from little internet turds who only want shares to validate their existence. And like those statements, my "respect this guy's opinion because I don't know anything about him" first reaction goes right out the door.
Yes you have a problem that I fully agree with, but I don't need to be told to feel guilty before I even know what your rant is about. You also have to look at the bigger picture, and realize that some people validate their social existence with their character (build, attitude, etc.) and PFS is a platform for them. Maybe instead of getting wound up about it, you should discuss this with the people you have the problem with. Flaming it over the discussion boards (like there hasn't been several other such threads already), does no one any good. You're being vague and generalizing about specific issues and people. You come across as yelling at everyone under the assumption that some guy or girl who fits your description will magically have an epiphany after reading your rant.
