RPG Superstar 2012 Top 4
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I have read a few posts recently where Pathfinders are talking about what is considered PVP and what is not. I have started this separate thread to ask how you interpret the rules and to demonstrate the variety of GM rulings.
Here are what I believe to be the most relevant sections of the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized play:
No Player-versus-Player Combat
The goal of Pathfinder Society Organized Play is to provide an enjoyable experience for as many players as possible. Player-versus-player conflict only sours a session. While killing another character might seem like fun to you, it certainly won’t be for the other character’s player. Even if you feel that killing another PC is in character for your PC at this particular moment, just figure out some otherway for your character to express herself. In short, you can never voluntarily use your character to kill another character—ever. Note that this does not apply to situations where your character is mind-controlled by an NPC and is forced by that NPC to attack a fellow Pathfinder.
The Core Assumption
The leadership of this organized play community assumes that you will use common sense in your interpretation of the rules. This includes being courteous and encouraging a mutual interest in playing, not engaging in endless rules discussions. While you are enjoying the game, be considerate of the others at the table and don’t let your actions keep them from having a good time too. In short, don’t be a jerk.
How does your GM interpret these rules?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 4
|
The way I keep it clear in my head is to remind myself that player-versus-player combat is prohibited not PC-vs-PC combat.
When I GM, I let PCs do all manner of nasty things to other PCs as long as the player is not being a jerk. The attitude of the victim player is the easiest way to determine if there is jerk activity present.
|
At my tables, when I am concerned that a situation may be interpreted as PvP, I always ask the players involved if they are ok with the activity (this goes for whether I am playing or GMing).
I actually end up asking this question a lot with my Wizard, Angelo, 'cause he uses a lot of Pit spells, etc... which can easily catch PCs in the area of "if you stay in this square, you have to save or fall in". In his first scenario there was a situation where this came up. We were ambushed while walking through the woods, and 4 bandits had surrounded 2 of my party-members in what was a perfect "Color Spray" layout. I asked two or three times if the party was ok with me color spraying (they were... chances were I'd get four of them for at most two of us). It turned out I got 2 of them, and 2 of us. SIGH.
I am always careful to ask players if they are ok with being in the AoE of a spell (such as Glitterdust) if the tactical situation merits the risk. Honestly, in all of the games I have been in, this common sense thing is all it takes. If anyone says "No", I don't do it (but this has never happened to me, yet. Of course, Angelo does not use fireballs, and the like).
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Player A is doing something that negatively effects Player B, I allow Player B to decide whether or not Player A may perform his action. If Player B says "no", I turn to Player A and ask him what he'd like to do instead.
But it really doesn't come up much. At least in my area.
|
I cast fireball and get permission from the rogue that would be caught in the area. He says "I have evasion and +15 reflex save. Go for it." He then proceeds to roll a natural 1. The damage is enough to kill him.
The problem is the statement, "In short, you can never voluntarily use your character to kill another character—ever."
I could argue that I didn't voluntarily kill the other players character (because I had no intent). Then again, I could make the opposite argument as well because I knew that it possibly could.
What should actually happen in that case?
Would I be forced to calculate maximum damage from the fireball and if it would kill the player, am I forbidden from casting it, even with permission?
|
I am like Silbeg. When a "friendly fire" situation is about to occur I make sure the possible victims give their consent. If they don't consent, the action must be altered.
In the event of a serious disagreement like a PC utilizing undead in the presence of an inquisitor of Pharasma (who abhors undead and those who meddle with them) , I try and let the players come to a compromise. Ultimately the rules of the campaign trump the role-play, which is a sad fact of life.
If both players were fair game and time wasn't a factor, I'd let them take the gloves off. That is never the case, however.
Steve, on the Regional Coordinator page you are listed a VC of Raleigh, but you do not have a VC tag on your profile. What's up with that?
|
|
Personally, I think this is too much of a 'table variation' type issue to even attempt to make a list of 'Acceptable Actions vs Unacceptable Actions' or anything of the like.
I cast fireball and get permission from the rogue that would be caught in the area. He says "I have evasion and +15 reflex save. Go for it." He then proceeds to roll a natural 1. The damage is enough to kill him.
The problem is the statement, "In short, you can never voluntarily use your character to kill another character—ever."
I could argue that I didn't voluntarily kill the other players character (because I had no intent). Then again, I could make the opposite argument as well because I knew that it possibly could.
What should actually happen in that case?
Would I be forced to calculate maximum damage from the fireball and if it would kill the player, am I forbidden from casting it, even with permission?
In a situation like this, I'd let it happen. I might suggest the caster give up their reroll to the rogue so he can try to live or maybe help pay for the cost to Raise, but outside of that, since the Rogue agreed, the caster is off the hook.
|
|
You also need to take into account the friendliness of the parties involved. If my buddy threatens to shoot my bird... i'm going to "offer" to stab him. Both happened. its good fun and no one is gonna die.
If the players are not getting along, a stronger GM attitude of "player b says no so you can't" is definitely warranted.
|
|
I recall an encounter in which the PCs were all blinded by darkness and one was getting his head squished by a darkmantle. The rest of the PCs know what square the baddie is in but none of them can reach the dying guy to help in time. The alchemist throws a bomb, kills the darkmantle (cheers!), finishes off the dying PC and saves the rest of the party from a brutal fight. This was back in the early days of module sanctioning when the kid gloves were still on, so it wasn't devastating to the player with the dead PC. But regardless, once people give consent the dice fall where they may.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it would break invisibility it would break the no PVP rule. Since this is a metagame issue, I will allow more time for the players to talk it over than I would a normal strategy.
No* damaging the other characters
No inhibiting the other characters
No putting spell statuses on the other character
No cutting things that other characters are dangling from
No combat maneuvers on the other characters.
No messing with the players pets
No messing with the NPCs other players need for their faction mission
No messing with the other pcs pets or minions
If you lick it its yours.
*without their consent of course applies to all of these.
|
|
If it would break invisibility it would break the no PVP rule. Since this is a metagame issue, I will allow more time for the players to talk it over than I would a normal strategy.
No* damaging the other characters
No inhibiting the other characters
No putting spell statuses on the other character
No cutting things that other characters are dangling from
No combat maneuvers on the other characters.
No messing with the players pets
No messing with the NPCs other players need for their faction mission
No messing with the other pcs pets or minions
If you lick it its yours.*without their consent of course applies to all of these.
I disagree in a situational manner on several of these.
The Guide clearly defines PvP as 'killing' another character, not the things you listed. The things you listed may or may not break the Dont be a Jerk rule, but they dont* break the No PvP rule.
*Situationally a couple might.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It says "no player vs player combat"
Having the other players attack you at the table is not an enjoyable experience for as many players as possible.
It is "Player-versus-player conflict (that) only sours a session."
All of those are expressly prohibited.
It does not say "player vs player combat is only killing people". Reiterating "No killing people" does not mean there are no other forms of pvp.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
If it would break invisibility it would break the no PVP rule. Since this is a metagame issue, I will allow more time for the players to talk it over than I would a normal strategy.
No* damaging the other characters
No inhibiting the other characters
No putting spell statuses on the other character
No cutting things that other characters are dangling from
No combat maneuvers on the other characters.
No messing with the players pets
No messing with the NPCs other players need for their faction mission
No messing with the other pcs pets or minions
If you lick it its yours.*without their consent of course applies to all of these.
I disagree in a situational manner on several of these.
The Guide clearly defines PvP as 'killing' another character, not the things you listed. The things you listed may or may not break the Dont be a Jerk rule, but they dont* break the No PvP rule.
*Situationally a couple might.
+1. I fall into the "damage = killing camp" so for me, anything that you do that voluntarily damages or kills a character is out. But, the other stuff? I rule that they generally do not violate that rule.
I have had it come up enough in regular games, and now and then in a PFS game. And when I explain my interpretation of the rule (which really is what Seth states, though I include damage), I haven't had an issue.
Now, I do normally ask if the PC to be affected minds - and even if they do, I still let the effect occur, but I ask as a means to pause the action so that everyone at the table knows what is about to happen.
My preference would be that the rule be clarified because I think, on this point, there is too much table variation.
|
|
When frightened PCs flee, I almost always ask the GM if I can make an attack of opportunity (trip) against the fleeing PC.No* combat maneuvers on the other characters.
*without their consent of course applies to all of these.
Their being the players. The player is probably fine with you keeping their character around to be remove feared or just to get back into the fight sooner. (but you do have to ask)
If the player is fine with it its not player vs player conflict, its character vs character hilarity.
|
|
What pray tell is the difference between Hitting someone with a great sword, and casting "Hold person" on them while they're in the middle of a pack of ghouls?If they are hitting or casting to be a jerk than I argue that there is no difference.
Outside of a charmed/dominated party member, is there a NON jerk reason for paralyzing and tripping party members against their players will?
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
Outside of a charmed/dominated party member, is there a NON jerk reason for paralyzing and tripping party members against their players will?What pray tell is the difference between Hitting someone with a great sword, and casting "Hold person" on them while they're in the middle of a pack of ghouls?If they are hitting or casting to be a jerk than I argue that there is no difference.
If a PC is fleeing (as in the case Steve mentioned), tripping them keeps them from, say, running out of the room, or getting out of healing range, or whatever.
If enemies with ranged attacks are punking on my group's caster, maybe the only thing I think to do is to knock him prone, increasing his AC against ranged attacks. Maybe a character is in melee with a bad guy, and I knock him down to eliminate the cover he grants to the target.
There ARE reasons. And you may say, "Well, you can ask him to move, or drop prone." Sure, you can, and he or she can say no. And in that case, I'm going to drop that person on the ground so I can damage the bad guy easier.
It's not perfect, no, but in those cases, it's not about being a jerk, and it's not PC vs. PC combat.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 4
|
Outside of a charmed/dominated party member, is there a NON jerk reason for paralyzing and tripping party members against their players will?What pray tell is the difference between Hitting someone with a great sword, and casting "Hold person" on them while they're in the middle of a pack of ghouls?If they are hitting or casting to be a jerk than I argue that there is no difference.
I think we see eye-to-eye. It is not ok to be a jerk whether it is with a greatsword, a spell, or a channel. If a player is not in control of her PC – no holds barred.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
If a PC is fleeing (as in the case Steve mentioned), tripping them keeps them from, say, running out of the room, or getting out of healing range, or whatever.Then what is the problem with Bob turning to Harry and asking "Hey Harry, Mind if I trip Leafy tree to keep you around?"
Well, if the character is feared, for example, the character has no choice in the matter. He or she is going to flee. There is no point in asking the player (though you could) because it won't matter - the character can do nothing about it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if the character is feared, for example, the character has no choice in the matter. He or she is going to flee. There is no point in asking the player (though you could) because it won't matter - the character can do nothing about it.
This doesn't address the point. Its not what Leafytree wants its what Harry wants that matters. Thats why its no PLAYER vs player conflict. Leafytree's inability to take any action other than watering himself doesn't change that one bit.
Its possible that Harry would say "Dude, what the hell, I'm at 5 hit points, and I can't act even if you trip me, running out of the room is the safest thing I can do at this point!, let me go"
Next thing you know Harry needs to pay for a res, comes back next week ticked off at Bob and turns Totempoto the Trippy into a marmoset.
"Hey, no damage!"
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 4
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that if Harry pipes up and says, "Don't do that to my character" continuing with the action would be jerkish.
My characters trip, channel negative energy without enough de-selects, and infamously fireball druids. However, doing any of the above when the player of the victim PC says not to – is being a jerk.
|
You also need to take into account the friendliness of the parties involved. If my buddy threatens to shoot my bird... i'm going to "offer" to stab him. Both happened. its good fun and no one is gonna die.
If the players are not getting along, a stronger GM attitude of "player b says no so you can't" is definitely warranted.
Essentially this!
Its a separate issue, but using the "no PVP" rule to justify how you get away with doing jerky things, is being a jerk. And should be handled with the "don't be a jerk" rule.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Outside of a charmed/dominated party member, is there a NON jerk reason for paralyzing and tripping party members against their players will?What pray tell is the difference between Hitting someone with a great sword, and casting "Hold person" on them while they're in the middle of a pack of ghouls?If they are hitting or casting to be a jerk than I argue that there is no difference.
How about if the guy you are targetting has declared he doesnt care what the rest of the party thinks, he is gonna 'diplomacize' the npc with his greatsword, instead of with words.
Yes, that guy is being a jerk. So are you by paralyzing him, tripping him, grappling him, using other combat maneuvers on him, or anything else that is 'inhibiting' (your word) him. Can he complain? Sure. Am I, as the GM, gonna do anything about it? Nope, other than maybe explain to him that he is breaking the DBaJ rule.
THAT is a perfectly valid reason and time to do something like that. But, it IS very situational, hence my situational disagreement with your post.
Personally, I think people try to make the 'no pvp' stretch far too far, when a common sense view of the 'dont be a jerk' rule would put a stop to most things people want to claim are PvP but probably arent, if you want to go by the guide.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
Well, if the character is feared, for example, the character has no choice in the matter. He or she is going to flee. There is no point in asking the player (though you could) because it won't matter - the character can do nothing about it.
If a PC is fleeing (as in the case Steve mentioned), tripping them keeps them from, say, running out of the room, or getting out of healing range, or whatever.Then what is the problem with Bob turning to Harry and asking "Hey Harry, Mind if I trip Leafy tree to keep you around?"
" And I don't think anyone here as suggested that one should NOT ask."
... ah... wasn't that you suggesting that there is no point in asking the player? am I missing something?
Yes, that was me, in the specific context of the player not being in control of his character, yes. You cannot extrapolate that to mean I suggest that one shouldn't ever ask.
|
|
Dood, you can throw 'what ifs' around all day, and it wouldnt possibly cover every single possible situation a person could ever find themselves in. There is no way to handle them all, which is why it is a table variation type situation.
Specifically about that one. Then the playe, regardless of the character living or dying, should complain to the organizer or their local VO. Obviously.
|
|
Yes, that was me, in the specific context of the player not being in control of his character, yes. You cannot extrapolate that to mean I suggest that one shouldn't ever ask.Well, if the character is feared, for example, the character has no choice in the matter. He or she is going to flee. There is no point in asking the player (though you could) because it won't matter - the character can do nothing about it.
If a PC is fleeing (as in the case Steve mentioned), tripping them keeps them from, say, running out of the room, or getting out of healing range, or whatever.Then what is the problem with Bob turning to Harry and asking "Hey Harry, Mind if I trip Leafy tree to keep you around?"
" And I don't think anyone here as suggested that one should NOT ask."
... ah... wasn't that you suggesting that there is no point in asking the player? am I missing something?
wait, you said "There is no point in asking the player"... and I can't extrapolate that to mean one shouldn't even ask... ???
I am clearly out of my depth here. I think I will just go back to work now and leave you all to this discussion, as it it clearly beyond my limited understanding.
And I agree with Mark. You are twisting his words. He did NOT say you shouldnt EVER ask the players permission. He suggested that in THIS ONE SITUATION, there probably isnt a reason to need to(I disagree with that part, though).
Stop trying to make it sound like he said something he didnt.
|
|
My gnome has colorsprayed 4 different teammates.
The 1st time we were playing up when you were allowed too and a demon we could not break the dr in a narrow hallway. The team said go ahead when I asked and the hallways was nuked. Later after we won as a joke the monk knocked me unconsious and carried me home.
The second someone went invisible and stealthed right into my readied action at a score I could not possibly know he was there. The DM allowed it since my character was unaware. We left his invisible sleeping body there since we could nto find him. I let him attack my character afetrward and finished the adventures last 2 encounters on 1 hp
The last two times were caused by confussion.
I do not allow character to willingly effect other players in most circumstances. I allowed a confused paladin to be grappled and pinned to prevent him from killing other pcs. I also GMed where a PC moved into a dying persons square to engage a monster to purposely stop a table planned glitterdust to try and save him. I allowed them to glitterdust that PC despite the no pvp because he was in my honest opinion beign a jerk and trying to cause a players death. I even said he could hold his action, but he insisted.
It is very very rare that PC attack eachother in my expereince most people want to get along. The rule I feel is an extention of the don't be a jerk rule. That how i play it as.
|
If it would break invisibility it would break the no PVP rule. Since this is a metagame issue, I will allow more time for the players to talk it over than I would a normal strategy.
No* damaging the other characters
No inhibiting the other characters
No putting spell statuses on the other character
No cutting things that other characters are dangling from
No combat maneuvers on the other characters.
No messing with the players pets
No messing with the NPCs other players need for their faction mission
No messing with the other pcs pets or minions
If you lick it its yours.*without their consent of course applies to all of these.
I'm with BNW on this.
|
|
Outside of a charmed/dominated party member, is there a NON jerk reason for paralyzing and tripping party members against their players will?What pray tell is the difference between Hitting someone with a great sword, and casting "Hold person" on them while they're in the middle of a pack of ghouls?If they are hitting or casting to be a jerk than I argue that there is no difference.
when it saves their life/prevents the gorram leeroy from starting at TPK
|
|
when it saves their life/prevents the gorram leeroy from starting at TPKOutside of a charmed/dominated party member, is there a NON jerk reason for paralyzing and tripping party members against their players will?What pray tell is the difference between Hitting someone with a great sword, and casting "Hold person" on them while they're in the middle of a pack of ghouls?If they are hitting or casting to be a jerk than I argue that there is no difference.
Which sounds more like "I think I have very good reasons to PVP" rather than "its not pvp"
Everyone always thinks they have good reasons for doing something.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
There are two rules in play. Don't be a jerk. And don't kill other PCs (the later is the pfs definition of PvP)
if you are tripping or paralyzing, you aren't breaking pvp, butmigjt be breaking don't be a jerk.
(unless you do it in combat, where it could indirectly lead to pk
|
|
when it saves their life/prevents the gorram leeroy from starting at TPKOutside of a charmed/dominated party member, is there a NON jerk reason for paralyzing and tripping party members against their players will?What pray tell is the difference between Hitting someone with a great sword, and casting "Hold person" on them while they're in the middle of a pack of ghouls?If they are hitting or casting to be a jerk than I argue that there is no difference.Which sounds more like "I think I have very good reasons to PVP" rather than "its not pvp"
Everyone always thinks they have good reasons for doing something.
you asked for a non-jerk reason for paralyzing/tripping a player character.
This has actully come up in a game I was in, but it was more because one of the PCs (some one time player) was attacking everything in sight. It ended up with the rest of the party getting fed up and dog-piling him.
|
|
This has actully come up in a game I was in, but it was more because one of the PCs (some one time player) was attacking everything in sight. It ended up with the rest of the party getting fed up and dog-piling him.
And if you'd followed my list and just licked the NPC you would have been fine.
More seriously, thats exactly what the no PVP rule is trying to AVOID.
|
Outside of a charmed/dominated party member, is there a NON jerk reason for paralyzing and tripping party members against their players will?What pray tell is the difference between Hitting someone with a great sword, and casting "Hold person" on them while they're in the middle of a pack of ghouls?If they are hitting or casting to be a jerk than I argue that there is no difference.
To keep your party member from attacking/killing an NPC, a trip/disarm/reposition can sometimes be a great option.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have an unpopular opinion and one that Seth has picked up on. Based on my interpretation of the RAW*, as Steve quoted, the rules specifically prohibit KILLING another player. It says nothing about hitting, spelling, combat maneuvering, etc. them. Because they repeatedly reference KILLING, I assume it is for a reason.
First, we have to assume by Player vs. Player, they meant Character vs. Character since we are playing a game after all and the former is quite illegal.
There are two rules involved here; the one concerning PvP and the (don't be a) Jerk rule. I do not force players to retract their actions even if they involve friendly collateral damage unless it directly results in a character's death. Players should never have to gain the permission of other players to perform in-game actions. It may be considerate, but short of required. I also do not interpret collateral damage as PvP.
That being said, it is usually fairly clear when a player is being a jerk. There are times when most/all of the actions people have posted above have their place in the game. There is some amount of table variation with this issue. However, if the player is being a jerk, I will address that directly and out of game as it has no place.
There is also a lesson to be learned by some players. Don't play intentionally confrontational PCs, especially if you are doing it just to get the GM or other players attention. Cooperate is a focal point of the campaign (IMO, the most important) and you should be actively doing things to further it. If your PC is such that it will often want to rage-kill NPCs or will be provoked by other characters, please use it in another campaign.