The answer depends on whether you are talking organized play or a game with your friends. In Organized Play, the answer is pretty clear. You have to ask them first. Siwar can't evade if one of the other players that might randomly encounter the bane might be harmed. (Or, I guess you could but doing so might get you booted from the event.)
In a game with your friends, well that is up to how you all want to play. With my friends, I think we'd notice if we were about to day and say "Hey, I'm about to do die. Let me get somewhere safe before you do anything that might make me risk dying." Or we'd say "I'm going to play Blizzard." And someone would say "No. If you do that I'll die." Or we'd say, "I'm going to evade this bane." And they'd say, "No, I'm not prepared to encounter them." We tend to make group decisions and don't play so fast that others can't participate in what is happening.
If they are guaranteed to take no damage (perhaps using a skill check that requires no cards to be played), can they refuse Siwar's request without being booted from OP?
Where in the Guide to PACGOP does is say you need the other player's permission.
First and foremost, the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game is a cooperative experience. Please let this idea guide your behavior during play. Don’t make decisions on behalf of other players, and don’t take actions that may harm another player’s character without that player’s consent.
If there's more I've missed it and would appreciate it being pointed out.
If the quote above is all there is in the Guide to PACGOP its not a rule. Its describing actions that would not be ideal for a cooperative game experience.
If there is a quote somewhere saying you cannot do anything that affects another character without permission then can someone point it out. The idea that a character's core power(s) is purely at the whim of the other players at the table feels wrong to me.
In the Siwar example lets say she encounters a monster, has no way to fight it and not enough cards in her deck to survive. She wants to evade and have Flenta, who's at the same location, encounter the monster. Flenta has plenty of cards in her deck. Siwar is affecting Flenta so she needs Flenta's permission correct? However if Flenta refuses she's taking an action (through inaction) that results in Siwar's death? Who's in the right?
Why would a wizard ever take Blizzard or Corrosive Storm when they could potentially be forced into not playing it and facing a monster down without any other spells.
I think the Guide to PACGOP is merely suggesting a style of play rather than insisting you have permission to affect the other players. Unless I'm missing another part of the document...
Do Not Bully Other Players
We’re all friends here, and we’re all playing a game
together with the purpose of having a wonderful time. Do
not push other players around just because your character
can. Extreme forms of dysfunctional or uncooperative play
will not be tolerated. A little fun banter between characters
can be great roleplaying, but when you find yourself doing
everything in your power to undo everything another
character is trying to accomplish, you’ve probably lost
sight of the purpose of organized play and may be asked to
leave the table. Playing your character is not an excuse for
childish behavior. Event coordinators should work with
players to resolve any out-of-game conflicts; they should
use their own discretion. Extreme or repetitive cases of
inappropriate behavior should be resolved by asking the
offender to leave the table.
I added some extra emphasis.
Mike, can I have a Sphere of Annihilation if I promise not to use it on other players, or even their characters? Maybe it could banish cards out of the box. It could even have the text 'Only the direct intervention of Mike Selinker can restore an annihilated card'.
Hmmn, this thread is supposed to be about Rage. At least the ethical issues around character death are on topic.
I added some extra emphasis.Do Not Bully Other Players
We’re all friends here, and we’re all playing a game
together with the purpose of having a wonderful time. Do
not push other players around just because your character
can. Extreme forms of dysfunctional or uncooperative play
will not be tolerated. A little fun banter between characters
can be great roleplaying, but when you find yourself doing
everything in your power to undo everything another
character is trying to accomplish, you’ve probably lost
sight of the purpose of organized play and may be asked to
leave the table. Playing your character is not an excuse for
childish behavior. Event coordinators should work with
players to resolve any out-of-game conflicts; they should
use their own discretion. Extreme or repetitive cases of
inappropriate behavior should be resolved by asking the
offender to leave the table.
I'm sorry (and I'm not trying to be a jerk here) but I don't see where that says a player needs the other players permission to use cards/powers/etc. that effect other players.
Is it good sportsmanship to check in with your fellow players? Yes absolutely!
Should you go with the group consensus? Most of the time... sure
Are you required to go with group consensus? I don't see it in the rules. You'll probably have a better time if you do work with the group but I just don't see the hard rule that says you have to have their permission.
I'm not saying the rule should or shouldn't be there. I could go either way. I'm saying the rule isn't there. Its a suggestion on how to play cooperatively.
If the idea is that you need player permission to take actions that affect other characters why put powers like Siwar's and spells like Blizzard and Corrosive Storm in the class decks? (I'm sure there are others.) They just cause potential for friction.
So... if Paizo wants to spell that type of ruling out then fine, I'll play that way but it doesn't look like a rule at this point to me.
What I'd like is a hard rule stating a player can never take an action that will result in the death of another character (or sets another character up to die) without the player's permission. After that let the players/event coordinator handle it. If the table feels one player is being disruptive then they can chose to ask him to change or leave and not be part of their events.
I'll add, as much as I wouldn't play with a player who didn't respect the other players enough to not use Blizzard or Siwar & Ranzak's evade abilities when the other players don't agree, I ALSO wouldn't want to play with players who won't let them use those powers when it is relatively safe for them and the risk of not using them is very high. It's a two way street. I've had to argue why I should or shouldn't take an action that could cause other players harm before and sometimes the end result was not taking the action because the risk to others outweighed the risk or reward for my character. That's part of the nature of co-operative gameplay.
Mike, can I have a Sphere of Annihilation
No.
Mike, can I have a Sphere of AnnihilationNo.
I promise to take it for walks, keep it away from dimensional gates and feed it regularly (but not after midnight).
Chief Technical Officer
|
What I'd like is a hard rule stating a player can never take an action that will result in the death of another character (or sets another character up to die) without the player's permission.
Sorry—in what way does "Don’t make decisions on behalf of other players, and don’t take actions that may harm another player’s character without that player’s consent" not cover that?
What I'd like is a hard rule stating a player can never take an action that will result in the death of another character (or sets another character up to die) without the player's permission.Sorry—in what way does "Don’t make decisions on behalf of other players, and don’t take actions that may harm another player’s character without that player’s consent" not cover that?
Maybe I'm too literal a person but here's how I read the whole section
First and foremost, the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game is a cooperative experience. Please let this idea guide your behavior during play. Don’t make decisions on behalf of other players, and don’t take actions that may harm another player’s character without that player’s consent.
When I read this it sounds like an intro on how to play cooperatively. The second sentence says "...let this idea guide your behavior..." then goes on to describe situations that would not be good cooperative game play. The word "guide" isn't strong enough to my reading to say "never."
There's also the fact that there are card abilities and character abilities that can adversely affect other players built into the Class Decks which combined with the use of "guide" make me question the intent in OP.
Now I do not have a problem with this being the rule. I play that way anyways. I'd just like it in the rules section of the document so its absolutely unequivocally a rule with no questions asked so event coordinators (I'm one for my local shop) have a firm foundation to stand on if they need to adjudicate a situation of this type.
Sorry if I'm too literal.
In before Selinker says, "The game does not enforce the social contract."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you have a problem with people arguing that since organized play doesn't explicitly forbid people from vomiting on their neighbors, that they should be able to do so with impunity, no amount of rules will solve your problem.
Game rules, even for organized play, are not the right place to try and regulate the social contract.
Shade, I think you're reading it wrong. The section labeled Cooperative Play says:
First and foremost, the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game is a cooperative experience. Please let this idea guide your behavior during play.
So, let the idea that it's a "cooperative experience" guide your behavior. Then the section gives you specifics. The rest is not general ideas to guide your behavior. The general idea to guide your behavior is that it's cooperative.
The following are specific rules:
Don’t make decisions on behalf of other players
don’t take actions that may harm another player’s character without that player’s consent.
and probably most importantly
don’t be a jerk.
I guess a literal reading of
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.
could read that you only have to be considerate of others if you're having a good time but it clearly neither means that, nor should mean that.
This was my experience with this thread.
I was following along the rage discussion when things shifted a bit and I saw this comment.
And OP is covered with the rule that you can't do something that impacts another player without their permission.
Having read the Guide to PACGOP a number of times I thought to my self "I've never read that rule. What is he talking about?"
I flip open the Guide to PACGOP and look at the "Adventure Card Guide Special Rules" section and see nothing about impacting another player or needing permission. I'm thinking "I don't see that rule here."
Then I pull open the PDF and do some searching and find what's been quoted from the "Cooperative Play" section. I think "I see where he's getting it but is that really a rule? Its not in the rules section?"
So that is my comment. If its a rule shouldn't it be in the rules section? I got confused because its not in the rules section. Maybe I'm the only one.
Side Note: I accept the rule completely and have no problems with it. I generally play that way anyways (although I will admit I did use Flenta's Signal Whistle in Ghosts of the Deep to summon Meliski to my location to gain his reroll option and split the odds of getting the Pirate Shade Haunt [with only two cards left in location deck odds were good I'd hit it.] Unaware of this rule I didn't give the player the option to say no which in hindsight I should have.)
Then I pull open the PDF and do some searching and find what's been quoted from the "Cooperative Play" section. I think "I see where he's getting it but is that really a rule? Its not in the rules section?"
Just about everything in the Guide is a rule. The Cooperative Play rules, as it starts with "First and foremost," should be considered the most important rules for organized play and should always be followed. They are just as much rules of organized play as the rules telling you how to properly build your characters are (also not under the "rules section").
I will admit I did use Flenta's Signal Whistle in Ghosts of the Deep to summon Meliski to my location to gain his reroll option and split the odds of getting the Pirate Shade Haunt [with only two cards left in location deck odds were good I'd hit it.] Unaware of this rule I didn't give the player the option to say no which in hindsight I should have.
Well, I don't know that for every little thing you need to ask permission. That will depend on how well you know the person playing Meliski. And you also just need to be accepting if they say, "I don't want you to move me."
For me, something like that is pretty low on the "harm scale". And, you can't continue with the check until Meliski moves. I'd also not touch the other player's token if I don't need to. I'd let them do it. So if I'd see it going like this:
Flenta: I'm going to play my Signal Whistle and move Meliski to me so I can reroll if need.
Meliski: Sounds good. Let me move over there.
OR
Flenta: I'm going to play my Signal Whistle and move Meliski to me so I can reroll if need.
Meliski: I'd rather you didn't.
Flenta: Ok, no problem. Then I'll put my Signal Whistle back in my hand.
There is sort of a "point of no return" in any action. For checks, it is usually when you roll the dice. Until you know the results, even if you've discard or buried a card, it isn't like you can't fish it back out if another player asks you not to affect them. So just pause a moment after you've played all the cards but haven't rolled the dice. Heck, if I happened to have played it too quickly, I'd even accept this:
Flenta (being played by John Moschitta): I'm going to play my Signal Whistle and move Meliski to me so I can reroll if need. And I'm rolling. Failed. Reroll. And succeeded.
Meliski: Wait, you went to fast. I'd rather you didn't make me move there.
Flenta: Oh. Ok. Sorry. I do sometimes play to fast. No problem. Then I'll put my Signal Whistle back in my hand and move you back and take the failure. Sorry about that.
And just before the scenario tell everyone that is what you'll do. I can't see how anyone would be offended with that.
But it is all good Shade325. I'd be happy to play a guild game with you some time.
I don't know if the fact that I got the John Moschitta reference is good thing or a bad thing....