|
Suppose you're running a season 0-3 scenario, which is written for four players. As such, some of them will go quite a bit better if you have a table of four rather than six. Now, I know that if it's a private PFS game in your home (or an equivalent "non-advertised" online game), you can invite whoever you want, and you can just invite four people, no problem. What I'm talking about here is something posted in a public place for a muster, for instance on the forums right here.
Standard practice is to list six spots and take alternates after that, what with six being the normal table limit (seven is supposed to be only in exceptional cases) and being the designed number of spots for current seasons.
Can a GM legally limit the number of slots to four when posting a public muster like this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, although not everyone may like your decision.
For public game days, you can tell the event organizer you're not comfortable with running tables of five and more. This may or may not be honored. You may or may not get to GM that kind of table at the public event.
If it's your event, you're welcome to limit the tables to whatever size you wish. When you create the individual session on Warhorn, you can limit the number of available seats. Personally, I keep table registration to 4-5 players. Sometimes I've a seat reserved before I create the event. Sometimes I don't want to run 5 or 6 players. Sometimes I have five seats available and leave the sixth as "GM Discretion" if I like someone on the waitlist (say, my boyfriend-partner) (no, really...).
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In your home, invite whoever you want.
If you are at an event, ask the organizer.
If you are at my event, and you tell me in advance you can only handle 5 (season 0-3) or 6 (any season) players, I will set the table to that size. If you tell me you can only handle 4, I will still schedule you, but I may ask you to step aside if there are six players and someone else willing to GM.
|
|
Not so much another vote for "yes" - but "yes" - as a thumbs up: I'd certainly love four-player tables for all my earlier-year (and even many later year) PFS scenarios, both as a player and as a judge.
I just played a four player table - my wizard, a monk, a fighter, and a sorcerer/oracle/theurge - of Where Mammoths Fear to Tread the other day, and it was much more fun, roleplaying-wise, than it would have been with six players.
Personally, I'd be in favor of some kind of table-addendum notation for listing scenarios at game days so player would know what the intended table size is. Perhaps a/b/c for 4/5/6 players, so you'd have a table of, say, #3-21a for a four-player-capped table of #3-21.
I'd sign up!
|
I am organizing the pre-Gen Con gaming at Scotty's this year. Most of the tables are limited to 4 players and 1 GM. That is because there isn't the physical space needed to comfortably or even reasonably accommodate 5 or 6 players.
I can comfortably justify limiting tables to that size.
Absent a compelling reasons, I don't think it's wise to limit tables to four players, but I think those things ought to be judgement calls as opposed to a campaign mandate.
|
|
Four-player table limits are fine when you have enough GMs and table space to seat everyone; otherwise it becomes non-accessible to new players or those who don't sign up immediately. For public game nights, you should follow the rules as written, which is that a six-player table is legal. Some GMs don't like bigger tables; I don't like gunslingers, but as a public PFS judge I have to accept some things I don't like because them's the rules.
Rknop, essentially, if your advertising your own games on an online forum, they're still private games. You're the event organizer, and you have final say who all is allowed at your tables. What you basically have is a public recruit home-game. As such, Yes it is legal to limit table size to whatever you're comfortable running; you'll have more thankful players than upset ones. You even have control over the people allowed at your table, and it's easier to explain "I'm not comfortable with X" at my table [thanks Internet anonymity...].
IF your event was part of an organized game day or convention that someone other than you organized, then no, you cannot explicitly limit your table size without jeopardizing your status as a GM.
While it's the norm for many GMs to allow their [totally private or publicly posted] games that are not a part of someone else' game day or convention to allow six players, these are Your tables you're organizing and running. You're supposed to have fun and enjoy yourself; you're not their indentured servant. As such, don't let your peers pressure you into doing something you're not comfortable doing; run that table of four, if you want. Players will have a more balanced scenario and more time to be in the spotlight with their characters. Win-Win.
|
Count me among those who prefer (as a player, more than GM) 4-player tables for Seasons 0-3 and 4- or 5-player tables for Seasons 4-5. I will play at a 6-player table if it comes down to it, but I won't play at or GM for a 7-player table.
I support GMs who want to limit the number of players at a table, even if it means that I have to sit out because the table fills up before I get there. I would rather wait and play the scenario the next time it is run than to force the GM to seat me and create an experience that is less enjoyable for everyone involved.
Talk to your organizer. Explain to them your reasons why you want to limit the number of players. Try to be flexible. If, every once in awhile, you need to accommodate one more person than you would like, well I think that's fair if your organizer is working with you the rest of the time. A good organizer understands how important and necessary it is to keep her GMs happy.
|
|
Rknop, essentially, if your advertising your own games on an online forum, they're still private games.
I don't believe this is true, actually. Something else came up re: games advertised on PSOC a year ago. I forget what it was, but I think it was a GM who banned Summoners (or perhaps Gunslingers) from his table. The PFS campaign leadership said that if it was your private game with private invitations, you could do that. However, for games posted on a public recruiting list like PSOC, it was like a gameday at a game store, and you were not allowed to ban things that are PFS legal.
I could try to dig and find a link to where this ruling was made.
It was that ruling that made me believe that it might not be legal for me only to advertise four spots for an online game.
|
|
As for what I'd do: I will (and usually do) run 6-person tables. If I'm at somebody else's event, I'll go along with what they want to do. I'm thinking specifically here of (most of) my online games, as those are advertised publicly, but not part of an event; when I report them, they're part of my private PFS event.
I have yet to limit one of those to 4 players. (I've got six players for the one I'm running tonight, in fact.) But, for seasons 0-3, I'm thinking it would probably be more fun for all involved if I did so.
Anecdote time: at PaizoCon, the first game I played must have had three no-shows. I thought all the PFS games were full, but there were just three of us at the table. We had Hyato along as a pregen; he didn't say much. But the other three of us were all heavily involved and engaged. the GM made the 4-player adjustment. It was challenging, as it's supposed to, but we survived, and it was a lot of fun. Of course, this is a single anecdote... but like The Fox, as a player as well as GM, I find smaller tables to be better.
In general, for RPGs, I've found 3-4 players to be the "right" size, although it can vary. (Sometimes 2 players is the right size!) For my home game, six players was just too much; it slowed things down, and people would drift off and start playing 2048 or watching LoL tournaments or browsing the web, which of course only slows things down further as it takes time to bring them back into the game and get them up to speed. I've had a lot of fun over time, though, playing with 3 players; when I've played GURPS, and other games, I think that's about the ideal size for a face-to-face game. (For a PbP, it's more complicated.) For Pathfinder, most of the printed material is designed for 4 players, so I'd go with that rather than 3, but even then I wouldn't hesitate to have 3 players, and either buff them a bit or just scale encounters a bit.
Of course, for PFS, there's the whole campaign expectations and rules to deal with, as opposed to what I want at my table (which is appropriate for a home game). Hence this thread.
|
|
Rknop, essentially, if your advertising your own games on an online forum, they're still private games.I don't believe this is true, actually. Something else came up re: games advertised on PSOC a year ago. I forget what it was, but I think it was a GM who banned Summoners (or perhaps Gunslingers) from his table. The PFS campaign leadership said that if it was your private game with private invitations, you could do that. However, for games posted on a public recruiting list like PSOC, it was like a gameday at a game store, and you were not allowed to ban things that are PFS legal.
I could try to dig and find a link to where this ruling was made.
It was that ruling that made me believe that it might not be legal for me only to advertise four spots for an online game.
I'm pretty sure that was just specific to disallowing certain types of classes (gunslingers) from tables. If you are organizing online you are organizer and GM. It is your perogative whether you run a 3 person table or a 7 person table, and anywhere in between. There is a difference between restricting class options and limiting spots at the game. As long as you're running your own private game that you are in charge of you're fine. If the discussion included tables run during online cons then that would be altogether different, then it would be up to the organizers. Personally, I prefer to both play with and GM for smaller tables.
|
Rknop, essentially, if your advertising your own games on an online forum, they're still private games.I don't believe this is true, actually. Something else came up re: games advertised on PSOC a year ago. I forget what it was, but I think it was a GM who banned Summoners (or perhaps Gunslingers) from his table. The PFS campaign leadership said that if it was your private game with private invitations, you could do that. However, for games posted on a public recruiting list like PSOC, it was like a gameday at a game store, and you were not allowed to ban things that are PFS legal.
I could try to dig and find a link to where this ruling was made.
It was that ruling that made me believe that it might not be legal for me only to advertise four spots for an online game.
If you advertise on PFSOC where the signups are also on PFSOC (much like how I advertise my games), then it is a public game.
If you advertise on PFSOC but direct your players to another place to sign up, (much like any of the other million people who use warhorn), then it is private.
|
|
Interesting, I hadn't appreciated that the second condition (advertise on PFSOC but sign up elsewhere) was considered different from the first condition.
Is this an official ruling from campaign staff? (I guess Iammars, as a VL, sort of counts!) I have to admit, I'm a bit surprised by it, because warhorn itself is also a public thing, and lots of (most?) people who advertise games on PFSOC and use warhorn for signups set up the warhorn so that anybody can register and sign up on the game. As such, it's in practice no different to take signups on the PFSOC list and on a warhorn. In both cases, you're advertising publicly, and the signups are available to anybody who can see the public advertisement. The back-end mechanics are different, but not the access to the game. An awfully fine hair is being split if one case is considered public and the other private.
|
Interesting, I hadn't appreciated that the second condition (advertise on PFSOC but sign up elsewhere) was considered different from the first condition.
....
An awfully fine hair is being split if one case is considered public and the other private.
Warhorn registrations can be controlled by the owner. That's the primary difference.
|
|
Talk to your organizer. Explain to them your reasons why you want to limit the number of players. Try to be flexible. If, every once in awhile, you need to accommodate one more person than you would like, well I think that's fair if your organizer is working with you the rest of the time. A good organizer understands how important and necessary it is to keep her GMs happy.
This right here!
If you are your own organizer well keep yourself happy.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
support GMs who want to limit the number of players at a table, even if it means that I have to sit out because the table fills up before I get there. I would rather wait and play the scenario the next time it is run than to force the GM to seat me and create an experience that is less enjoyable for everyone involved.Are you equally that sanguine about such a choice, when you've traveled hundreds of miles, paying for convention entrance, paying for a share in a hotel room, and other expenses to attend a con, especially if it's one of the specials you're not going to get a chance to play otherwise? The current scenarios are designed for 6 players with some reductions for 4. I have little sympathy for a DM who insists on keeping his table to 4 at a convention we're running.
You raise a valid point. But in a word, yes. Especially given that conventions generally have advanced signups via warhorn or something similar. I would much much rather sit out and allow others the joy of playing at a table where the GM is comfortable and happy than forcing all of us to sit through a scenario where the GM is stressed and unhappy.
Yeah, but lots of them aren't; people can register for them and see them publicly. Other than where they're hosted and the mechanics of interaction, I don't really see why that's any different from a mailing list.
You know how you can sign up for someone's Warhorn account and then just sign up for tables?
That's a feature that the account owners control. They can just as easily turn on a feature that filters every subscription through the moderator. That person can pick and choose who has the ability to see/sign up for tables. Seems pretty private to me.
If the system used the mailing-list mechanic, GMs would email players about available tables. Instead, GMs post about their tables, inviting players to them. People do this in stores, too. They walk in, recruiting players: You, I'd like to invite you to my home games. But not you; I don't like your style. Bugger-off.
It's pretty much the same thing with advertising games online. These games are offered generously by individual GMs. They're run on whatever system the GM chooses. Sometimes the GM PAYS to allow players to play (or play using better coding). The GM volunteers his time (and money), according to his schedule. The GM isn't running for a conglomerate like he would be for PSOC or the local store; he's running a home game. Since it's a home game, he can afford to be a bit more selective.
Also, it's difficult to draw the line as to what's advertised and what's not. Many GMs don't have to mention their games on the forums here or elsewhere, but their games still fill up because their player bases frequent their Warhorn Events. If I set up three games, but only advertise for one, are the other two any more private than the original? No, and unless I'm running for someone else's event, I can run the table in a manner most comfortable to me.
To blow your mind, there are Warhorn accounts that only allow certain players to join. Crazy, right? Good for the GM, and good for the players who agree to the more selective conditions. For a while, there was a private PFS campaign: no duel-cursed oracles, no gunslingers. Because everyone involved agreed to the parameters, it was legal. If the people involved recruited others to their private sessions, the recruits would have to agree to the parameters or stick with public PFS.
TL;DR: Online play can be just as private or as public as the GM wants it to be. Sitting naked in front of your computer does not make the PFS session public.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having read through a lot of postings here I can only say that we should not approach this with the mindset of a rules lawyer.
A organizer and GM needs flexibility to ensure the best outcome for everyone. This includes (but isn't complete):
Table size (physical or otherwise restricted)
Season of scenario
Experience of players
Distance traveled
Cost incurred to take part
Scenario or module
Convention, shop game, private surrounding, online, something not fitting in any of these
Player playing the first time
Player wanting a replay
Player having an alternative to play something else
Scenario or option has a time constraint and can only be played now for a special boon
Pre-sign up or sign-up at the event
Single table or multiple tables available
I'm glad that Mike Brock trusts us organizers and GMs to do our best and otherwise is hands off. I try to take any of the above into account - and possibly more - when deciding to restrict a table.
I just hope that players can trust in us to try our best for you. Any decision to include someone to an already 'full' table or to exclude you from a 'full' table isn't taken lightly.
|
|
To blow your mind, there are Warhorn accounts that only allow certain players to join. Crazy, right? Good for the GM, and good for the players who agree to...
Oh, this doesn't blow my mind. I'm fully aware of Warhorn's ability to be invitation-only. I know that you have to check the box to allow automatic registration. I'm not questioning whether or not a warhorn where the GMs exert control over who uses it is private. To me, yes, it's obvious that if you have a warhorn that you limit to players that you've selected, it's private. Just as if you try to build a gaming group you'll contact privately, but start by finding people in a game store, it's private. I get this. On the other hand, if you advertise a PFS scenario to be run at a game store at a given time with open signups, it's public.
I probably wasn't clear. Here's what I was really trying to ask. If you advertise your game on a public forum, and your Warhorn is set so that anybody can register for it, does that still count as a private game? What surprises me is that that would count as a private game, whereas taking signups on the mailing list would not. It's not that I'm trying to argue Warhorn must be public; I'm trying to understand why a fully public Warhorn would be considered different from signups just on PFSOC. Yet they would be by the rule Iammars cited above.
I know we're not supposed to be rules lawyers here. Unfortunately, the nature of organized play forces a little bit of it, when thousands of people are all part of the same campaign-- it's not like a home game where five people who all know each other can become familiar with each others' assumptions. What seems like good common sense to one person may seem like a violation of community trust to another person. We've seen this in the past. To some, it's good common sense that a GM can exclude anything from his table that he doesn't want, but the GM advertising in PFSOC who said that he didn't allow gunslingers at his table was told that he wasn't allowed to do that; gunslingers are PFS legal, so his publicly advertised PFS games can't exclude players just because they're playing a gunslinger.
To go back to the original question, limiting your table size to 4 for early-season scenarios seems to me to be one of those things that could easily fall either way. It could be "yeah, sure, you're the GM, do what you want in your own event, obviously, don't worry about it". Some people here are arguing that. But, I can also very easily see it being "no, if you're holding an open-signup event, you have to abide by PFS rules, and that means you can't limit your table to 4 people if there are six who are present and want to muster". The whole reason I ask is that the answer is not obvious.... For the most part, this thread has highlighted the uncertainty. However, I do get the sense that there is more community opinion that it's OK to restrict a table (although the players might gripe) if it's not a gameday or online convention, and there is some VC support for that notion.
Really, I'm trying to ask about what the ruling would be for a publicly avertised game-- the equivalent of a game advertised and run in a game store. The side issue of what kinds of online advertised games are public vs. private really is a side issue to my original question, although now I'm also seeing some things about that that don't make sense, as I'm trying to explain here. I fully understand that you can have private online games.
|
|
@rknop
In warhorn the organizer sets the number of players allowed to sign up.
1 GM 4 players
1 GM 5 players
1 GM 6 players
I have seen all of this - even 3 GM 18 players etc.
I have never ever seen 7 players allowed to sign up.
As player you see if thre is space. It is first come, first serve. If you sign up as one of the first 4 then you have a place even at a four player table.
You can sign up as 'reserve' or wait listing. But as the name implies - this is not !! A guaranteed space. Organizers will try to accommodate you. 6 spaces but 10 sign-ups mean you might be looking for a second table - IF possible.
As organizer you also need to find solutions for the table with only 2 sign-ups. Cancel it or get more players. If you have multiple tables and a few back-up GMs then this normally works out. But sometimes you start small or have not enough GMs.
I remember how I started out. First ever GMed game, organising as well, total previous organized play experience 4 scenarios as player. Getting massive insults from non-PFS people when I asked people to post if they would come. Was called elitist and worse for allowing my 'buddies' to get a seat while everyone else would have to sign up at the event.
It was only plannec as a 2 table event. 1 morning, 1 afternoon. I played in the morning and we struggled to get 4 players together. Special guest Eric Mona was doing the Spire of Nex and did send a fourth player our way.
I GMed in the afternoon. The table had missed to sign up and half an hour ahead of the game there was already a waiting list and I couldn't offer a space for my wife nor the GM of the first session as these had been already full.
I was lucky and Rob Silk - now VC stepped in short notice and whipped up a game for my wife, the GM of the first slot as well as the wait list and they had a blast.
Forward 4 years. You see 2 VCs and 1 organizer - all of them 5-star - idle and chatting while there are 6? tables with lots of new players and even some GMs doing their first OP games. It was a great luxury being in this position.
All of us were on stand-by but not needed. Just a year earlier I had a GM who overslept and didn't turn up.
This is all from the same convention and the same organizer - me. But I hope it gives an idea why a simple ' rule' just wouldn't work.
It is now accepted that people get reserved places - as the organizers of the overall convention as well as rabid con-goers know we haven't send back a single player in 5 years and that we always get something working for everyone.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
rknop: Let's start with real-life situations and compare them to online:
Case 1 - A GM runs a game at a game store that is promoted by the game store. This is public play, and if the GM wants to limit the table, then he has to talk with the organizer about it.
Case 2 - A GM wants to run a game at home, but he asks people at the game store during PFS time that he wants to run a game at his house. He even uses the store mailing list to advertise for it. He's using public methods to recruit players, but the game is at the GM's house, so it's private.
Case 3 - A GM wants to run a game, so he contacts a few of his friends and gets them together at his house to run a game. This is clearly private.
Advertising on PFSOC with the signups in the thread is the online equivalent of Case 1. Having your own warhorn that only a few friends know about is Case 3. What you are describing is equivalent to Case 2. You're telling people in a public space that you're having a game in a private space and inviting them in. Your house/warhorn is still your space, and you control who can get in, so it's still private.
If you think this is the best of both worlds, then you've just figured out why that has become the standard for posting games on PFSOC. And you know what - the online community now is healthier than ever, so I'm not complaining.
|
|
OK, I'll accept that that's how the community has decided that it is. It just doesn't make sense to me that the two kinds of online recruitment are different. Of course, analogies aren't going to be perfect, but given this, I would argue that games advertised and signed up on PFSOC should be considered private. The way VTT games work, even if entirely advertised and signed up on the mailing list, is very much case 2. The VTT link on Roll20 is part of the GMs account, and if you're using Maptool, the server is running in the GMs house. In both cases, you have to send players information as to what to connect to, so the table isn't public the way a game store's table is public. If the ultimate location of the table is what decides a game is private in real life, then in your analogy I don't see anything that would make PFSOC games, with signups on the list, into a public game.
So, either there still something missing in how you figure out if a game is private or public, or the PFSOC, with signups taken on the list, has been made a special case. Again, I can accept this, but the reasoning I've been given doesn't fully follow.
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Online
|
Hey, Rob:
In regard to online play...
To answer your original question, you can advertise your pre season 4 games for 4, 5, or 6 player limits. Just be very clear in your posts that there is a table size limit so everyone know that up front. (So put that table size limit clearly in the game post, and also limit the table size in Warhorn, just as an example.)
For the secondary topic of Public and Private games:
If you have a private group where access is limited to a specific group of select people - such as a private, closed forum or a direct private email - that is a private game.
If you are posting games in an open forum, such as here on the Paizo forums or the PSOC, and anyone can join that game, that is a public game.
So unless you explicitly invited only a given group of players, it is not private.
Method of sign-up does not directly indicate public or private. Using Warhorn, et cetera, does not implicitly mean Private or Public.
For previous conversation on the topic please see Mike Brock's posts here:
Let me know if you have any further questions.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you equally that sanguine about such a choice, when you've traveled hundreds of miles, paying for convention entrance, paying for a share in a hotel room, and other expenses to attend a con, especially if it's one of the specials you're not going to get a chance to play otherwise? The current scenarios are designed for 6 players with some reductions for 4. I have little sympathy for a DM who insists on keeping his table to 4 at a convention we're running.
My whole post is a statement of my position on a wide topic, in the context of a GM who only wants to run 4-player tables.
I agree, LazarX, if the GM kept his restriction secret until the day of the convention. ("Oh, you know what? I'm only going to accept 4-player tables today.") That's no good.
On the other hand, if the GM had let the organizer know at first contact, that would be a different thing. ("I can only handle 4-player tables.") At that point, the organizer can either accept the GM's help under that restriction, or decline. ("Sorry, dude. I need everybody to be able to run 6-player tables. If you can't do that, I'd be happy for your help at HQ, or maybe demo-ing the "Goblin Attack" scenarios.")
If the organizer does accept the help ("I mean, hey, four players seated is better than none.") , then the players who can't get in to a game should take that up with the organizer, but they never made any agreements with the GM.
Feel free to substitute an employee who won't work on her Sabbath, or a pharmacist who won't fill certain perscriptions.
|
|
Hey, Rob:
In regard to online play...
To answer your original question, you can advertise your pre season 4 games for 4, 5, or 6 player limits. Just be very clear in your posts that there is a table size limit so everyone know that up front. (So put that table size limit clearly in the game post, and also limit the table size in Warhorn, just as an example.)
Excellent, thank you! That's the info I was looking for originally. It looked like things were going that way, but this is clear and succinct (and I will bookmark it for future reference).
I'm still not sure I will do it. My anecdotal, not-scientific observation is that (at least once you go to the tools most people are using) there is more demand for GMs online than there are currently GMs online. So, while the game may run better with 4 players seasons 0-3, they do still work with 6 players, and the player demand seems to be out there. But it's good to know my options.
|
|
I think th eproblem is that some people appear to be equating the rule of, "Thou shalt not turn away a player with a legal PFS character from an available seat, simply because the PC is of a class you don't want to allow." with "You may run a table from 3 to 7 players, with less than 7 preferred."
That last one, other than the 3 minimum, and the 7 hardcap, is a range, not a limit of 6 players, and 6 players only.
As mentioned, earlier season (0-3) stuff usually is more fun/plays better with smaller groups, 4 or 5; while Season 4 and later are written for 6 players, and the 4 player adjustment is usually less than optimal, so 6 players would be best.
James, is there something in the rules for the PSOC that says 6 players only as the cap, or is that just recommended/advised? I know I have seen games advertised with less than 6 seats, and, as Jesse posted, there doesn't seem to be a PFS rule against that...