|
While as a PFS GM you do not have a right to ban players from your table, you always have the right to simply not run any table.I am pretty sure table GMs can send away a disruptive player from a specific table or game, correct?
Alleging that the player is disruptive because of the character seems a little too much like a back door ban on characters the DM doesn't like to me.
|
|
Alleging that the player is disruptive because of the character seems a little too much like a back door ban on characters the DM doesn't like to me.While as a PFS GM you do not have a right to ban players from your table, you always have the right to simply not run any table.I am pretty sure table GMs can send away a disruptive player from a specific table or game, correct?
Sounds like you're reading a little too far into that to me. I don't see any mention of characters, in that post at least.
|
|
Alright, what do you do when all of the other players openly comment that they feel as though they are not needed, then the other person responds with' "then leave."?
I would pull them aside and talk to them about their attitude (based on the actual tone used in-person). If it was as you describe, I'd also ask them to tone down their character so everyone can enjoy the game.
I'd reserve asking them to leave only if they were unrepentant and insisted on being rude.
*Note: this is based on my limited perspective gained only from the brief description in the quoted post, and represents a worst-case scenario that I would do everything possible to avoid except as a last resort.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Alright, what do you do when all of the other players openly comment that they feel as though they are not needed, then the other person responds with' "then leave."?
If they did that before they'd even seen the player in action, I'd chide those players for condemning someone before he's done something wrong. And on the side, ask the 'problem' player to be aware of their sensitivity.
If they did that after the player gave them good reason to, I'd talk to the player that's making them feel useless.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While as a PFS GM you do not have a right to ban players from your table, you always have the right to simply not run any table.I am pretty sure table GMs can send away a disruptive player from a specific table or game, correct?
I caught a player cheating and assaulting(light unwanted touching) another player. I warned him if he did either of those again I would never DM for him again. He told me I could nto ban him from a public game, I told him I would invite everyone but him to a pizza joint buy a pizza for us while we play a private game.
So, yes a dm can ban a player. No sane organizer will mind a DM removing a player that pushes other players away.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alleging that the player is disruptive because of the character seems a little too much like a back door ban on characters the DM doesn't like to me.While as a PFS GM you do not have a right to ban players from your table, you always have the right to simply not run any table.I am pretty sure table GMs can send away a disruptive player from a specific table or game, correct?
That's not the point I was making - I was speaking in general. Builds and characters aren't disruptive -some players are.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
That's not the point I was making - I was speaking in general. Builds and characters aren't disruptive -some players are.Alleging that the player is disruptive because of the character seems a little too much like a back door ban on characters the DM doesn't like to me.While as a PFS GM you do not have a right to ban players from your table, you always have the right to simply not run any table.I am pretty sure table GMs can send away a disruptive player from a specific table or game, correct?
I think there are actually examples of both. Some builds are disruptive, and some players are disruptive. They sometimes but not always come together.
Players might come up with a disruptive build with the best of intentions. And then be startled when they realize how poorly it's working out for the group. Like someone spamming Darkness to set up Sneak Attacks, in a party with little Darkvision. That might just be a clueless mistake.
|
I think there are actually examples of both. Some builds are disruptive, and some players are disruptive. They sometimes but not always come together.
Players might come up with a disruptive build with the best of intentions. And then be startled when they realize how poorly it's working out for the group. Like someone spamming Darkness to set up Sneak Attacks, in a party with little Darkvision. That might just be a clueless mistake.
Or a Kitsune Fighter/Rogue/Barbarian with a 60 ft move speed and Spring Attack, who is highly effective in combat, and so ridiculously hyper-active she resembles a curious two-year-old and has to be occasionally leashed for her own (and the party's) protection.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or a Kitsune Fighter/Rogue/Barbarian with a 60 ft move speed and Spring Attack, who is highly effective in combat, and so ridiculously hyper-active she resembles a curious two-year-old and has to be occasionally leashed for her own (and the party's) protection.
Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Or a Kitsune Fighter/Rogue/Barbarian with a 60 ft move speed and Spring Attack, who is highly effective in combat, and so ridiculously hyper-active she resembles a curious two-year-old and has to be occasionally leashed for her own (and the party's) protection.I am struggling to see how making a single attack per round while running about is anything like highly effective in combat.
You don't have to be effective to be disruptive.
|
You don't have to be effective to be disruptive.Or a Kitsune Fighter/Rogue/Barbarian with a 60 ft move speed and Spring Attack, who is highly effective in combat, and so ridiculously hyper-active she resembles a curious two-year-old and has to be occasionally leashed for her own (and the party's) protection.I am struggling to see how making a single attack per round while running about is anything like highly effective in combat.
That was Mark's point.
A disruptive player can be disruptive with ANY character.
A non-disruptive player can be cooperative and fun to have at the table with ANY character.
Also, "disruptive" is in the eyes of other players at the table. The superhero character that can take on every fight solo is only a problem if they other players aren't having fun with it. The character that drops deeper darkness on the party of darkness inhibited characters is only a problem if the other players aren't having fun with it. (My wife learned that lesson the hard way.)
|
It must be part of a GM's consideration of how the game may play out in that the characters may go up instead of down, or left instead of right or even roll a 20 with buffs and topped out skill #. The DM\GM doesn't need to heard cats, when you have the can of tuna fish you lead them.
Disruptive players are inclined to remove themselves from tables of GMs known to audit one someone at every game. You can NOT be accused of picking on someone if you can say player 1 I audited this character on this date and player 5 your character was audited on this date. Roll a dice and point at a problematic player and say I get to audit your character. Since there are pregens that can be offered and they can assign a NEW character number (with a, yes I insist) the person will decide to play, or not.
The game is a matter of people choosing to play either together or against each other. Or even to choose not to play at all.
Thoughtfully, Palffrey
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
You don't have to be effective to be disruptive.Or a Kitsune Fighter/Rogue/Barbarian with a 60 ft move speed and Spring Attack, who is highly effective in combat, and so ridiculously hyper-active she resembles a curious two-year-old and has to be occasionally leashed for her own (and the party's) protection.I am struggling to see how making a single attack per round while running about is anything like highly effective in combat.That was Mark's point.
A disruptive player can be disruptive with ANY character.
A non-disruptive player can be cooperative and fun to have at the table with ANY character.
No, it's not.
A player can be disruptive. A character can be disruptive. Both are possible independent or together.
A character with abilities that mess up the gameplay for other characters is disruptive. It could be because the character has a hair trigger that screws up subtle scenarios, it could be because it's a race that causes normal NPCs to run screaming for the hills, it could be because the character is focused around creating lots of fog and making ranged sneak attacks with a Goz Mask. It could be dependence on an ability that screams "alignment problems" but somehow made it past the Additional Resources screening; yet it's bad enough that it will make playing a paladin in the same party very difficult.
You might argue that it takes a disruptive player to make a disruptive character, but I don't think the intent of the player has to be to cause problems; it might be someone inexperienced, or who thinks "edgy dark heroes are cool" or something like that, and that because he's using approved rules, he's not doing anything wrong is he?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I still think all of those examples you listed are on the player—not for making that character, but for playing that character in that way.
It might be due to inexperience. I've seen a lot of new players disrupt a table with a wide variety of characters, even pregens. Most of us tend to be pretty lenient with that kind of disruption. That is still a player issue, and the player will likely grow out of it as they play more. Not a big deal.
It might be someone who thinks that edgy dark heroes are cool. They are. One can play an edgy dark hero without being disruptive. Which means that it is not the character that is the problem.
A character whose abilities cause problems for the rest of the table is only disruptive if the player chooses to use those abilities in a way that negatively affects the rest of the table. A tiefling who drops darkness on her human companions might be an example of disruptive play. That is on the player. A cleric who spams channel positive energy might be disruptive, say if she keeps healing the BBEG as well as her teammates. That, too, is on the player.
Ascalphus, I am confident that you and I could hand each other ANY legal PFS characters and the other would be able to play them in a cooperative, helpful, and enjoyable way together. Which, again, means that the character is not inherently disruptive. :)
|
|
Have a player here nice guy but he is the ultimate min-maxer.
If I feel he character would make the Scenario a cake walk for the PC is it okay for me to disallow the character. Also,is it valid for me to target him for extermination knowing his weaknesses?
It is better to talk to him and ask him to remember that the other players at the table want to play too.
The best way to handle this...
First, tell him how awesome his build is. This frames the conversation in the right light. It is really cool that he can build such effective characters.
Next, tell him that it's ok for him to go full throttle for one encounter per scenario, but he might want back off for the others and take a more support role so the rest of the players can show off their characters too.
You should absolutely NOT target him any more or less than you would any other player. That road leads to antagonism and hurt feelings.
Last, tell him again that he is really good at building effective characters, and ask him if you can send other players who are seeking build advice to him for help.
|
|
We'd also have to see the scenario and how you intend to run it. The other factor: Is he playing in tier?
Wasn't me running it. I was a player. The GM whom is well respected and one I like to play with threw up his hands at the last fight after one save. Some kinda Kitsune tattoo Sorcerer. He is a minmaxed enchanter.
he basically soloed the adventure. He was actually out of tier(low end)
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Yeah, I still think all of those examples you listed are on the player—not for making that character, but for playing that character in that way.
It might be due to inexperience. I've seen a lot of new players disrupt a table with a wide variety of characters, even pregens. Most of us tend to be pretty lenient with that kind of disruption. That is still a player issue, and the player will likely grow out of it as they play more. Not a big deal.
It might be someone who thinks that edgy dark heroes are cool. They are. One can play an edgy dark hero without being disruptive. Which means that it is not the character that is the problem.
A character whose abilities cause problems for the rest of the table is only disruptive if the player chooses to use those abilities in a way that negatively affects the rest of the table. A tiefling who drops darkness on her human companions might be an example of disruptive play. That is on the player. A cleric who spams channel positive energy might be disruptive, say if she keeps healing the BBEG as well as her teammates. That, too, is on the player.
Ascalphus, I am confident that you and I could hand each other ANY legal PFS characters and the other would be able to play them in a cooperative, helpful, and enjoyable way together. Which, again, means that the character is not inherently disruptive. :)
I disagree with that analysis. If you have to basically ignore your build to not be disruptive, then your build is disruptive.
It might be that your build is only disruptive in certain contexts of course; if a bunch of people all made Ifrit ranged sneak attacking rogues with Smokesight and then got an Eversmoking bottle, in that party, that's not disruptive. But in a different (perhaps more everyday) context, that would be quite disruptive. So when playing with normal human PCs such a rogue has to bend his playstyle so far to not be disruptive that the build isn't working anymore.
I would say that's a disruptive build, though of course it's not black and white, there's degrees of disruptiveness and context matters and such. But not to be lost in too much nuance - such a build I'd call disruptive.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, and no.
That said, I've yet to see a single legal PC that can make a scenario a cakewalk.
We have a sword and board fighter played by an 8 year old at the time, who has been inspected by 2 different campaign coordinators due to GMs complaining that they couldn't hit him even with a 19 on the die when he was level 4 playing tier 6-7 in 1-7 scenarios. he would great cleave through 9bad guys per round in scenarios that "sheer numbers should push the party to hide or fight from a different location", breaking the narrative. It wasn't disruptive in this case, the rest of us just got to enjoy other facets of our characters, and chose to bring different spell lists and gear when adventuring with him.
The only scenario I hit him more than once was a bad guy with multiple touch attacks that could all go off one round
|
No, and no.
That said, I've yet to see a single legal PC that can make a scenario a cakewalk.
You must not play with a variety of people.
Some scenarios many characters of mine could have soloed.
This is especially true of the older content. It's not difficult to build incredibly efficient characters if you have a strong knowledge of the game system.
|
|
This is especially true of the older content. It's not difficult to build incredibly efficient characters if you have a strong knowledge of the game system.No, and no.
That said, I've yet to see a single legal PC that can make a scenario a cakewalk.
You must not play with a variety of people.
Some scenarios many characters of mine could have soloed.
The jesters fraud I played with 5 other power gamers. Each one of us could have soloed the adventure.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
This is especially true of the older content. It's not difficult to build incredibly efficient characters if you have a strong knowledge of the game system.No, and no.
That said, I've yet to see a single legal PC that can make a scenario a cakewalk.
You must not play with a variety of people.
Some scenarios many characters of mine could have soloed.
Its a lot more common in newer content too but typically that is by design.
|
|
Its a lot more common in newer content too but typically that is by design.
In terms of scenario content, my core group has been on a bit of non-PFS binge the last several months, so I haven't yet played any season 6 or 7 stuff. So I can't rightly comment there.
In terms of character building, it's just very easy to build incredibly strong PCs that can walk all over the median difficulty assumed by the CR system. You don't have to do that, of course, but it is a thing that will happen. For me personally, character building and coming up with crazy stuff is almost as fun as actually playing. To each their own, though.
Edit: And just because your PC can stomp all over a scenario doesn't mean you have to, obviously.
|
|
While as a PFS GM you do not have a right to ban players from your table, you always have the right to simply not run any table.
This might not make you popular with your local organizer but as I said before, life is too short for bad gaming.
I think there are circumstances where this is not true.
Recently I had a player at my table drinking secretly while playing and he drank a lot and ended getting super smashed during the middle of the game, so smashed he kept falling asleep and when he woke up for his turn he had no idea what was going on at the table, at times he started yelling and cursing at other people in the store. We worked are way through it, but I was told by the store that if he did it again he would have to asked to leave. So, in essence if he showed up smashed again or got smashed mid-game I would ban him from the table.
|
|
Though, in that case, the GM is well within their rights to send drunk dude away, or ban him entirely, if he is a repeat offender. If someone showed up to a public table and proceeded to get drunk/high and start yelling at random people, then they are gone. Period. End of story. If it was a game in a private residence and everyone was of legal age, then I would have no problem drinking within reason, and I myself would probably be enjoying a tasty beverage. But, not at a public game day.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Though, in that case, the GM is well within their rights to send drunk dude away, or ban him entirely, if he is a repeat offender. If someone showed up to a public table and proceeded to get drunk/high and start yelling at random people, then they are gone. Period. End of story. If it was a game in a private residence and everyone was of legal age, then I would have no problem drinking within reason, and I myself would probably be enjoying a tasty beverage. But, not at a public game day.
wait, people play this game SOBER?