|
Did you not take that up with your VO/VL?In answer to the orginal question "Can GMs for PFS turn players away just because they feel like it?" In my experience the answer is yes.
We have a local game shop with games every Thursday night, and unless you are part of the GM's close circle of friends you can not be guarenteed a seat at a table. Signing up via warhorn does not matter. Preferance is given to roomates and friends before anyone else, even if they have not signed up for any table.
This has happend 4 out of 5 game nights to several players and has caused some of us not to attend anymore.
Since home games are by invitation only, that is not a problem in those situations.
I second that. If its at a public space and you've signed up for the game on Warhorn/Meetup etc. The GM shouldn't be turning you away to seat his or her friend.
Mike
|
In the community that I mostly play in, GMs are expected to study both subtiers and be ready. Sign ups of players are done and character choice is generally done at the table.
Any legal PFS character is welcome.
Nobody is turned away unless they have behaved badly on repeated occasions and conversations have been had. These decisions are left to store managers/coordinators.
My personal opinion in a PUBLIC game is that to turn a player and a character away because they, say, don't like a class, is altering the power dynamics of the game artifically to favor the monsters/opposition. This is commonly called cheating. It should be frowned on just like anyone lying on your dice rolls or a player "using" a potion you never purchased.
Hope that was helpful.
Kerney
I just read all 3 pages of posts. I find this topic fascinating. I was just reading in another thread that a gaming convention set up all the older modules on warhorn.net to have just 4 open slots per table, since the old modules expected only 4 players and are overrun if you have 6 or 7.
Since the older modules do not have any adjustments and by the rules you are not allowed to modify anything, seating only 4 players struck me as a good & innovative solution. I'd never thought of it before yesterday! It seems like a legit way to bring the older modules back into a being a positive experience. It's disheartening to hear people be so adamant that a GM must run 6+ players if that many show up.
The quality of the game matters. Delivering garbage to 7 players is bad. Delivering high quality fun to 4 players and telling the extra players to head home is not perfect, but in my book it's waaaaaay better than a 7 person snoozefest. I know that I would personally prefer to be sent home than to be #7 in a full game.
Granted, if the player got a seat via warhorn.net and he/she was not waitlisted, then that person deserves a seat at the game. But since warhorn will limit the cutoff if you ask for it, you can make it clear beforehand that only 4 get to play.
Having 7 players for a season 0 module is just begging for all 7 players to be bored and unhappy. I love this new solution of limited seats/slots for older games, and I hope to see more of it.
(To answer the main topic of this thread, I support a GM limiting table size for almost any reason except capriciousness or malice. Warhorn games that you GM should reflect your preference because everyone deserves to know beforehand. The exception is when someone is terribly behaved at a table and the GM has to limit table size on the fly. That of course cannot be planned out on Warhorn.)
