Dealing with the inability to deal with long term ramifications in PFS.

[Charon's Little Helper]

John Lance wrote:

stuff about crazy mofo barabarians

I don't think it's so much the cause (playing barbarians) equals the effect (playing like a crazy psycho).

I think it's more likely that the cause (wanting to play a psycho moron character and get away with it) equals the effect ("hey - I'll play a barbarian!") and also the effect (playing like a crazy psycho).

It's like how - statistically - hot chocolate consumption lowers crime rates.

Well - that's obviously false.

The truth is that cold weather is the cause both for lower crime rates and increased hot chocolate consumption.

So basically - the barbarian class doesn't cause the issues. Players who want to cause issues tend to pick the barbarian class.

[CathalFM]

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

John Lance wrote:

stuff about crazy mofo barabarians

stuff about correlation vs causation

Excellent Point, but that's unimportant right now, what is important is that you have possibly the best forum name EVER!!!

[Fromper]

My barbarian is the descendant of 6 generations of paladins, and his father wanted a boy to carry on the family tradition, even as his wife gave birth to 6 daughters. When the 7th child was a son, he put tons of pressure on the boy to conform to the family standards, and the kid rebelled and became a barbarian just to piss off his dad.

He goes by the nickname "Mash", loves a good fight, hates magic getting in the way of his martial prowess, and pretends to be dumber than he is, because he learned early in life that it's better to be underestimated than overestimated. So he comes off looking and sounding like the typical dumb barbarian, but some of that is an act. On the other hand, he's also fiercely loyal to his comrades in arms (even the casters), and willing to play along with Society missions and not do anything to ruin them (ie he keeps his mouth shut and doesn't attack anything during the "talky" parts unless he thinks he can actually contribute to the conversation).

So he sometimes pretends to be the Hulk, but he's actually smarter and more nuanced than that, once you get to know him. And he'd never get caught pulling any of the stupid stuff mentioned in this thread.

The closest he came was chopping the foot off a captured enemy who he was pretty sure we were going to kill once we finished interrogating him, anyway. But that enemy was also someone who pretended to be an ally, then got one of Mash's closest friends alone and tried to kill him, so Mash was pretty mad at the betrayal and threat to his friend. (And I happened to roll low on the first intimidate check when interrogating the guy.)

[DesolateHarmony]

The barbarian class as depicted represent the berserker of legend, rather than the normal warrior from faroff lands.

[Talgeron]

I have to admit, recently, my barbarian got frustrated and punched a wall... inadvertently solving a puzzle.

[Cardinal Chunder]

Has the Barbarian replaced CN alignment for those who use "Its what my character would do" for being a d***?

[Charon's Little Helper]

Cardinal Chunder wrote:

Has the Barbarian replaced CN alignment for those who use "Its what my character would do" for being a d***?

Especially CN barbarians.

[Charon's Little Helper]

CathalFM wrote:

Excellent Point, but that's unimportant right now, what is important is that you have possibly the best forum name EVER!!!

*Nods gravely*

You are correct.

[FLite]

Well, there is also the swinginess of their damage.

When the wizard goes off, unless he is a blaster or goes straight to disintegrate, you probably have a round or two to try to get everything back under control. When the barbarian attacks, if he gets a crit, most creatures are going to be paste unless they are the big bad that you were supposed to fight...

That said, the local barbarians in my area are mostly taciturn hulking combat monsters that usually don't attack unless provoked. Even Niel, my insane Groetus worshiping barbarian managed to restrain himself for fifteen seconds before attacking the "immortal" queen, then the bloatmage started throwing disintegrates. The local bloatmages have less restraint than the barbarians. Something about the near infinite spell slots that just makes them incredibly casual about throwing magic around.

[DrakeRoberts]

hotsauceman wrote:

This was when my Barbarian was giant and had the BBEG in a grapple. the following happened.

Me: Can I bite the head off him
Gm: No.
ME:But it isnt evil. it is just using the tools I have to kill him
Gm: No, and if you suggest it one more time will I will shift you alignment an kick you off the table
Me: Can I toss him into the portal to hell right net to me?
Gm: Sure
As a GM, you cant be afraid to pull the GM card and say "Because I said so" and punish players for infractions.

Actually, I personally would be rather displeased as a player if the gm tried this on me. It's one thing to say that there's no rules specifically for biting off one's head. Or noting that it'd just be an unarmed bite attack that you didn't have (and thus likely doing nonlethal damage at best). Or that his teeth aren't capable of it. Or if it really bugged him perhaps "it's not really something I feel I could adjucate well" or "as an excessively vicious and callous attack I /would/ consider it evil and shift your alignment". But responding to a question with "because I said so" to someone not excessively pressing a matter, and (much worse in my eyes) threatening IC consequences for an OOC question are both, in my opinion, poor choices for approaching such a situation.

Giving an alignment shift for actually doing it in character, on the other hand, could be justified. Pulling the "Because I said so" card along with threat of removal after 3-5 minutes of arguing and trolling, sure. But that isn't what you seemed to describe. You seem to be describing, by my reading, a player trying to add flavor and description to his roleplay, and honestly questioning the gm's response in an effort to meet both the player's and gm's own concerns and desires.

Of course, that's my reading of the snippet you gave us. The attitude, tone, and history of the player I have no idea about. My apologies, therefore, if I've misconstrued how things played out.

[Fromper]

DrakeRoberts' last post reminds me of the best GMing advice I ever got, which seems to apply well to most of this thread. It was a GM 101 session taught by Venture-Captain, I think before there was a formalized class for that with material from Paizo.

Basically, if one of your players wants to do something totally off the wall, the best GM response is pretty much always "You can do that, BUT..."

The example she gave was a newbie player who tried to stop a stampede by standing in front of the animals and casting Burning Hands at them, instead of just running to the side to get out of the way like everyone else. She warned him that it probably wouldn't stop the animals, and he'd probably get trampled. He did it anyway, and suffered the near-lethal consequences.

My personal example is from a game I played with that same VC as the GM, when we were fighting an alchemist who was up a pole tossing bombs down at the rest of the party. My friend was playing a slightly insane (CN gnome) alchemist, and he wanted to throw bombs back. The GM's response was "You can do that, BUT if you miss, your bombs have to land somewhere." He went for it anyway, and as it turns out, one of his bombs landed on my sorcerer. Luckily, I was laughing the whole time, because the whole situation was just so silly, and I didn't mind blowing a charge or two from the alchemist's cure wand :grin:. I keep saying that session reminded me of Spy vs Spy from Mad Magazine.

The point is that if the players try to do something that you, as a GM, think is a bad idea, tell them the possible consequences. Then stick to your guns in enforcing those consequences.

[DrakeRoberts]

Fromper wrote:

Basically, if one of your players wants to do something totally off the wall, the best GM response is pretty much always "You can do that, BUT..."

This.

Now, if it's something that is physically impossible or breaks mechanical rules, I'd explain that and possibly give similar but doable options. Of course, then you need to make sure that you're not playing their character for them... the goal is to reward their creativity, not your own.

[Leg o' Lamb]

DrakeRoberts wrote:

Fromper wrote:

Basically, if one of your players wants to do something totally off the wall, the best GM response is pretty much always "You can do that, BUT..."

This.

Now, if it's something that is physically impossible or breaks mechanical rules, I'd explain that and possibly give similar but doable options. Of course, then you need to make sure that you're not playing their character for them... the goal is to reward their creativity, not your own.

I've always approached player actions with the following statement. "The only way you can't do something is if it says in the core rule book, 'You can not do this.'" It's a game and we should have fun. The player might fail, but this usually leads to more laughter than if they had succeeded.

[SCPRedMage]

jon dehning wrote:

"The only way you can't do something is if it says in the core rule book, 'You can not do this.'"

Awesome, my first level human rogue will roast the dragon with his LASER EYE BEAMS, because nothing says I can't.

PEW PEW PEW.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with this statement; the rules set what you can do, not what you can't, because a list of things you can't do would be infinitely long. You have a very large degree of freedom in how you interpret how the rules apply to an attempted action, but just because the rules don't say you can't doesn't mean you can.

If the rules don't explicitly say you can't and you can find a good way for the rules to cover it, go for it; otherwise, you're probably well into house rule territory, and this is a PFS thread.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you shouldn't try to roll with wacky actions, I'm saying you have to temper said rolling with the actual rules.

[Taenia]

Drake Roberts said, "it's not really something I feel I could adjucate well"

This line alone is such a great answer for so many dilemmas a GM comes across.

[DrakeRoberts]

Thanks, though if I were to say it today, I'd try to do so without the mispelling I made back then... It's making me wince looking back upon it. "Adjudicate". There, fixed.

[LazarX]

trollbill wrote:

Ahunting wrote:

But I am honestly more concerned that a GM is shocked when a NPC dies after fighting a party for 3 rounds. I mean most low table I see combat rarely make it into round 3. Even at high tables 1 NPC very rarely last 3 rounds with a party, unless it is a very serious NPC.

I don't know why you think I was shocked by the fact he died in 3 rounds. I was shocked that the Barbarian, despite orders to the contrary and requests from the rest of the party, did absolutely nothing to avoid killing him.

The only thing that truly surprised me is that we didn't hear the "That's what my character would do." defense.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

It also wouldn't be PvP to heal the BBeG. It's just expenditure of party resources, after all.

After a few rounds of that the player of the frothy barbarian character might get the hint.

Also, it's not PvP to stand in the way of someone's attacks for perceived tactical advantage. It's happened ALL the TIME in friendlier circumstances I've been in. Not because a player is trying to be a jerk, but they have a good plan and that involves sadly 'being in the way'.