|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Do lower your arms while shouting as loud as you possibly can, Mister Lips. You will startle the mares in the yard." She then adjusts her glasses and looks outside, as if looking for what is taking her carriage so long to arrive.
NO MISTER! JUST THUNDERLIPS!
LADY DASHER LUCKY THUNDERLIPS! ALREADY HAVE WARRIOR WOMAN MADELINE BLAKROS TO CALL THUNDERLIPS!'S! YOU BETTER RECOGNIZE THUNDERLIPS! FOR THE DANGEROUSLY CURIOUS MAN OF INFLUENCE THUNDERLIPS! IS. MAYBE YOUR CARRIAGE NEEDS THE CONTINUAL FLAME BARELY CONTAINED BY THUNDERLIPS!'S SILKEN CEREMONIAL THONG TO LOCATE YOUR HEINOUSNESS?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ULFEN MUSK BRINGS ALL THE LADIES TO THE YARD!EVERYONE IGNORES YOU AS THEY SHOULD YOU WORTHLESS TALDAN MUSHROOM STAMP.You are not forgiven. Everybody should know everything all the time. Clearly I can, therefore you should too.
Apologies for the derailment! It would seem the wording is not clear if there's this much confusion from folks far more experienced than I am.Did somebody say something? I thought I felt a strong, warm breeze, as if it came off of a fetid swamp.
I do this for Taldor!
As Lady Natalia Landros does her best not to laugh, she replies, "I am sure you meant 'Ulfen musk drives all the ladies from the yard. By Aroden, what 'Game Master' would ever allow this buffoon to have a continual flame on his groin? And who was the moronic twit that would have cast it... there?"
|
Ha, thanks for all the input guys, so yeah the guy on the Facebook page was wrong then. He insisted that if I sat down at his table with a bladebound kensai whip magus, he would forbid it because a whip as a bladebound magus makes no sense to him, he doesn't care what the rules say. Odds are I will never play with him anyway, but it made me wonder about it. :D
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A post back on the topic listed in the title:
First, let me make a clear statement. A judge (and a player) always has the option to leave. Always. Whatever the reason. We are all friends here (I hope) and friends DON'T force friends to do things they don't want to. So whatever your reason for leaving a table, you always have that option (IMHO).
BUT...Having the judge decide who is or isn't allowed to play at a table... I personally think (again IMHO) this is a bad idea.
I'd say lets let the players police this now the same way we always have. If the guy is a jerk, we don't play with him. Each time we sit at a table, we look around and see... is there anyone here I'd rather not play with?
I do not want the judge to take that ability away from me as a player. Perhaps I like playing with Jo and her over-the-top bardic knowledge machine... and perhaps I don't. I sure as heck don't want to judge to make that decision for me by saying "you, Jo, play something else... or leave my table."
This is part of what makes playing at Conventions (and some online play) such an adventure. You quite literally *never know* what you're going to sit down with at a table.
I honest to goodness wasn't feeling confident during Sky Key Solution at GenCon as we were mustering, was feeling somewhat overpowered as the folks a the table described what they could do, and where their limits where and such.
So I was exceptionally surprised when we ran into situations that our cutting-edge diplo/combat machine started to grind its gears on... and I was actually able to contribute *meaningfully* and kept the party from a potential TPK in one particular situation.
If the GM had said 'Oh, no, you can't play that build, and that build's just out... '
I don't think A. We would have had as much fun with it or B. We would have been nearly as successful as we were.
|
|
"Never fear Lady Gabrielle."
Farak will draw his dark grey walking stick and gently taps Thunderlips with it.
The Lady lets out a gentle laugh. "That appears to have done the trick. As always, you are quite the lifesaver, Farak."
---
Though it's been quite awhile since Lady Gabrielle has played at a table, my only advice on the matter is that if you're consistently upsetting GMs such that you have to cite a rule in order to play, you might want to consider what you are doing and your effect on the table's fun level.
|
|
Been following this thread for 4 pages, and have only this advice to add to Lady Gabrielle's fine comment:
Just because the player thinks the character is legal does not mean the GM does.
If a character is using legal additional resources it doesn't matter what the GM thinks whether a character is legal or not for society play. The GM may ask to see the additional resources the player is using. If the player produces the requested material there is nothing a GM can do except allow them to play their character. If the player can not produce the requested additional resources, then the GM can ask them to either play a pre-gen, a different character, or not participate.
The fine Lady Gabrielle's comment is spot on, but GMs are not the arbiters of what is legal or not legal for society play.
|
|
Damn, I missed Thunderlips. Sorry, THUNDERLIPS!
That's ok. I'm sure he will be back. There was some mention of a celebration for working Ulfen men and women. Three days of drunk THUNDERLIPS! might be even more than he can handle. I'll go see if he's awake yet.
.............
Nope, not yet. He's mumbling something about meat sweats and whiskey shakes. He looks a bit paler this morning as well. Madeline is snoring loud enough to give Christian an even match.
|
|
I recommend a necklace of adaptation. It's like a breath of fresh air when down in the dungeons.
This is the first sensible thing that's come out of any of your respective mouths. I can't believe it took a Dwarf to do it too. I never leave home without mine, and considering what some of YOU smell like, there's a reason it was purchased early in my career.
|
|
The fine Lady Gabrielle's comment is spot on, but GMs are not the arbiters of what is legal or not legal for society play.
Oh, good golly.
GM to Player:
* "Your character doesn't meet the prerequisites for that feat." (or other glaring audit problem)
* "There is an errata/FAQ/ruling on this central skill/item/feat/whatever; it doesn't work the way you think it does."
* (as Jon mentioned) "You do not have the additional resources available at the table for this character."
* ... and pretty much every other audit problem. (Item not always available, item above fame threshold, prereqs, etc., etc., etc.)
I was suggesting something that I hoped would have general consensus and be wholly without controversy. Surely every GM that's looked at an incorrect character sheet has had at least one experience where the player insisted the character was legal, and the GM knew it was not? You've never known a player to defend an indefensible illegal build?
And I still managed to get someone to tell me I was wrong.
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fine Lady Gabrielle's comment is spot on, but GMs are not the arbiters of what is legal or not legal for society play.
Oh, good golly.
GM to Player:
* "Your character doesn't meet the prerequisites for that feat." (or other glaring audit problem)
* "There is an errata/FAQ/ruling on this central skill/item/feat/whatever; it doesn't work the way you think it does."
* (as Jon mentioned) "You do not have the additional resources available at the table for this character."
* ... and pretty much every other audit problem. (Item not always available, item above fame threshold, prereqs, etc., etc., etc.)I was suggesting something that I hoped would have general consensus and be wholly without controversy. Surely every GM that's looked at an incorrect character sheet has had at least one experience where the player insisted the character was legal, and the GM knew it was not? You've never known a player to defend an indefensible illegal build?
And I still managed to get someone to tell me I was wrong.
Except the point of the whole thread was can a GM look at a legal character that everyone agrees is legal under the rules, and say "Yeah, but I think that rule is silly, so no you can't play it." So while Yes, a Gm can refuse to seat an illegal character, that is pretty much irrelevant to a conversation where the question is "can a GM arbitrarily decide that something is illegal because he doesn't like it."
|
|
Except the point of the whole thread was can a GM look at a legal character that everyone agrees is legal under the rules, and say "Yeah, but I think that rule is silly, so no you can't play it." So while Yes, a Gm can refuse to seat an illegal character, that is pretty much irrelevant to a conversation where the question is "can a GM arbitrarily decide that something is illegal because he doesn't like it."
Even when I first read the opening of the thread, my thought was this: Is it possible, or even likely, that even working from the same set of rules, FAQs, errata, and campaign coordinator rulings that a GM and Player might disagree on whether a character is legal? For that table, at that time, given the best information he/she has, would the GM have the right to refuse a character they don't see as legal? I would say, yes. (But don't be a jerk, and if it's minor, gloss over it)
My second thought was, could whatever comes of this thread be used as ammunition to bash a GM *undeservedly*? Yes, it's a hypothetical I could easily envision.
I think we all agree that a GM who says "I don't like it, therefore it's illegal" is wrong. (Wrong, wrong, wrong!) But maybe what the GM is actually thinking is "I'm uncomfortable with its legality because of such and such ruling by the campaign coordinator which casts this build into doubt." And that GM may be right, even if unskilled at communication.
I'm inclined to give any GM the benefit of the doubt. There may have been reasons that weren't shared in the scenario described by OP, weren't articulated (either by GM to player, or player to forum), or because the GM lacked sufficient time to explain. Experience suggests the player's view of such on interaction is strongly biased in favor of the player. (And "this other GM let me play with it" simply suggests that not every GM looks at sheets as they might wish to.)
So no, a reminder that the GMs interpretation of legality, given the corpus of rules and rulings is, is what applies at a given table, is I think very much on topic.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*Goes to build a chaotic evil goblin antipaladin of Cthulhu*But the GM does not determine legality. The campaign coordinator does.Whoohoo! No current campaign coordinator. All rules are off! You heard it here.
Your Goblin and my Gestalted Master Summoner/Gunslinger Android and his 35-point buy could team up!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one is going to go for the Gelatinous Cube with class levels (including a dip in Dragon Disciple) and a 30-point buy?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one is going to go for the Gelatinous Cube with class levels (including a dip in Dragon Disciple) and a 30-point buy?
Character Background: They were L4 and hit with the Flesh to Oooze spell, making the Will saving throw but not the Fortitude one, and then the party cleric with Detect Thoughts realized they were still sentient, and established a way for it to communicate?
|
|
No one is going to go for the Gelatinous Cube with class levels (including a dip in Dragon Disciple) and a 30-point buy?Character Background: They were L4 and hit with the Flesh to Oooze spell, making the Will saving throw but not the Fortitude one, and then the party cleric with Detect Thoughts realized they were still sentient, and established a way for it to communicate?
A gift of telepathy from Juiblex, maybe? Or maybe Zuggtmoy?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fine Lady Gabrielle's comment is spot on, but GMs are not the arbiters of what is legal or not legal for society play.
Oh, good golly.
GM to Player:
* "Your character doesn't meet the prerequisites for that feat." (or other glaring audit problem)
* "There is an errata/FAQ/ruling on this central skill/item/feat/whatever; it doesn't work the way you think it does."
* (as Jon mentioned) "You do not have the additional resources available at the table for this character."
* ... and pretty much every other audit problem. (Item not always available, item above fame threshold, prereqs, etc., etc., etc.)I was suggesting something that I hoped would have general consensus and be wholly without controversy. Surely every GM that's looked at an incorrect character sheet has had at least one experience where the player insisted the character was legal, and the GM knew it was not? You've never known a player to defend an indefensible illegal build?
And I still managed to get someone to tell me I was wrong.
There is a difference between this, and making a determination on what is and is not legal. I see what you are saying.
You are correct. If something is not legal per the rules, additional resources, FAQ, etc... then yes, a GM needs to call a player to task for it. And just because a player says something is legal, does not mean it is.
But a GM doesn't get to decide what is and is not legal at their table. Just because they don't like it, or it doesn't make sense to them, does not matter.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one is going to go for the Gelatinous Cube with class levels (including a dip in Dragon Disciple) and a 30-point buy?
Stop giving Kyle Baird ideas!
|
|
Everyone has their own style of play. I don't agree with or enjoy some styles of play. I've been pretty vocal about that.
But that doesn't give me the right to tell others how to play the game.
What I can do, as a coordinator and venture-officer, is try to make sure that like styles get to play with one another.
Those who like power gaming and creating mathematically superior creations, can sit with the GMs who are ok catering to that.
For those who like it to be a tactical war game vs. a roleplaying game. I can make sure I have GMs who can cater to that. I actually enjoy GM'ing these tables for the most part.
For those who prefer roleplay, I can try to make sure that a GM who is good at that helps those tables. I really enjoy GM'ing these tables as well. I actually feel one of my strengths as a GM lies here.
I did find it rather ironic, though, when one of our power gamers got upset that another power gamer's character was too powerful.
So the point is, everyone has their own style of play. And all we can do is try to treat each other with some modicum of respect. And that includes how we use our character at the table. When we inevitably find ourselves at a table that doesn't necessarily suit our style, we don't try to dominate the table with our style. We use that moment to take a back seat and let the others shine.
As a GM, if you fight the predominant style at the table, then you'll burn out real fast. Part of the skill of a GM in an organized play environment, is learning to run your table to the style that shows up to it.
|
|
That is a player problem. Not a game rules problem or character problem. Jon Dehning from above gave a great self-anecdote about Taco, his 39 to 50 AC character.
Some of the vitriolic responses that came afterwards completely ignored what he was actually saying.
yes, he has a character that is pretty extreme. But you know what? Taco is fun to have at the table, because Jon is fun to have at the table. And Jon knows how to play the character without overwhelming either the scenario or the other players.
So really, the solution for these players who try to dominate play (and it can happen with roleplay characters, with underpowered characters, overpowered characters, mathfinder characters, etc.) need to be dealt with on a person-to-person basis. Not in the context with the game.
If their actions as a player are chasing other players away, buring out GMs, and generally being a nuisance, then that player needs to be dealt with on that level.
What I usually do is the following.
#1 - make sure it actually is a problem for someone other than you. Sometimes this is blatantly obvious and yet we need to realize that our own per peeves can blind us. Take a moment to check in and see if this is something you need to work on internally and away from the table, or if it is a real and present issue that needs to be dealt with for the health of the game.
#2 - as kindly as you can, highlight the issue in a way that let's the other person save face. The key is to bring it out in the open and do so in a non-accusatory way. If I suspect someone is dice cheating an approach I like to use is, "Please forgive me my eyes aren't as good as they used to me or maybe it's the dice that you are using. I know you said that last roll was a 20 but I am sure that I saw a 2. Could you please roll these dice instead and leave the roll in the center of the table until I get a chance to confirm it? Thanks." and then I hand them then huge, high contrast dice that I carry with me for just such an occasiin.
You want to let the person know that their behavior is not acceptable, that it has been noticed, and that you will be paying special attention to them from here on out. Sometimes people seriously don't know that they are causing an issue with their behavior. After this step they know.#3 - if the problem continues, escalate your response. Call out a recent (hopefully something that just happened) specific problem behavior. State how it impacts others at the table and the game. Do not argue with the person. You are setting a boundary and it is not up for debate at the table. State specifically and calmly what the consequence will be if the behavior happens again at the table. Give them a moment to let that sink in and go back to running the game
The key here is to be calm, in control, non-emotional, and to not debate at all.#4 - If the behavior happens again implement the consequences detailed in step 3. Do it fast and clean. This will likely result in the player being kicked from the table or some equivalent. You might want to either go yourself or send someone to bring in your organizer, convention contact, or VC/VL (basically who ever you report to for the event you are at). Stay calm, stay non-emotional, and try to handle this phase away from the other players at the table. Do it fast. Do it clean and as kind as possible.
Now you may encounter some behavior that causes you to jump steps. It can be worth it to talk about the step and then move on to the next one. I would suggest that you only do this if you 100% know that the person knows they are creating a problem, has been warned about it before, and is willingly doing it again. Be kind but don't be a doormat.
May these situations never happen to you or at your table. If they do remember what I have laid out above and you should sail through an uncomfortable situation as gracefully as is possible