|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a DM i try to avoid having the actions of one player negatively impact another. So if the taldan swashbuckler is trying to recruit a noble while the party druid is swimming in the punch bowl in otter form I don't require a bluff check for "never seen them before in my life..."
As a player I try to have a list of possible reactions my character MIGHT have rather than one thing that they definitely would do and then pick something off of the list that's not entirely disruptive but still gets the point across.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you write your character to be trouble, you as a player are responsible for the damage you cause.
It might not affect the mission, but it very much will affect the chance of the other players ever willingly sitting at the same table ever again.
|
I have to say I've been pretty lucky in PFS as I've only seen this pop a couple of times as a player, and only once as GM.
I had to have Kyra chastise the group after returning from a charm person to see they'd strung up the NPC they were escorting by his ankles, removed his clothing and were poking him with sticks trying to pry information out of him that he clearly didn't know. A couple players got some alignment infractions on that scenario, but for the most part I don't see a lot of "sorry, it's what my character would do" situations that aren't more comical than they are troublesome.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My personal experience thus far has been this:
The only people that try to 'justify' their actions with that excuse are ones that are trying to be edgy on the 'Don't be a jerk' rule.
Every other person who's had their character do something that appeared to be non-sensical? It made sense in the greater context, and was appropriate to the character and the scenario, and did NOT fall back to the 'sorry, but it's what my character would do' comment.
ie, folks who *own* their character actions fit them in smooth rp interaction versus the heavy-handed covering of anti-social action.
|
|
We just did this.
Actually, no.
BBT is asking in general terms, and is asking for insight/feedback.
No specific interactions involving character type 'x' versus character type 'y'..
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kicked the player out of my group. I have no time for gamer Nuremberg defense.Has anyone experienced this?
A player does something, um, asinine or otherwise troublesome, looks at you, and says "Sorry, it's what my character would do."
If so, what did you do, as a player?
What did you do, as a DM?
The problem with this approach is that you do see "It's what my character would do" used legitimately on occasion.
There are multiple occasions where the party has the opportunity to roleplay/negotiate with an intelligent undead. But one party member is a Sarenrite paladin...
Sometimes it's refreshing to see players work this way. I had one party of experienced players. They all realized that the ethically dubious course was most likely to get them full rewards. However they were all playing good characters. They discussed, shrugged, and all said "no, our characters wouldn't do that," accepting the reduced rewards.
However I agree that it can be problematic. Usually it's the "I will never tolerate evil!" characters who in actual play tend to define "evil" as anyone who isn't doing exactly what they want. I have seen one or two of the chaotic "my character would stab her in the back for no good reason" characters but they tend to be quickly ostracized.
Back during faction missions I had one session where my monk knocked a BBEG unconscious and was taking him back to the authorities. That led to a standoff with the Andorans whose mission was clearly "kill this guy." One of the reasons faction missions were removed.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
While it can clearly be taken to unacceptable extremes I'd hope that EVERYBODY would fairly frequently act in a suboptimal manner because "it is what the character would do". It is called a roleplaying game after all and characters without flaws are pretty boring.
I'm NOT condoning sabotaging the mission or stopping other peoples fun but lets NOT try and claim that acting in character is automatically a bad thing. Quite the reverse.
The big issue is that some players create characters who should NOT be Pathfinders. As long as the character makes sense as a Pathfinder then acting in character should be just fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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. In short, don’t be a jerk.
-Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide, emphasis mine
There is literally no excuse for making a character that would break this guideline.
|
|
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. In short, don’t be a jerk.-Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide, emphasis mine
There is literally no excuse for making a character that would break this guideline.
The problem is that role playing in a group is a compromise between people, and people very rarely have a fair sense of where to draw the line when they're involved.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, the problem is that role-playing games are a group activity and players who think that it's ok to ruin the fun for other people in the name of fidelity or "being true to the character" are being jerks. Doing what you think your character would legitimately do has no intrinsic value of its own. It is only valuable inasmuch as it helps to create a more enjoyable experience...
So no one should ever create an inquisitor of Pharasma (because others want to negotiate with an undead creature)?
No one should ever create a worshipper of Cayden Cailean (because others may want to use slaves as a trading commodity)?No one should create a druid because the Abadarians want to build a city over your grove? Or is it the other way around?
No one should create an Order of the Cockatrice cavalier because that requires you to take credit for everything you can?
It sounds like you are saying that you shouldn't take any class, order, or deity that has a chance to have a negative impact on a group. Or just ignore that part of your character if it "ruins other people's fun."
If you read my whole post I do say that people who are doing things just to be disruptive are a problem. If there is something in Pathfinder lore that pushes your character to act in a certain way when confronted with a situation that's not being deliberately disruptive. It may be inconvenient but it's something you *should* be doing. It isn't great for the group but not doing it takes the role-playing out of the game.
Venture-Captain, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth
|
The mods need to be written better where one murder hobo in the group isn't costing everyone lost prestige and half the party a faction mission.
I have two scenarios in a row where I have lost out on faction missions because one PC just has to murder hobo. Even when asked over and over by 4 out of 6 players - "please don't do that."
And if I can't PVP to stop it then the scenario needs to call out only the murder hobo gets the negative boon/curse what have you.
Edit: to make it pertinent the "it's what my character would do" was thrown around quite a bit.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The mods need to be written better where one murder hobo in the group isn't costing everyone lost prestige and half the party a faction mission.
I have two scenarios in a row where I have lost out on faction missions because one PC just has to murder hobo. Even when asked over and over by 4 out of 6 players - "please don't do that."
And if I can't PVP to stop it then the scenario needs to call out only the murder hobo gets the negative boon/curse what have you.
That does tend to cut down on the people greifing: its worse suffering if you're going to suffer alone!
|
The mods need to be written better where one murder hobo in the group isn't costing everyone lost prestige and half the party a faction mission.
I have two scenarios in a row where I have lost out on faction missions because one PC just has to murder hobo. Even when asked over and over by 4 out of 6 players - "please don't do that."
And if I can't PVP to stop it then the scenario needs to call out only the murder hobo gets the negative boon/curse what have you.
Is having a PC ditch a PC PvP?
What about turning them into the authorities?
|
|
Is having a PC ditch a PC PvP?
No. But it is frowned upon.
What about turning them into the authorities?
Probably not, but it might depend on circumstances.
Honestly, these are both covered in the thread I linked earlier. Even though that thread was about a particular situation, good general advice did appear from time to time therein.
|
|
Ah.
That seemed be a specific case. Not general circumstances.
It did not occur to me, that advice pertaining to general circumstances would be held within.
Also, my questions about leaving a PC, or turning them into the authorities, was my thoughts on dealing with a problem player, if one is a fellow player.
They were just thoughts.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's my™ thoughts on it, from a general perspective.
If someone at the table is playing at the table in a way that is making the game less fun for you, the best way to deal with it is to talk to them. Retaliating in-game is not going to make the game more fun for you, and is likely to make the game less fun for everyone else at the table, too. And that advice is so general it applies to players and GMs equally.
™: These thoughts are owned wholly by me. They do not pertain to anyone else. If your thoughts differ on this, that's ok. We have different perspectives, and that is generally a good thing.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
On an interesting note, I recently had some players come up with a unique solution to this very question- in game play.
Making the story short, a party which consisted predominantly good-aligned characters (2 which worshiped Sarenrae) had on a previous occasion played with (somewhat argumentatively) with a CN wizard- who really like to play the Chaotic part of his alignment (winks at the GMs out there who can relate). So on this new adventure (scenario), the characters met at their local Pathfinder Lodge eager to get the narrative hook into their next mission. As I start to read the narrative intro, one of the players interrupted me (in character) and apologized to the Venture Captain- and said something like this, "We are honored to be asked to undertake this important assignment and agree to do so with the following caveat. In our last mission, he (the wizard) made several questionable decisions which have caused the rest of us to doubt the sincerity of his actions towards the rest of us and the Society as a whole. We request that not only he atone for his previous misdeeds, he acknowledge by written agreement that Tyric (the LG Cleric of Sarenrae) will be our leader, and when controversy arises between us, his word is final. We hope that this can be avoided and that by open discussions we can work together, but we can not have our mission see the kinds of torture and murder we saw last time. If he (the wizard) agrees we are happy to have him, if not we will have to respectfully ask you to find another."
Out of character the players tactfully told the player in question that when, "He goes off the rails," it really creates problems in game for the majority of players and decreases the overall fun at the table. The player in question admitted he sometimes can be an ass, but doesn't want to cause problems in or out of the game. I then asked if they meant and atonement spell and they said, no- what they wanted was something that would show remorse. To his credit, the wizard's player agreed to both the contract and to donating 250 gp to the local temple of Sarenrae. The adventure went off with out a hitch and seems to have really brought the players together as a group.
Will this always work? I doubt it. I was just glad that I didn't have to GM manhandle the group in order to ensure cooperation- players can step up with creative solutions- and good roleplay.
I did that once actually. I had
had an investigator whom openly admitted what a coward she was and in a fight against a nigh tpk, ffom the dreaded RotRL 2nd book final boss, She really wasn't in any position to do anything. It was a "go team" situation as she was stuck in a corner no means of escape or to attack and the party tank was petrified in front of her. So, just for the sake of role-play she brought out an extract in purd hopes that it'd restore the statue which it didn't, of course. From one of the players persepctive this was not entirely optimal and it was stupid which I can understand, but when in the face of no place to go or nothing to do i think of what the character, a life in panic, would do
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've actually had one of those situations myself. Battle is going really poorly, only my character one other standing (maybe a third on their last legs). My character can do very little to the enemies, but could escape. She is about the only one of my characters who is a selfish douche type, and would have escaped at the first chance she got. But me as a player, well, I was really troubled about it, because I didn't want to just leave that other player's character to die.
They basically had to straight away tell me to make my character go so it wouldn't be a TPK.
So my two cents as a general advice might be to teach players to ask the other players: "hey I know this might hurt our mission/reputation/relationship, is it still okay if I do it?" kinda like with friendly fire. Of course this might be difficult with people who already won't listen if others say "please don't do things like that".
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"You chose to make the character that way, and you can choose to change it."
Not always the case. A character can "gell" so that I know what the character would do. At that point I can NOT make significant and radical changes, not without losing all interest in or ability to play the character.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no situation where you cannot take an alternate path instead of the one that requires being a jerk. Period.
You may have to really think about it. It might not ring 100% true to the character - but people do occasionally do act out of character. Hopefully you will have anticipated the possibility ahead of time and keep some ideas in your head in case you run into these situations.
If you run into these sorts of situations constantly with your chosen character personality, then I would submit, frankly, that the character in question is not a good fit for PFS play at all and perhaps you really should stop playing it.
–j
|
|
I've actually had one of those situations myself. Battle is going really poorly, only my character one other standing (maybe a third on their last legs). My character can do very little to the enemies, but could escape. She is about the only one of my characters who is a selfish douche type, and would have escaped at the first chance she got. But me as a player, well, I was really troubled about it, because I didn't want to just leave that other player's character to die.
They basically had to straight away tell me to make my character go so it wouldn't be a TPK.
So my two cents as a general advice might be to teach players to ask the other players: "hey I know this might hurt our mission/reputation/relationship, is it still okay if I do it?" kinda like with friendly fire. Of course this might be difficult with people who already won't listen if others say "please don't do things like that".
Just to clear up, this actually happened to me, a wrong account was locked into when writing. (We're flatmates).
|
|
There is no situation where you cannot take an alternate path instead of the one that requires being a jerk. Period.
–j
You're making rather absolute statements. The veracity of which greatly depends on your definition of "jerk".
There certainly are situations where I'll be forced into actions that some players would consider acting as a jerk. For example, if a party member picks a fight with a good aligned NPC for no good reason my paladin most certainly will NOT help him (his vows to the society stop him from directly opposing the PC but they certainly don't require him to help commit an evil act). Whether the other player is acting as a jerk by forcing me into that position or I'm acting as a jerk by not helping him is unclear (and many electrons have been spent on the subject).
Caveat: this is all theoretical, I'm not trying to defend my behavior. I don't think I've ever crossed the "jerk" line and have definitely never been accused of having done so. But I certainly try and act in character and I certainly act in ways that are sometimes significantly suboptimal
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am making absolute statements. Yes.
Because there's always another way.
There are simply no situations where you MUST act in a way that discomforts or distresses another player. None. Roleplay is never ever EVER a valid excuse for being a jerk.
Most of the time with a little creative thinking you should even be able to stay in character. This is where it helps knowing ahead of time the types of situations may create these conflicts, and planning at least a general way you can gracefully get past them.
But if it comes down to an unavoidable choice of either staying in character and being the jerk, or completely breaking character to avoid it... break character. Suck it up, bite your lip, maybe even mention that it's not in character if you must. It's hopefully just one incident, just get past it and move on.
And as I said, if you ARE running into this kind of conflict a lot, the character personality in question is likely inappropriate for PFS and the organized play format.
In a home game where you and the other players know each other well enough to be able to have serious inter-character conflict and still maintain respect and friendship out of character, it's one thing. But PFS is a different beast and sometimes requires compromise.
-j
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are simply no situations where you MUST act in a way that discomforts or distresses another player. None. Roleplay is never ever EVER a valid excuse for being a jerk.
Well, is it a reason to act in a manner that some people are going to think you're a jerk? The jerkier someone gets the more they feel that everyone not going along with them is being a jerk AND the less inclined people feel to go along with them. Jerkiness is not a very definable attribute.
Now i have a sudden urge to mess with sasquatch
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am making absolute statements. Yes.
-j
The only absolute statement about PFS that I'll make is that any absolute statement (probably including this one :-)) is sometimes wrong.
There are simply no situations where you MUST act in a way that discomforts or distresses another player. None. Roleplay is never ever EVER a valid excuse for being a jerk.
I fairly vehemently disagree with that statement. I've seen players distressed or discomforted by too many things that I consider minor.
Note: I'm interpreting MUST above as SHOULD. Obviously, there is no situation where I MUST do anything. Absent a literal gun to my head.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But if it comes down to an unavoidable choice of either staying in character and being the jerk, or completely breaking character to avoid it... break character. Suck it up, bite your lip, maybe even mention that it's not in character if you must. It's hopefully just one incident, just get past it and move on.
Jason:
I took a quick look at your profile and saw that you have an Oracle/Paladin. I don't know what your deity is but I need to warn you that there are situations that arise in scenarios (that I know of) where your character will need an atonement cast or lose your paladin powers if you follow your own advice.
|
|
I took a quick look at your profile and saw that you have an Oracle/Paladin. I don't know what your deity is but I need to warn you that there are situations that arise in scenarios (that I know of) where your character will need an atonement cast or lose your paladin powers if you follow your own advice.
I haven't seen that problem crop up. Even in Race for the Rune-carved Key.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I took a quick look at your profile and saw that you have an Oracle/Paladin. I don't know what your deity is but I need to warn you that there are situations that arise in scenarios (that I know of) where your character will need an atonement cast or lose your paladin powers if you follow your own advice.I haven't seen that problem crop up. Even in Race for the Rune-carved Key.
Actually it was a special that I was thinking of.
But - depending on party actions - there are other scenarios or modules that might be an issue.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't either.
Having played both scenarios, there are ways around the situation in either case while still staying in character.
Lawful good is not lawful stupid. The code does not require suicidal blind charges, especially if it might get other innocents killed.
Absolute worst case scenario, I would eat that atonement without hesitation, and whatever else the GM feels is appropriate. That's the risk I accepted when I chose to play the character.
I emphasize "chose". I choose what my character does, not the other way around.
-k
(For the record, the paladin/oracle worships Qi Zhong, Tien deity of healing. He runs a free clinic out of a wagon. I have had him do things like stay outside instead of entering a brothel or similar den of iniquity with the party. I also play a Vudrani paladin monk of Irori. On that character I have, in fact, accepted atonement and penance for behavior, due to fact that if he had acted differently the party would have failed, likely imprisoned, and as he saw it other innocent lives would have been imperiled.)