Does anyone *actually* inspect inventory sheets? Is that a jerk move?

[N N 959]

Like so many posters in Internet discussion, you resort to misrepresenting the opposing side in order to win the debate.

I'm going to repeat BNW's assertions which you have avoided:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

deusvult wrote:

Technically, yes, a GM can rule/adjudicate that an efficient quiver (or any magic item) doesn't work up to full effectiveness under certain circumstances.

No. They can't. They're breaking the rules. your argument is that DMs can break the rules whenever they feel like it and thats not the case. Its no different than just adding monsters.

Your argument is that something that someone can demonstrate to you, in real life, is so unrealistic that you are compelled to

Ignore the rules of the game
Render a character ineffective in the middle of combat
Make up a completely unneeded house rule
and most importantly ruin someone's night.

Your argument is absurd. It is not nearly good enough to do that. There is NO call. No justification and no REASON to do that. No. You are not allowed, you are breaking campaign rules and you are doing it just to be a jerk to someone.

People have to move from game to game under a consistent set of rules. That's one of the rules of PFS. You cannot throw random curve balls at players just to limit their effectiveness. Thats no different than saying "Well you couldn't pull a weapon and move that far so your barbarian doesn't get to attack this round"

How the heck does arcane bond work in your games where you'd have to pull out any 1 of 100 spell component items?

[deusvult]

BNW and I were disagreeing over what fairly constitutes a modifier or penalty. He said, for example, that he disagreed with my thought that upping a free action to a move action could be considered fair. I even agreed conditionally with him on that, conceding that most of the time that would be too extreme. We differ in that I'd still potentially see it as plausible in corner cases, maybe he doesn't. That's fine and I respect his difference of opinion.. he wasn't using faulty logic that needed to be pointed out.

You and I were disagreeing over whether modifiers or penalties are EVER ok if they're not explicitly pre-presented in the rules. That argument is done; you lost.

Now, those aren't the same arguments. Yours is destroyed, because you ignored the relevance of giving bonuses as well as penalties in my argument.

BNW and I can peacefully agree to disagree over what fairly constitutes a modifier or penalty, or as I put it, a "negative impact". It's not at all the same thing that you and I have been dogfighting over.

[Chris Mortika]

NN 959, I suspect that you would be upset in my GMing style. I allow for bonuses and penalties, sometimes substantial, based on situations not covered in the rules, when appropriate. (And in the end, I'm the one who decides what's appropriate.)

Golarion is a world with magic and gods and treants, but it's also a world with sewers and horses and rope and rainwater. And, unless something is called out as being specifically alien to real-world physics (Dragons can fly; lightning bolt spells behave as described) then things behave the way they do in the real world. Without some way to clean up, people who've been fighting in hip-deep sewer effluvium aren't presentable to a decent couple living in a cottage, let alone a guild master or seneschal.

In almost all these "common sense" cases, the rules are silent precisely because rules are unnecessary. We need a rule to explain how the defending property works on magic weapons, because we have no reasonable way to fall back on how real-world magic swords behave. The rulebook for a fantasy game spends just about all its time describing the rules for the fantasy elements.

If that's going to bother you, if you're going to call it BS and disrupt the table, I'll see you at social time after the tables are run and the games are played.

[N N 959]

deusvult wrote:

You and I were disagreeing over whether modifiers or penalties are EVER ok if they're not explicitly pre-presented in the rules.

No. I never said that. Once again, you're attempting to win an argument by intentionally misrepresenting my position.

BNW called your argument "absurd" then said you were doing it to be "a jerk to someone." If that's peaceful disagreement for you, so be it.

[N N 959]

Chris Mortika wrote:

NN 959, I suspect that you would be upset in my GMing style. I allow for bonuses and penalties, sometimes substantial, based on situations not covered in the rules, when appropriate. (And in the end, I'm the one who decides what's appropriate.)

Golarion is a world with magic and gods and treants, but it's also a world with sewers and horses and rope and rainwater. And, unless something is called out as being specifically alien to real-world physics (Dragons can fly; lightning bolt spells behave as described) then things behave the way they do in the real world. Without some way to clean up, people who've been fighting in hip-deep sewer effluvium aren't presentable to a decent couple living in a cottage, let alone a guild master or seneschal.

In almost all these "common sense" cases, the rules are silent precisely because rules are unnecessary. We need a rule to explain how the defending property works on magic weapons, because we have no reasonable way to fall back on how real-world magic swords behave. The rulebook for a fantasy game spends just about all its time describing the rules for the fantasy elements.

If that's going to bother you, if you're going to call it BS and disrupt the table, I'll see you at social time after the tables are run and the games are played.

If you're the type of GM who is going to impose a "circumstance" penalty because my character hasn't used the bathroom during his watch, then yes, I would not enjoy sitting at your table. Somehow I suspect you are not that type of GM.

And for the record I've never had to call BS on circumstance modifier by a GM.

EDIT: Nor have I ever had one tell me that with 50 arrows it's a move action to draw an arrow.

[deusvult]

N N 959 wrote:

deusvult wrote:

You and I were disagreeing over whether modifiers or penalties are EVER ok if they're not explicitly pre-presented in the rules.

No. I never said that. Once again, you're attempting to win an argument by intentionally misrepresenting my position.

Actually, you said it here, here,here, and here. If you were somehow saying that modifiers are indeed sometimes ok, just bizarrely never when I suggest it, I misunderstood your posts.

As for implying that I implied that a penalty was in order for not taking a bathroom break during a night watch... What I actually said was:

deusvult wrote:

It's frankly ridiculous to argue that since the rules don't cover going to the bathroom that your character doesn't go to the bathroom, or that the GM cannot impose a circumstantial penalty to your Perception check during your all-night watch due to your bladder pains since you loudly and repeatedly insisted you never go to the bathroom.

Note the difference between punishing someone for forgetting to say they relieve themselves and dealing with a player who insists that relieving oneself doesn't exist because it's not covered by the rules. It's a big difference, where in the former is a lame GM attempting a gotcha and the latter where the GM is exercising a completely authorized "ORLY?".

It's a little ironic that the straw man you were so worried about earlier didn't show up until you brought him out.

As for:

NN 959 wrote:

BNW called your argument "absurd" then said you were doing it to be "a jerk to someone." If that's peaceful disagreement for you, so be it.

That's a little immature to try to get me to argue with someone else. I believe the two of us had a failure to communicate at first, and prefer to believe we understand each other now as more posts were given and other posts were agreed upon together.

At any rate, I think our discussion has run its course. Go ahead with the last word, I've said all there is to be said.

[N N 959]

deusvult wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

deusvult wrote:

You and I were disagreeing over whether modifiers or penalties are EVER ok if they're not explicitly pre-presented in the rules.

No. I never said that. Once again, you're attempting to win an argument by intentionally misrepresenting my position.

Actually, you said it here, here,here, and here.

In none of this instances am I talking about or even implying that a GM can never apply a circumstance modifier. You and others have tried to push the discussion in that direction because you know that's an argument you can win. Strawman.

Regardless of what the player says, imposing a penalty because the character hasn't used the bathroom is, to borrow a phrase from BNW, simply "being a jerk to someone" and violation of the PFS "don't-be-a-jerk" rule.

[N N 959]

deusvult wrote:

That's a little immature to try to get me to argue with someone else. I believe the two of us had a failure to communicate at first, and prefer to believe we understand each other now as more posts were given and other posts were agreed upon together.

So now you're insulting me and trying to accuse me of starting a fight between you and BNW. lol. I brought it up to expose your continued misrepresentation of the discussion so you can try and win the debate.

[thejeff]

N N 959 wrote:

deusvult wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

deusvult wrote:

You and I were disagreeing over whether modifiers or penalties are EVER ok if they're not explicitly pre-presented in the rules.

No. I never said that. Once again, you're attempting to win an argument by intentionally misrepresenting my position.

Actually, you said it here, here,here, and here.

In none of this instances am I talking about or even implying that a GM can never apply a circumstance modifier. You and others have tried to push the discussion in that direction because you know that's an argument you can win. Strawman.

Regardless of what the player says, imposing a penalty because the character hasn't used the bathroom is, to borrow a phrase from BNW, simply "being a jerk to someone" and violation of the PFS "don't-be-a-jerk" rule.

If the player persists in saying, "I never pee because the rules don't say I have too", I might eventually apply penalties. More likely I'd just tell the player to stop being an idiot and stop playing with him if he persisted.

Or have his bladder rupture.

[N N 959]

thejeff wrote:

]If the player persists in saying, "I never pee because the rules don't say I have too", I might eventually apply penalties. More likely I'd just tell the player to stop being an idiot and stop playing with him if he persisted.

Or have his bladder rupture.

I'm at a complete loss as to why you think the GMs job is to make sure the player declares/concedes his character has used the bathroom? Is there some sort of unfair advantage a player receives for declaring such a thing?

[phantom1592]

In our groups it is a long established fact.

Heroes never go the bathroom. We have years of books, comics, games and movies to back us up.

Everytime someone leaves the table to go the bathroom, we shake our heads sadly and say 'NOT a hero...'

[thejeff]

N N 959 wrote:

thejeff wrote:

]If the player persists in saying, "I never pee because the rules don't say I have too", I might eventually apply penalties. More likely I'd just tell the player to stop being an idiot and stop playing with him if he persisted.

Or have his bladder rupture.

I'm at a complete loss as to why you think the GMs job is to make sure the player declares/concedes his character has used the bathroom? Is there some sort of unfair advantage a player receives for declaring such a thing?

Honestly, 99.5% of the time I'd just ignore it. Only if someone made a point of insisting that his character never needed to go, because the rules didn't say so, would it come up at all. At which point I'd laugh and tell him he still did, even if it wasn't covered in the rules. Only if he still persisted in arguing would it go any further.

Consequences for a player being an idiot.

[BigNorseWolf]

Or just start addressing him as Glorious Leader?

[Ascalaphus]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Core rulebook, page 403

One handy rule to keep under your belt is the Fiat Rule—simply grant a player a +2 or a –2 bonus or penalty to a die roll if no one at the table is precisely sure how a situation might be handled by the rules. For example, a character who attempts to trip an iron golem in a room where the f loor is magnetized could gain a +2 bonus on his attempt at your discretion, since the magnetic pull exerted by the f loor helps pull the golem down.

I throw bonuses at my players far, FAR more often than penalties. Usually for RP.

Yeah, this is the rule I was looking for. I knew it was written down somewhere, I just couldn't find where. I did remember the +/-2 quantity though.

So, I'd definitely apply the penalty for coming to the fancy part immediately from the sewers. But I'm not gonna waste time arguing about bathroom breaks; I'll just assume they happen offscreen.

---

As for the starvation during overland travel: that's absurd. If finding food was actually an issue during the adventure, I'd say so during the first day that food was looking scarce.

"You've been travelling through the forest expecting to buy new provisions at the next village, but there doesn't seem to be any village for some odd reason. If nobody's got provisions in his equipment or some other trick up his sleeve, I'm calling for Survival checks now to forage..."

Trying to "gotcha" someone that he hasn't eaten for a month is stupid.

[Belafon]

I don't know if this will be helpful or lost in the noise, but I actually do ask my players how they plan on eating and drinking. Not on the third day out, but before they leave on a journey. If the answer isn't "the Druid can forage enough for all of us" the players buy the required rations.

Which, bringing it full circle, they end up putting on their ITS.

[The Human Diversion]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

I throw bonuses at my players far, FAR more often than penalties. Usually for RP.

This. I reward RP, and I reward creative gameplay.

[kinevon]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Or just start addressing him as Glorious Leader?

Shouldn't that be "Glorious Leaker"?

[dwayne germaine]

The Human Diversion wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

I throw bonuses at my players far, FAR more often than penalties. Usually for RP.

This. I reward RP, and I reward creative gameplay.

Yeah, I think most GMs do, I am pretty sure that I award bonuses at least twice as often as I apply penalties.

That's what makes it all the more frustrating when someone argues that a GM can't apply a situational penalty for those times when you feel that it is called for. You know that same player probably isn't going to complain when you give them a circumstance bonus for anything.

I get the feeling in this argument that there are a few people out there that don't trust the GMs that they play with to be fair and see their role as adversarial. No one in my area GMs to "get" the characters so this mindset is a little foreign to me.

[The Human Diversion]

dwayne germaine wrote:

I get the feeling in this argument that there are a few people out there that don't trust the GMs that they play with to be fair and see their role as adversarial. No one in my area GMs to "get" the characters so this mindset is a little foreign to me.

We've ALL had that one GM who just simply sucked beyond suck. I made a post a year ago about a GM I had where the first thing he did when I sat down was setup his GM screen and proudly show me his player kill stickers, not unlike WWII aces had kill decals on their planes. My inner common sense gave me a huge "NOPE" and I quite simply got up and left.

Any DM that views an RP game as "me vs. them" is never going to be a good DM. IMHO, a DM is a storyteller and rules arbitrator who just happens to run the bad guys. I will admit that when I get a completely cheesed-out character that could solo an adventure who makes the table unfun for the other players, I notice myself getting a bit adversarial with them but I'm trying to remember to pull them aside and ask them to not overshadow the other PCs rather than sit there and get mad.

[thejeff]

The Human Diversion wrote:

dwayne germaine wrote:

I get the feeling in this argument that there are a few people out there that don't trust the GMs that they play with to be fair and see their role as adversarial. No one in my area GMs to "get" the characters so this mindset is a little foreign to me.

We've ALL had that one GM who just simply sucked beyond suck. I made a post a year ago about a GM I had where the first thing he did when I sat down was setup his GM screen and proudly show me his player kill stickers, not unlike WWII aces had kill decals on their planes. My inner common sense gave me a huge "NOPE" and I quite simply got up and left.

Any DM that views an RP game as "me vs. them" is never going to be a good DM. IMHO, a DM is a storyteller and rules arbitrator who just happens to run the bad guys. I will admit that when I get a completely cheesed-out character that could solo an adventure who makes the table unfun for the other players, I notice myself getting a bit adversarial with them but I'm trying to remember to pull them aside and ask them to not overshadow the other PCs rather than sit there and get mad.

This, or at least this perception, is a large part of the reason behind the entire "player empowerment" aspect of 3.x/PF.

Rules for everything, no GM fiat, and the bad GMs won't be able to ruin games.

[The Human Diversion]

thejeff wrote:

This, or at least this perception, is a large part of the reason behind the entire "player empowerment" aspect of 3.x/PF.

Rules for everything, no GM fiat, and the bad GMs won't be able to ruin games.

You say that like my attitude/perception is wrong.

I personally think a bad GM will always find a way to ruin a game.

[andreww]

dwayne germaine wrote:

I get the feeling in this argument that there are a few people out there that don't trust the GMs that they play with to be fair and see their role as adversarial. No one in my area GMs to "get" the characters so this mindset is a little foreign to me.

Play outside of your area or go to a large convention. The quality of GM's is a highly variable quantity. I have largely been fortunate so far but I very much understand wanting to proof yourself against that one terrible GM especially in an organised play campaign where one character might well represent months of play and could be gone with little to no chance to do anything about it due to a terrible call you have no control over.

[thejeff]

The Human Diversion wrote:

thejeff wrote:

This, or at least this perception, is a large part of the reason behind the entire "player empowerment" aspect of 3.x/PF.

Rules for everything, no GM fiat, and the bad GMs won't be able to ruin games.

You say that like my attitude/perception is wrong.

I personally think a bad GM will always find a way to ruin a game.

I absolutely agree and didn't mean to imply otherwise.

[The Human Diversion]

thejeff wrote:

The Human Diversion wrote:

thejeff wrote:

This, or at least this perception, is a large part of the reason behind the entire "player empowerment" aspect of 3.x/PF.

Rules for everything, no GM fiat, and the bad GMs won't be able to ruin games.

You say that like my attitude/perception is wrong.

I personally think a bad GM will always find a way to ruin a game.

I absolutely agree and didn't mean to imply otherwise.

Ahhh, gotcha. I must have a case of the Mondays.

That being said, I have encountered two PFS GMs who feel it is "them vs. the players" and they see DMing as their chance to "get revenge" on players who have DMed before.

I've also encountered players who feel like they should be allowed to do just about anything because "without the players PFS wouldn't exist."

They are the exceptions, not the norms, though, and most players and most GMs are great.

[deusvult]

The Human Diversion wrote:

That being said, I have encountered two PFS GMs who feel it is "them vs. the players" and they see DMing as their chance to "get revenge" on players who have DMed before.

Society play tends to be self-policing. Bad GMs will either improve or be weeded out.

Quote:

I've also encountered players who feel like they should be allowed to do just about anything because "without the players PFS wouldn't exist."

Players taking the Pathfinder/3.X player-empowerment paradigm too far in in Society Play are uncommon, but still way more common than bad GMs. In my experience, at any rate.

[N N 959]

dwayne germaine wrote:

That's what makes it all the more frustrating when someone argues that a GM can't apply a situational penalty for those times when you feel that it is called for.

When I see someone argue this, it will be the first time.

[Christopher Rowe]

Maybe it's just local style, but I've never actually seen a GM apply situational penalties or bonuses that weren't specifically called out in the scenario.

[Jeff Merola]

Christopher Rowe wrote:

Maybe it's just local style, but I've never actually seen a GM apply situational penalties or bonuses that weren't specifically called out in the scenario.

Just because you've never been told that's what they were doing doesn't mean they weren't doing it. It doesn't mean they were doing it either, of course, but my point stands.

[Charon's Little Helper]

deusvult wrote:

Players taking the Pathfinder/3.X player-empowerment paradigm too far in in Society Play are uncommon, but still way more common than bad GMs. In my experience, at any rate.

I don't know if they're more common - but you definitely run into them more. But after all - each session you play with 3-5 other players, and only one DM. So even if they are equally common - you'll run into the players 3-5 times more often. (and that's assuming that you never DM yourself - and from your stars you obviously do - shifting the odds further)

[Christopher Rowe]

Jeff Merola wrote:

Christopher Rowe wrote:

Maybe it's just local style, but I've never actually seen a GM apply situational penalties or bonuses that weren't specifically called out in the scenario.

Just because you've never been told that's what they were doing doesn't mean they weren't doing it. It doesn't mean they were doing it either, of course, but my point stands.

Good point. I myself would be hesitant to use such because of my own prejudices towards strict interpretations, but I'm interested (and heartened) by the arguments in their favor I'm reading here.

[grandpoobah]

People often have skewed memories. We more easily remember that time a GM gave us a penalty than that time a GM gave us a bonus.

I am much more inclined (as a GM) to hand out a circumstance bonus to a player for doing something cool, good roleplaying, or good tactics.

It's rare that I need to give a player a penalty, unless they do something dumb (typically jerky behavior preceding a Diplomacy check). The biggest penalty I give in combat is "cover" (or partial cover).

[David Bowles]

Don't play with GMs who grief the PCs. Period. Don't argue whether they are allowed to or not within society rules. Get up and leave. I don't consider a -2 here or there griefing myself, but if you do, leave the table. It's just biggest statement you can make.

[Meager Rolmug]

There are some universal points I'd like to make about this and all the other threads about how close the rules should be enforced, but first i will recount my experience in a private group i was part of...
They were all very experienced gamers with busy lives who were switching from playing 3.5 to PF. Multiple campaigns were run by different GMs, but all were lax in enforcing the rules and following the guidelines. The games soon devolved into a mess as the powergamers(or cheaters) took great advantage of the rules that were not being followed/enforced...the GMs couldn't come up with appropriately challenging encounters, the non powergamers became VERY resentful for not really being able to participate, and some friendships were ruined.
The above happening was NOT a random result....It was a CERTAIN outcome. Only 2 things keep it from happening so often the game would not be worth playing at all...
1)The use and reasonable enforcement of most all the rules.
2)A constant attempt by the rules makers to make the rules user friendly and balanced.
Personally, though i love the game, i believe Pazio could do a much better job on point #2. The deficiencies there have a direct affect on how well point #1 works. Be that as it may be, a thresh-hold of fairness/balance needs to be maintained...pretty much at near any cost, if you want people who rather not cheat to keep playing. There are many GMs commenting on this thread, to you i say..."keep up the good fight!", without your efforts to enforce the rules(though somewhat needlessly difficult) the game would not be be worth playing.

[Quadstriker]

The Human Diversion wrote:

My inner common sense gave me a huge "NOPE" and I quite simply got up and left.

Learning to trust your inner "NOPE" is a valuable skill in all parts of life.

Thankfully, I've never found myself in a situation so bad in game with a player or GM that I've needed to just walk away from the table mid-game, but what if it does come up? What happens? I'm assuming the GM doesn't just get to say LUL U DIED THEN and report your character killed. I'm assuming the incident would be investigated by your VC/VOs, or by convention organizers. Is that what goes down in such a case?

[Carla the Profane]

I keep a wall of stickers like that. I do it more in terms of "those who died with courage have their names engraved on this wall". I love the look on player's faces when they see it for the first time.

I don't play versus the players, but death is inevitable sometimes... though I get where youre coming from. If the players only knew how much I cared for them... x)

Back on topic; I dont use the ITS but I do note all my purchases on my chronicles, is that legal?

[Auke Teeninga]

Carla the Profane wrote:

I keep a wall of stickers like that. I do it more in terms of "those who died with courage have their names engraved on this wall". I love the look on player's faces when they see it for the first time.

I don't play versus the players, but death is inevitable sometimes... though I get where youre coming from. If the players only knew how much I cared for them... x)

Back on topic; I dont use the ITS but I do note all my purchases on my chronicles, is that legal?

No, because if you use a wand do you take that chronicle and mark off a charge on that chronicle?

The Inventory Sheet is as much a tool for the player as for the GM.

[gorkai]

Most scenarios where the players have to deal with cold contain a warning to that effect in the text. If you hinted at your players that they should buy cold gear and they did not do it, well then, I would have done the same thing and asked them to show me a proof of purchase.
We can discuss where they should write it but the fact remains that they could not back their claim.

[The Human Diversion]

Quadstriker wrote:

The Human Diversion wrote:

My inner common sense gave me a huge "NOPE" and I quite simply got up and left.

Learning to trust your inner "NOPE" is a valuable skill in all parts of life.

Thankfully, I've never found myself in a situation so bad in game with a player or GM that I've needed to just walk away from the table mid-game, but what if it does come up? What happens? I'm assuming the GM doesn't just get to say LUL U DIED THEN and report your character killed. I'm assuming the incident would be investigated by your VC/VOs, or by convention organizers. Is that what goes down in such a case?

I've had a situation like that in Living Greyhawk, it was a GM who was known for making up BS on the spot to try and kill players. My friends and I had signed up for a table beforehand for a Battle Interactive (similar to Pathfinder's specials) and we got him as a GM. We decided to give it a try and midway through the adventure he started making up rules that gave the NPCs a massive advantage. One of my friends got up and announced he was leaving, so we all did. The GM said he was going to report the adventure as a TPK and we said he could report it however he wanted, because we weren't accepting Adventure Records (basically chronicle sheets) from him, and the paper Adventure Record trumped any online record.

I'm not sure of this, but I believe PFS is similar in that the chronicle sheet is always the authoritative source, so a GM can threaten a TPK on you, but you can always refuse to accept the chronicle sheet. In addition a whole table full of players reporting a horrible GM would stand a better chance of being ruled in the player's favor by a Venture Officer than the GM's ruling.

[Carla the Profane]

Auke Teeninga wrote:

No, because if you use a wand do you take that chronicle and mark off a charge on that chronicle?

The Inventory Sheet is as much a tool for the player as for the GM.

I keep record of my wands charges on my character sheet...

EDIT: I must say I recently made a GM-credit character from scratch and I used an ITS because it was such a big amount of stuff to keep track of at once. Just asking if it's really needed for normal characters too as the 1-2 purchases I usually make easily fit on the chronicle

[thejeff]

The Human Diversion wrote:

Quadstriker wrote:

The Human Diversion wrote:

My inner common sense gave me a huge "NOPE" and I quite simply got up and left.

Learning to trust your inner "NOPE" is a valuable skill in all parts of life.

Thankfully, I've never found myself in a situation so bad in game with a player or GM that I've needed to just walk away from the table mid-game, but what if it does come up? What happens? I'm assuming the GM doesn't just get to say LUL U DIED THEN and report your character killed. I'm assuming the incident would be investigated by your VC/VOs, or by convention organizers. Is that what goes down in such a case?

I've had a situation like that in Living Greyhawk, it was a GM who was known for making up BS on the spot to try and kill players. My friends and I had signed up for a table beforehand for a Battle Interactive (similar to Pathfinder's specials) and we got him as a GM. We decided to give it a try and midway through the adventure he started making up rules that gave the NPCs a massive advantage. One of my friends got up and announced he was leaving, so we all did. The GM said he was going to report the adventure as a TPK and we said he could report it however he wanted, because we weren't accepting Adventure Records (basically chronicle sheets) from him, and the paper Adventure Record trumped any online record.

I'm not sure of this, but I believe PFS is similar in that the chronicle sheet is always the authoritative source, so a GM can threaten a TPK on you, but you can always refuse to accept the chronicle sheet. In addition a whole table full of players reporting a horrible GM would stand a better chance of being ruled in the player's favor by a Venture Officer than the GM's ruling.

I'm not quite sure how that would work out. In the short run, you could always walk in and sit down at a table with your paper chronicles and just not show the GM the one where you died. Regardless of the reason. I assume that'll get flagged somehow when the GM reports the next session. Eventually you'll develop a reputation.

[Sniggevert]

The Human Diversion wrote:

I'm not sure of this, but I believe PFS is similar in that the chronicle sheet is always the authoritative source, so a GM can threaten a TPK on you, but you can always refuse to accept the chronicle sheet. In addition a whole table full of players reporting a horrible GM would stand a better chance of being ruled in the player's favor by a Venture Officer than the GM's ruling.

If you are reported online as dead, that character can not have additional chronicles added to it online and would kick back an error to the person reporting the next scenario. Once you sit and hear the briefing, you count as having "played" the scenario with whatever outcome it may have...barring specific corner case exceptions due to circumstance.

[The Human Diversion]

Kevin Ingle wrote:

If you are reported online as dead, that character can not have additional chronicles added to it online and would kick back an error to the person reporting the next scenario. Once you sit and hear the briefing, you count as having "played" the scenario with whatever outcome it may have...barring specific corner case exceptions due to circumstance.

Honestly, if I had a GM who was a d-bag big enough to pull something like that, I'd consider quitting PFS entirely rather than be worried about playing again.

My anecdotal "what-if" scenario is talking about a GM so bad that the entire table gets up and walks away in protest. I haven't encountered anything remotely like that in PFS yet, and don't expect to, but if I did you can bet your last dollar that a Venture Captain or Paizo staff would hear of it. I would think they'd side against a GM that is socially destructive (assuming, of course, the players who got up and walked away were in the right).

[Sniggevert]

The Human Diversion wrote:

Kevin Ingle wrote:

If you are reported online as dead, that character can not have additional chronicles added to it online and would kick back an error to the person reporting the next scenario. Once you sit and hear the briefing, you count as having "played" the scenario with whatever outcome it may have...barring specific corner case exceptions due to circumstance.

Honestly, if I had a GM who was a d-bag big enough to pull something like that, I'd consider quitting PFS entirely rather than be worried about playing again.

My anecdotal "what-if" scenario is talking about a GM so bad that the entire table gets up and walks away in protest. I haven't encountered anything remotely like that in PFS yet, and don't expect to, but if I did you can bet your last dollar that a Venture Captain or Paizo staff would hear of it. I would think they'd side against a GM that is socially destructive (assuming, of course, the players who got up and walked away were in the right).

If the first happens, then yes, the second part would be the appropriate course of action, because if you are reported dead it would be your only course of action to keep playing that character in Society play.

I also assume you are correct in your assumption that if the table was truly that bad, then the PTB would assist you in resolving the situation amicably.

[Serum]

Carla the Profane wrote:

I keep a wall of stickers like that. I do it more in terms of "those who died with courage have their names engraved on this wall". I love the look on player's faces when they see it for the first time.

I don't play versus the players, but death is inevitable sometimes... though I get where youre coming from. If the players only knew how much I cared for them... x)

Badges of Honor:

My wife forces me to keep every reporting sheet where I TPK a party, and display them on the front of my GM binders. This way I am reminded of the shame I have brought upon her. :(

[deusvult]

The Human Diversion wrote:

I'm not sure of this, but I believe PFS is similar in that the chronicle sheet is always the authoritative source, so a GM can threaten a TPK on you, but you can always refuse to accept the chronicle sheet. In addition a whole table full of players reporting a horrible GM would stand a better chance of being ruled in the player's favor by a Venture Officer than the GM's ruling.

I think the sentiment of the post this quote was clipped from is generally correct, but I do feel that this specific part is very incorrect.

Because, if it were correct, you'd be free to toss any chronicle you didn't like. "What, I only got 1 prestige!?! F that, I'm crumpling this and playing this scenario again later..."

I think the general sentiment of the post (which was shared by several others) is correct; sic the Venture Officers on the egregiously bad GM that caused you to get up and bail. They can un-report you as dead and potentially even give you a corrected chronicle sheet.

But telling a GM "You're not the boss of me!" doesn't work. Within the campaign hierarchy, he IS the boss of you. Your recourse is with the bosses in turn of him...

[Z...D...]

Carla the Profane wrote:

I keep a wall of stickers like that. I do it more in terms of "those who died with courage have their names engraved on this wall". I love the look on player's faces when they see it for the first time.

I knew a GM who kept a binder full of character sheets of the PC he has killed.

[Brother Harsk the Constant]

I always prepare my characters as if they will be audited. Everything is noted/documented on my character sheets themselves and on older chronicles. I always have my chronicles and updated ITS for each of my characters. My math is correct. That's how I assist the GMs running for me. It works. GMs appreciate it and it keeps me on my toes regarding rules and rules changes.

[N N 959]

deusvult wrote:

But telling a GM "You're not the boss of me!" doesn't work. Within the campaign hierarchy, he IS the boss of you. Your recourse is with the bosses in turn of him...

It does work. You get up from the table and forgo the game. The problem is most GMs don't disclose their house rules until you're halfway into the game.

The only power a GM has is that which the player consents to. If the GM is obligated/mandated to follow the rules of PFS. A player is entitled to a game that is conducted under the rules of PFS. The GM is not the boss of any of the players. The GM is the adjudicator for things not covered by the rules.

I've been 100% successful in getting VCs to rescind GMs calls that were in clear violation of the PFS rules.

If a GM thinks he's the "boss" of someone, then I'll argue that he or she has got the wrong attitude.

[deusvult]

N N 959 wrote:

If a GM thinks he's the "boss" of someone, then I'll argue that he or she has got the wrong attitude.

Administrative fact has nothing to do with attitude. GMs hand out chronicles, GMs (typically) handle the burden of reporting. Players not only "do not" handle the responsibility of filling out chronicles, they May Not.

Players don't have a choice about refusing to accept a chronicle. Yes, you can refuse to pick it up, but it doesn't mean you get to pretend it was never given nor that you cannot replay the scenario without burning a star (or using whatever form the Core campaign replay will work out to). Only if a PFS member can convince a VO to do so will a GM's decision(s) be overturned. The "player", as a position, is essentially powerless- the rules have primacy and the GM interprets them. The player, as a person, yes has power via appeal and the power to decline to participate. (participate in PFS entirely; the player can't just say "that session didn't count" if the GM reports that it did.. only going over the GM's head can undo that)

Yes, the GM doesn't get to boss you around and yes the GM is subject to oversight. But let's not get hung up on verbiage or argue for the sake of arguing.. the position of the GM outranks the position of the player. In PFS it's still true; the GM is still a GM despite some authority (namely, "house rules") being reserved only for VOs and Paizo staff.

[N N 959]

deusvult wrote:

... the position of the GM outranks the position of the player. In PFS it's still true; the GM is still a GM despite some authority (namely, "house rules") being reserved only for VOs and Paizo staff.

And this probably underscores why I disagree with nearly all your posts in this thread. There is no hierarchy between GM and Player any more than there is between a referee and a basketball player. Pathfinder is a game of mutual consent, not structural or organization hierarchy.

The fact that GMs hand out chronicles is irrelevant. It's not a choice, it's a requirement by PFS. If a player satisfies the requirements, the GM is obligated to reward the player. If the GM tries to assert conditions were not met when they have been met objectively, the player will be awarded the proper rewards, regardless of what the GM wants.

Your attitude reminds me of all the reasons why I quite playing normal games and moved to PFS, to avoid GMs who were power tripping and insisted on doing things like making up a house rule that 50+ arrows means it's a move action to draw ammunition. PFS isn't completely devoid of it, but it's like two orders of magnitude less a than what I experienced outside of PFS.