I thought it would be a good idea to give this its own thread, as this topic is juicy enough to warrant it.
The question is how far do things go in terms of needing a players permission to do something potentially negative to them. As Vic has said here as well as other places, you cannot force a player to do something detrimental, IE, you cannot make them reroll with Meliski if they don't want to, and you cannot play Rage on them during an encounter if they aren't going to bury a card (and you can't make them).
This begs the question, how far does this go? On something that only affects one player (like Rage and Meliski's reroll), the answer is obvious. But does this stop you from playing Blizzard (it does damage to other players at the end of the turn)? What about if Ranzak is near death and wants to evade the Enchanter - can another player tell him no, just because they don't want to discard two hand cards? What if he's by two characters, one close to death and one with the Ring of Protection?
Sticky situations.
My stance is that if the primary effect doesn't effect the other player (IE, blizzard adding d6's or Ranzak evading), it is ultimately the call of whoever it does effect, side effects be damned. Now, obviously you should try and find a group concensus first, and malicious intent can be punished by the event organizer in OP (and the rest of the group in normal play), but that's where I'd put the default.
Thoughts?
I think Meliski and Rage are a different question than Blizzard or Ranzak. The reason being, Meliski and Rage are clearly intended to be beneficial to the player making the check. And thinking that you would force someone to reroll a die or bury a card on their check when they didn't want to clearly shouldn't happen. This hypothetical (and thankfully impossible) situation should have no place in the game:
Player A: Ok, I think I'm good to make this combat check with my weapon and this blessing. I'm pretty sure I'll get a high enough roll to beat it.
Player B: I play Rage.
Player A: No, you don't need to I'm good.
Player B: Too bad. I'm playing it. You have to bury a card.
That would just clearly be ridiculous. And thankfully can't happen.
But Ranzak and Blizzard are different. The benefit applies to you while the cost applies to someone else.
I think the answer really depends on the "environment" you are playing in. If you are playing with a group of friends, you group should decide how those things will work.
I know for the group of friends I play with, if Ranzak was close to death and the only other character at his location was fine, they'd say "Go ahead and evade it." In fact, we'd probably have teamed the two of them up with the intention that Ranzak do some evading.
I think every single person in my group would rather risk letting their character die than risk being the reason the other person's character died.
For organized play, I think there needs to be a bit more of a rule. I know I mentioned this from the guide:
Don’t take actions that may harm another player’s character without that player’s consent.
And I know Shade325 said that is more of a guideline than a rule. And I guess it might be. But I don't think I'll play any different in Organized Play than I do with my friends, even if in Organized Play I'm playing with a complete stranger on a business trip whom I will never see again in my life.
Now, lets look at a few of these possible situations. I want to look at situations where there is some serious risk based on what you decide. If Ranzak evading would result in Valeros encountering the monster and if Valeros rolled all 1s he would exhaust his character deck but he'd only have a few cards left after resseting his hand, while that is still part of this discussion, I'd rather look at more extreme examples. (Though I think I'd play that the same way as I play the example below. It is just that the example below highlights more of the risk.)
Ranzak Wants to Evade
Situation: Ranzak has a pretty low deck. Let's say only 1 card in his deck. But we are getting low on time and he's equipped enough for one combat check, so we decide, as a group with full consensus, to press on. He explores and encounters the Enchanter. He's going to loose at least two cards, which means he'll be dead at the end of his turn when he resets his hand. Valeros is also there, but has no weapons in his hand and is also down to just 2 cards. Neither of them have anything that will reduce the damage that won't also just cause them to discard cards. No one has any blessings or spells or anything else to help them.
Comment: Clearly, if Ranzak doesn't evade, he's dead. Valeros has a slight chance of not dying since he has a chance to roll high enough to defeat the enchanter. He'll loose two cards, but the next time he resets his hand he'd be able to draw two cards and be at his hand size with 0 cards in his deck. I mentioned group consensus because if Valeros's player was opposed to the risky exploration in the first place, it is a different situation all together.
If I Was Playing Both Characters: Objectively speaking, the only way there is a chance someone won't die is if Ranzak evades and passes the encounter off to Valeros. I'd have Ranzak evade and hope Valeros makes the roll.
If I Was Playing Valeros: I'd say, "If you want to evade it go ahead. There is a chance I'll make that roll."
If I Was Playing Ranzak: I'd say, "Valeros, I think I need to evade this and let you encounter it. I'm toast if I encounter it. Are you ok with that?" And whatever his response was would determine what I'd do. If he said "No, it is too risky for me. I might die." Then I wouldn't evade. I'd take the encounter and watch as Ranzak went off to Goblin Heaven.
Why: Because I feel it is what I should do. Part of me might think, "I explored. I got myself into this mess." And part of me might think "We agreed as a group to press on. Valeros should have known the risks, just like me." But honestly, it would simply come down to treating them the way I'd want to be treated, whether I was Ranzak or Valeros. If I was Valeros I'd put myself in Ranzak's shoes and think "If I needed help, wouldn't I want them to take a risk to help me?" And if I was Ranzak I'd put myself in Valeros' shoes and think "If I was being asked to make a tough decision that might risk my character dying, wouldn't I want them to be ok with whatever decision I made?" I'd rather sacrifice (or at least risk sacrificing) my character than let another player do that with theirs.
Blizzard is our only hope
Situation: Ezren, Siwar, and Ranzak are playing together. Siwar and Ranzak are all low in their decks. Siwar explores and encounters a monster. The check is high enough that without some help, she definitely won't make it. If she rolls low enough, she'll have to discard enough cards that she won't have enough to reset her hand. The only card we've got that might help her is Ezren has Blizzard. It won't guarantee a success, but it will make it possible. But the damage Ranzaks takes will mean that he'll die when he has to reset his hand.
Comment: This is sort of the flip of the one above. And it is more of a "Sophie's choice" since you are literally choosing who lives and who dies.
If I Was Playing All Characters: Which character I like more might factor into it. But I don't think I'd play Blizzard. Doing so would mean 1 character would die and I'd still risk a second one dying. While not doing so means 1 character dies, but no risk to the others. It seems like not playing it is better than playing it.
If I Was Playing Ezren: I'd only play Blizzard if both players told me they wanted me too.
If I Was Playing Ranzak: I'd tell Siwar that is she wanted Ezren to play Blizzard, I'd be ok with that.
If I Was Playing Siwar: I wouldn't even ask Ezren or Ranzak to play Blizzard. I'd tell them not to. There would be no way I'd do that to Ranzak.
Why: I'd be totally unwilling to essentially trade my character's life for the lose of another's. This one seems like a no-brainer.
I have Blizzard in my deck, but another player never wants me to play it because they never want to take damage.
Situation: We are all perfectly fine. 0 or 1 card in our discard piles. But this other player doesn't want me to play Blizzard because they don't want to take any damage, at all, ever, never.
With My Friends: I'd try to explain why it is ok to take a bit of damage. But if they didn't want to, I'd replace Blizzard with something else. I enjoy playing with my friends more than I enjoy playing alone. And even though I might think "If he'd just think about it more, he'd see I'm right" I'm not going to do something to his character that he asked me not to do. I'll change my strategy.
In Organized Play: I'd not play Blizzard in the scenario. If I really like Blizzard as part of my strategy, in the future I'd avoid playing with that player. If there was no hope of doing that, I'd change my strategy and drop Blizzard. I'd rather play with people than not with people. Even if I think those people "just don't get it" or are "playing wrong". It wouldn't matter. I'll either pick a different spell or a different character.
So I'd guess I'd put the default on not forcing anything upon another player. Whether that is a rule or not, it would be how I'd play.
I guess it is a different question if I was the event organizer and two players came to me with one accusing the other of getting their character killed. If they "without their consent" thing isn't a rule, I'm not sure what I'd do then, or what "powers" are available to event organizers. Can I declare the character not dead and just tell them not to play together any more? I don't know what options are available to organizers/VOs.
I can see why this guidance/rule would anoy some people.
But its there because you no longer have the situation you have in a normal game where if you harm another character they it will probably come back to bite you sooner or later.
In OP there might not be any later for a particular group of players so some other mechanism is required to ensure people act like they are a group of heros and not playing just acting with out thinking about the consequences for others.
Hawk, I do agree that they are different (Rage/Meliski vs Blizzard/Ranzak). The Rage/Melisk is pretty cut and dry, but has implications for the Blizzard/Ranzak.
I think most of us would tend to act like you're suggesting. I'm just pondering the default situation - if emotionless robots are playing Ranzak (about to die) and Valeros (about to die) at the same location and Ranzak encounters the Enchanter and clearly wants to evade, who is the winner by default? Would a judge rule in favor of Ranzak or Valeros, without any more details than I have given?
It's just such a murky area.
I don't think it's that murky at all. At least in the case of Ranzak. Ranzak is not available for OP so let's forget that aspect of it.
I think adding Ranzak in adds a really fun element into what is usually a straightforward co-op game. Remember Mike said a while ago that many of the upcoming characters weren't very nice folks at all. So think of little Ranzak as basically a greedy quasi villain teaming up to get as much loot as he can but in the meanwhile helping everyone achieve their ultimate goal by closing locations etc.
Ranzak forces the team to adapt to an element of unpredictability and chaos. The power as it reads is very clear, Ranzak can evade a bane and a random other character at his location can encounter it instead. That's it, there's no element of permissiveness or agreement on the part of poor Valeros whether he wants to do it or not. You team up with Ranzak you have to be ready to deal with the consequences.
In reality the fact that this is a coop setting means that its not in Ranzaks best interest to be killing off his companions by throwing them to the wolves every time. But I've been playing Ranzak and it's been a lot of fun seeing the look in Damiels eyes when I send off bane after bane towards him and some good natured swearing has come my way. Everyone is only in charge of their own character and is in control of their destiny, Ranzak can clean out a location like few others can, as long as there are enough boons there, and in exchange all he asks for is that someone else does the dirty work for him....seems fair to me.
(I love playing Ranzak btw)
Basically the only rules around Ranzak engagements would have to be meta agreements within your game group. No need for any actual rules governing the evade power.
|
Very murky, Orbis.
In general, I play the way Hawkmoon describes in his post. I play with family. I play with friends. I play in a couple organized groups (whether actually organized play or just a group at a gaming store). In all of them, I'd play the same way. And a lot of times it is more of a group decision about evading/handing off encounters and inflicting damage on others. It can come down to trying to avoid structural damage and the consensus of who is discarding. We try not to be jerks.
Now, the interesting part about organized play is that I have a couple of people that are just in our area temporarily. They want to play but have already told me they are not going to be around in a couple months. But when we sit down and play, it is the same manner of playing ... we're considerate of each other.
The guidelines in the guide/rulebook are there so that people used to competitive play styles understand that this is cooperative play. That bullying others and subjecting their characters to harm really isn't in the best interest of the scenario/group. And VOs (if available) are there to make sure this happens (or doesn't happen?).
When we had discussions about upgrades a few months ago, people wanted specific rules in case of conflict. I think it comes back to this conversation. How do you want to be treated? Treat them the same way. (Hopefully in a positive manner!) Same thing with damage and/or potential character death. Hopefully people will be considerate and talk things out but in the end, not be jerks.
As a new VO, if a situation like above is brought to me after-the-fact (character death caused by another), I don't see an option to roll back the death. But I do see the option to have the offending player leave. I would think it would definitely have to be malicious ... not the situation where it was Ranzak/Valeros but where Ranzak decides to evade even though he could take the damage and intentionally lets Valeros die. I definitely will bring this one up, though. What are the options for the dead character (and since this is organized play, dead player)?
[NOTE: I do know that Ranzak is not offered in Organized Play but other characters have evade built in. Just going with an example.]
I fully agree, especially in the context of OP, don't ever be a jerk. But again this is a meta situation depending on how much tolerance your group has towards a character with this power. I remember Mechalibur saying his group didn't even want anyone to play Ranzak because they found him so distasteful. My group is completely different and their tolerance for Ranzak's brand of foolishness is much higher.
|
|
I fully agree, especially in the context of OP, don't ever be a jerk. But again this is a meta situation depending on how much tolerance your group has towards a character with this power. I remember Mechalibur saying his group didn't even want anyone to play Ranzak because they found him so distasteful. My group is completely different and their tolerance for Ranzak's brand of foolishness is much higher.
Yeah, I understand but this really isn't about Ranzak. It's about characters (and players) that have the power or potential to damage others by their actions. And how to deal with it since in organized play, the death is that much more permanent.
In home games, I'd probably still ask the person to leave or just not play this game with us again. Then proceed to roll back the death. Don't need that kind of crap.
I think anyone deliberately causing the death of someone else in the group is strong grounds for being kicked out. No argument from me there, that's just awful.
Now someone freaking out because Ranzak evaded a bane and they had to fight it when they were perfectly equipped, or being angry because they took one damage from another players blizzard and discarded some worthless boon they had just picked up? I have a bit less tolerance than Hawkmoon for that kind of selfishness, I would be more along the lines of "deal with it".
I brought up this topic in the other thread; here are my examples:
If Siwar the Manipulator encounters a bane that will kill her, does she need permission to make a random other character at her location encounter the bane? Can someone who won't die refuse permission? 99% chance of surviving? 1% chance of surviving? What if there are two people at the location and one person says it is okay but the other one doesn't? What if the bane wouldn't kill her but its shorts were a crime against fashion?
:
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?
People like Theryon will have to decide which deaths were due to reasonable causes, sign character death certificates and boot people out of an event. Getting booted out of an event might seem preferable to character death when you've completed almost all the scenarios in an adventure path.
Maybe you don't need officers to boot people out. If a jury of peers (everyone else at the table) unanimously agrees that there was an unjustifiable homicide then the offending player's chronicle will be stamped with the Mark of Cain. You may veto a character joining your table if your chronicle has fewer Marks of Cain than the others.
And yes, I was taunting Ezren last night about how he had two cards left in his deck and I had Restoration ... just one card away from Lini being able to get revenge over the Sabretooth Tiger incidents. (I did Cure him in the end, but most of his deck was buried due to a Clay Golem.)
|
|
I just want a defibrillator ...
I don't think you need VOs to be able to boot people because of their play style. And maybe we (as a community) should track the Mark of Cain players. I'm not sure what they do in PFS with players that are consistently problems. But I also don't want us posting peoples' names some place without reason.
But like I said, I'll ask if VOs have the power to reverse a character's death if it is done intentionally (with malice). (Potentially, a player could cause a TPK. Wouldn't that be fun?!?)
Chief Technical Officer
|
As Vic has said here as well as other places, you cannot force a player to do something detrimental, IE, you cannot make them reroll with Meliski if they don't want to, and you cannot play Rage on them during an encounter if they aren't going to bury a card (and you can't make them).
That's a little bit out of context. What I meant was that if the person who would be making the reroll does not reroll, it's not legal to use the power; if the person you want to play Rage on does not bury a card, it's not legal to play it.
We are not going to dictate play style outside of OP (and even in OP, there are limits to what we can do and to what we want to do).
Outside of OP, if you want to make a rule at your table that if I play a card that requires you to do something, you *must* do that thing, by all means, go right ahead. And if you want to make a rule that says I can't do *anything* unless everyone at the table agrees that I should do that thing, feel free to do that, too.
"Don’t take actions that may harm another player’s character without that player’s consent" is *not* merely a suggestion in OP—it's a rule,
What you do outside of OP is up to you and your gaming group.
Thanks for answering the question. That clears things up for event coordinators a lot.
As the guy who read the Guide to PACGOP and didn't understand it to be "the rule," may I suggest stating this under the "Adventure Card Guild Special Rules" header of the document so that new event coordinators understand this right from the get go.
Thanks again for clarifying.
I just want a defibrillator ...
Free promo defibrillator with every Raise Dead, with the slogan 'For when Lightning Touch isn't good enough'.
Clearly using Augury and Siwar's power to force Ezren to encounter a Clay Golem is usually inappropriate, even if it doesn't kill him.
What if a character refuses to play Potion of Ghostly Form to save a character from death because 'he might need it later'?
If either Siwar or another character at her location must die, should they flip for it because neither should take an action that will kill the other player? (Does one die and the other one get kicked out?)
It is jerky to not use a potion or heal or whatever when someone else needs it, but I don't think not doing something and having the outcome be a negative result for another character is the same as doing something that hurts another player. Another player can't choose to play my cards for me. A good reason to keep your hand secret. Ask other players if they can help you. Don't tell them what to play unless they ask. Secret hands make that easy and prevent people from trying to tell everyone what to do.
Having said that, I play open handed at home, but I'm playing with people that I know who aren't going to try to take over the game.
On Siwar and another character, if Siwar explored then she took the risk and it is her responsibility. It gets suckier when it is a summoned monster from another character's explore, but she is still responsible for her encounters before anyone else is.
Ah, so the suggestion is to hide the evidence that I've decided to let a character die? That does avoid having the coordinator make a call about whether I'm an evil person who shouldn't be allowed to play with others.
This was a variant on refusing to let Siwar delegate to you at limited consequence to yourself. Perhaps something requires a Strength or Con/Fortitude check you would trivially pass, but you feel that the weak must perish and only the strong should survive. That sounds like roleplaying your character to the detriment of other players.
I guess at this point it gets to a philosophical discussion about whether taking an action is ethically the same as not taking an action. Regardless, the rules only say not to take an action that harms without consent. They do not say that you must take an action that prevents harm. That starts to get really murky.
If Siwar had a roll with a 70% chance of success and Valeros had a blessing that will push it up to a 90% chance, is Valeros obligated to play that? What if it would boost a 50 to 60? At what point would you say someone is obligated to take an action? Is it only an obligation if goes from a guaranteed failure to guaranteed success?
We are on the same wavelength over this. I think that saying 'no' to Siwar using her power under reasonable circumstances is 'taking an action' and makes it easy to consider extreme situations.
If a character needs a 7 on 1d6, then a 2-die blessing will take the check from 0% to 91% and might guarantee a non-fatal result.
A Harsk or Lirianne that never recharges cards for d4s probably greatly increases the chance of failure over a session. Likely not actionable, but non-cooperative and odd for someone choosing a character with this power.
We are on the same wavelength over this. I think that saying 'no' to Siwar using her power under reasonable circumstances is 'taking an action' and makes it easy to consider extreme situations.
If a character needs a 7 on 1d6, then a 2-die blessing will take the check from 0% to 91% and might guarantee a non-fatal result.
A Harsk or Lirianne that never recharges cards for d4s probably greatly increases the chance of failure over a session. Likely not actionable, but non-cooperative and odd for someone choosing a character with this power.
I 100% agree. The player should take most any actions that will help other characters when they need it, especially when there isn't any risk associated with taking that action (such as Harsk's recharge or Valeros free d4). That's better both for the survival of the party and getting along at the table. And, as I said elsewhere, I wouldn't want to play with characters who refuse to help others or refuse to let a character like Siwar use her evade power. But each player has to weigh those options and decide if it's the best call for them at that time to use a power or let another character use a power that will harm them. In a life or death situation, the call is easier to make, IMO. Any decent person would do whatever they could. But in those cases where it's a difference between a 50/50 chance and a 70/30 chance? May not be as clear cut every time.
"Don’t take actions that may harm another player’s character without that player’s consent" is *not* merely a suggestion in OP—it's a rule,
What you do outside of OP is up to you and your gaming group.
Interesting. So you need permission from the group to play Blizzard.
In the scheme of things, probably not too big a deal (except for Siwar's and similiar's evasions), but interesting nonetheless.
As Vic has said here as well as other places, you cannot force a player to do something detrimental, IE, you cannot make them reroll with Meliski if they don't want to, and you cannot play Rage on them during an encounter if they aren't going to bury a card (and you can't make them).That's a little bit out of context. What I meant was that if the person who would be making the reroll does not reroll, it's not legal to use the power; if the person you want to play Rage on does not bury a card, it's not legal to play it.
Not too much out of context, I think: if these circumstances prevent Meliski from recharging, doesn't that mean Meliski can't force rerolls?
Not that I mean to twist your words, and I apologize if it appears that way. I simply drew conclusions from them I thought were self-evident. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Not too much out of context, I think: if these circumstances prevent Meliski from recharging, doesn't that mean Meliski can't force rerolls?
This was a thread from some time ago, which started with Meliski. You can only offer to let a player take advantage of a power. More recently, if a power gives another player a purely optional power (such as Rage) then it is okay to play it except that during a check you can only play cards that directly affect the check which means that the other player would have to have agreed to use the power during that check.
The bizarre end is trying to play Strength on a character with d4 Strength that wants to fail a Strength 4 check. Him: I want to fail! Me: I want to draw Arcane Armor for playing an Arcane card to avoid the automatic damage to everyone! Both: Let me play for my own character!
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
"Don’t take actions that may harm another player’s character without that player’s consent" is *not* merely a suggestion in OP—it's a rule,
What you do outside of OP is up to you and your gaming group.
Interesting. So you need permission from the group to play Blizzard.
In the scheme of things, probably not too big a deal (except for Siwar's and similiar's evasions), but interesting nonetheless.
Not too much out of context, I think: if these circumstances prevent Meliski from recharging, doesn't that mean Meliski can't force rerolls?As Vic has said here as well as other places, you cannot force a player to do something detrimental, IE, you cannot make them reroll with Meliski if they don't want to, and you cannot play Rage on them during an encounter if they aren't going to bury a card (and you can't make them).That's a little bit out of context. What I meant was that if the person who would be making the reroll does not reroll, it's not legal to use the power; if the person you want to play Rage on does not bury a card, it's not legal to play it.
No—I was just talking about the legality of playing that card or using that power. If your table allows you to force decisions on somebody else, then you can play that card or use that power. If your table (or the PFSACG rules) don't allow that, then you can't.
A Harsk or Lirianne that never recharges cards for d4s probably greatly increases the chance of failure over a session. Likely not actionable, but non-cooperative and odd for someone choosing a character with this power.
The problem with this is that Lirianne has such a small hand-size. When recharging (shuffling) for d4, I've regularly had to have her skip her exploration, as she has no cards left. I don't mind in a game at home where I have 2 or 3 characters, but I'm not going to go to OP, just to recharge my entire hand once per round for others combat checks, and never get an actual turn. (Slightly distorted example, as no gunslinger class deck)
|
The problem with this is that Lirianne has such a small hand-size. When recharging (shuffling) for d4, I've regularly had to have her skip her exploration, as she has no cards left. I don't mind in a game at home where I have 2 or 3 characters, but I'm not going to go to OP, just to recharge my entire hand once per round for others combat checks, and never get an actual turn. (Slightly distorted example, as no gunslinger class deck)
A Harsk or Lirianne that never recharges cards for d4s probably greatly increases the chance of failure over a session. Likely not actionable, but non-cooperative and odd for someone choosing a character with this power.
Yea, sometimes helping other players with a check can actually be harmful to the person helping, and even the party. Luckily, most players understand this, however I've played with some people that don't.
Sometimes players have to be willing to play the odds and risk losing a fight when the fight itself is unimportant or your character isn't in danger of dying/becoming crippled by unfortunate card burials.