GMing question...


Pathfinder Society

51 to 93 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

The Fox wrote:
Fromper wrote:
The original poster here hasn't come back to answer any of the questions about "What's the situation here?". So there's really no point in the rest of us talking hypotheticals or our own personal experiences that may be completely different.

1. We don't need to know the details of the OP's situation.

2. Some people basically said that GMs must suffer through any player that decides to sit down at their table no matter what. Hypotheticals and personal anecdotes illustrate that we should not have that stance.

Not me, I have said that you should try resolving any conflicts and that booting from the table should be a last resort. Not that it isn't an option, but it should be the final one that you only use if nothing else is working.

Player and GM just can't game at the same table without disruptions and it's demonstrated from past history? That player KNOWS this already and should be looking for a different table on their own. If they insist at sitting at your table, that's entirely on them and probably they intend to be disruptive.

But again, refusing to sit someone when you're the GM for any reason other then "The table is already full" should be a last resort.

4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Tennessee—Memphis aka Mulgar

Actually, no, not one that I can think of.

There are people I don't like and that don't like me. But if they wanna play a game at my table, they are welcome.

There are people I would rather not game with. But no one that I can honestly say I would walk away from the table instead of playing with.

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Daniel Myhre wrote:
The Fox wrote:
Fromper wrote:
The original poster here hasn't come back to answer any of the questions about "What's the situation here?". So there's really no point in the rest of us talking hypotheticals or our own personal experiences that may be completely different.

1. We don't need to know the details of the OP's situation.

2. Some people basically said that GMs must suffer through any player that decides to sit down at their table no matter what. Hypotheticals and personal anecdotes illustrate that we should not have that stance.

Not me, I have said that you should try resolving any conflicts and that booting from the table should be a last resort. Not that it isn't an option, but it should be the final one that you only use if nothing else is working.

Player and GM just can't game at the same table without disruptions and it's demonstrated from past history? That player KNOWS this already and should be looking for a different table on their own. If they insist at sitting at your table, that's entirely on them and probably they intend to be disruptive.

But again, refusing to sit someone when you're the GM for any reason other then "The table is already full" should be a last resort.

I think that is what Fox and I have both been saying.

Other options have been tried. They failed. that leaves two options. Leave the table when said person shows up (withdraw if they sign up early), or, if you are the judge, ask for them to be seated elsewhere. (and if they can't, just withdraw from judging yourself).

edit: Life is to short for bad gaming.

If it's not fun, don't do it...

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mulgar wrote:

Actually, no, not one that I can think of.

There are people I don't like and that don't like me. But if they wanna play a game at my table, they are welcome.

There are people I would rather not game with. But no one that I can honestly say I would walk away from the table instead of playing with.

then you are blessed. And I hope this continues for you. (truly and not in a snarky way or anything.)

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mulgar wrote:
The Fox wrote:


Really? Someone calls you a "F&@%ing A$$#@!%" repeatedly and you think you need to GM for them just because they aren't currently calling you a "F&@%ing A$$#@!%"?

Actually, yes.

I am way more confident in myself than to let myself get insulted by unintelligent vulgarity. I am also much more forgiving that than that.

I would vehemently disagree. If you can forgive that, fine. But the Fox is 100% within his rights to not forgive behavior that is, frankly, pretty near unforgivable.

We each get to make the call when we're unwilling to game with somebody. Hopefully we all err a bit on the side of leniency but it is the persons call


As a DM I do not tolerate players insulting other people. Even if they are not playing. I had a player saying something I can not repeat on the boards for someone chanting "Derek kill them all." When his character was close to dying. I called a break and talked with that player and convinced him to apologize to everyone including that other person. Had he been difficult or refused I would have removed him from the table.

I would never ban or remove someone from my table unless they would take actions to wreck the fun of other people. Then it would also be after warning them.

If I had that player and the fox at my table. That player would be admonished severely.

As a DM it is my table. I will allow anyone to sit. Even the one play er I walked off the table from and would never sit to play with again. He is welcome to be a player at my table(I would never let him do to other player what he did to me, and I have shamed those DMs for allowing it as well). When i hear people repulsed that as a DM I own the table, it is because of things like that.

4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Tennessee—Memphis aka Mulgar

Finlanderboy wrote:

As a DM I do not tolerate players insulting other people. Even if they are not playing. I had a player saying something I can not repeat on the boards for someone chanting "Derek kill them all." When his character was close to dying. I called a break and talked with that player and convinced him to apologize to everyone including that other person. Had he been difficult or refused I would have removed him from the table.

I would never ban or remove someone from my table unless they would take actions to wreck the fun of other people. Then it would also be after warning them.

If I had that player and the fox at my table. That player would be admonished severely.

As a DM it is my table. I will allow anyone to sit. Even the one play er I walked off the table from and would never sit to play with again. He is welcome to be a player at my table(I would never let him do to other player what he did to me, and I have shamed those DMs for allowing it as well). When i hear people repulsed that as a DM I own the table, it is because of things like that.

So, a person with an emotional connection to their character loses it a little bit when some member of the peanut gallery cheers for you to kill the entire party. And you talk to the player and make him apologize to some idiot?

Insulting other people? when that person was a jerk? Yeah, I could see the player losing it a little. I can see calming every one down. But forcing a person to apologize to some jerk or they leave the table. In my opinion that's overstepping the bounds of GM.

Did you ban the jerk who was chanting "Kill them all"? Seems to me he was the jerk in the story who was taking actions to wreck the fun of other people?


Mulgar wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:

As a DM I do not tolerate players insulting other people. Even if they are not playing. I had a player saying something I can not repeat on the boards for someone chanting "Derek kill them all." When his character was close to dying. I called a break and talked with that player and convinced him to apologize to everyone including that other person. Had he been difficult or refused I would have removed him from the table.

I would never ban or remove someone from my table unless they would take actions to wreck the fun of other people. Then it would also be after warning them.

If I had that player and the fox at my table. That player would be admonished severely.

As a DM it is my table. I will allow anyone to sit. Even the one play er I walked off the table from and would never sit to play with again. He is welcome to be a player at my table(I would never let him do to other player what he did to me, and I have shamed those DMs for allowing it as well). When i hear people repulsed that as a DM I own the table, it is because of things like that.

So, a person with an emotional connection to their character loses it a little bit when some member of the peanut gallery cheers for you to kill the entire party. And you talk to the player and make him apologize to some idiot?

Insulting other people? when that person was a jerk? Yeah, I could see the player losing it a little. I can see calming every one down. But forcing a person to apologize to some jerk or they leave the table. In my opinion that's overstepping the bounds of GM.

Did you ban the jerk who was chanting "Kill them all"? Seems to me he was the jerk in the story who was taking actions to wreck the fun of other people?

Standing up and using vulgarity loudly is never acceptable at your local gaming store. Those types of actions makes it so no one can play there. That is in defensible

I can not ban customers from coming into the store that has never played PFS and has no interest in it. I do not own the store or control who comes in. I am sorry I did not explain that well enough.

I am baffled by your post. Two wrongs do not make a right. That other person not playing the game I have no control over them coming and saying that.

4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Tennessee—Memphis aka Mulgar

You're baffled that I'm amazed that you forced an apology out of some one as a requirement to allow them to continue playing when their behavior was not directed at you or any other person playing the game?

And your lame response is I could only bully the guy who was playing the game into apologizing? You even say you couldn't make the other guy apologize because you have no "control" over him. Three wrongs are no closer to a right than two wrongs are. Did you even tell the "kill them all" guy that he didn't need to be doing that? He was apparently some one who knew you.

I do agree that shouting vulgarities across the store is unacceptable. But it is not necessarily your job to moderate between the player and the bystander. There is a store owner, maybe they could have handled the situation if need be.

Dark Archive

Uhm... I have a term for people like mister "kill them all" AND mister "cuss out the idiot". Want to know what the term is?

Self Correcting Problem

Both are engaging in activities that make the store an unfriendly environment for customers. Gaming store owners generally know that people hanging around to RP, play Warhammer, or play CCGs tend to spend money while at the store. Be it on cards, books, new figures, food, or all of the above. So someone harassing those gamers tends to get you ejected from the store.

Similarly people who fly off the handle and verbally or physically assault another, regardless of justification, tend to be ejected for similar reasons.


Mulgar wrote:
Reasons for outsiders to hate PFS.

We are at almost complete disagreement. Having emotional attachment to character doe snot give you right to break the do not be a jerk rule. If you can not handle your character suffering without an outburst at slight issues you should consider not playing in public.

Yes, our store holds us responsible for mediating issues. I talked to the store clerks and apologized and tried to make amends on my own well after. If we create issues they made it clear they will take actions. If i prevent and mediate it before they do something extreme we are better off. Plus I do not PFS to be known as the vulgar jerks in the store. I think you will find few VOs that agree with you on this.

I know the guy because I tried to convince him to play pathfinder. I try to be friendly and sociable with all the people that have potential to play. I do not know him closely. Although jokingly chanting that is not an issue to me. The fact it is an issue to you makes me question your judgement. The fact the player even admitted he was wrong and he should have not gotten mad at him saying that only defends my opinion. This type of rhetoric I Personally find offensive.

5/5 Venture-Agent, Germany—Hamburg aka Calenor

Finlanderboy wrote:
Although jokingly chanting that is not an issue to me. The fact it is an issue to you makes me question your judgement. The fact the player even admitted he was wrong and he should have not gotten mad at him saying that only defends my opinion. This type of rhetoric I Personally find offensive.

It's funny, all the talk about mediation and stuff, but in the end it seems that only YOUR call what is an issue does count. Sure your player overreacted, and yes he should have himself under control. But obviously, that player took offense on the 'fun' the Person not involved in the game throw at him. So from my POV both should apologize, as its neither fine to use bad language nor to interrupt a game where you are not involved?


Calenor wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:
Although jokingly chanting that is not an issue to me. The fact it is an issue to you makes me question your judgement. The fact the player even admitted he was wrong and he should have not gotten mad at him saying that only defends my opinion. This type of rhetoric I Personally find offensive.

It's funny, all the talk about mediation and stuff, but in the end it seems that only YOUR call what is an issue does count. Sure your player overreacted, and yes he should have himself under control. But obviously, that player took offense on the 'fun' the Person not involved in the game throw at him. So from my POV both should apologize, as its neither fine to use bad language nor to interrupt a game where you are not involved?

I considered the interruption minor and not an issue. Are you telling me if a player in passing says something to the table they should have to apologize too? That seems obscene to me.

Infact i will stop a game briefly if someone comes by interested and be friendly with them. I have convinced complete strangers to me and PFS to join in doing so. I want the community to be a friendly open area where everyone is welcoming and welcomed. Not a group in the corner no one is allowed to speak to.

Stephen fry has an excellent quote i think fits with what is being defended here.

“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so ******* what."

If someone got their feelings hurt they can act like adults. If my player wanted to take a break to confront that person by being offended or bothered I sure would have let him. Because this is what adults do. Getting offended does not give you special privileges.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, Nevada—Las Vegas aka kinevon

nosig wrote:
Mulgar wrote:

Actually, no, not one that I can think of.

There are people I don't like and that don't like me. But if they wanna play a game at my table, they are welcome.

There are people I would rather not game with. But no one that I can honestly say I would walk away from the table instead of playing with.

then you are blessed. And I hope this continues for you. (truly and not in a snarky way or anything.)

I agree with nosig. As ad hoc coordinator for LFR in the past at my local game store, I was asked to intervene with the store by the other two LFR GMs. They both had a problem with a player who was constantly and blatantly cheating. They had already discussed it with the player, and his actions were causing both the GMs and the other players at the tables involved to have less fun.

At their request, we discussed it with the store owner, and banned him from participating in LFR at any of our tables.

Would I also prevent him from, playing at any PFS table I am GMing? Without any mitigating factors, like him apologizing and saying he would not cheat again, probably not. Would I sit at a table he at which he was playing or GMing? For RPGs, yes. For other games, it depends. YMMV.

Dark Archive

Repeated cheating, yeah that's a ban offense IMO. Aside from the fact that it's part of the PFS rules to not cheat, doing so ruins the game for everyone else. The GM fudging things a bit now and then, well that's kind of expected in most roleplaying groups. A good GM is there to tell a story, not prove they can kill the players in new and brutal ways. Characters die, that's a fact of life as a gamer. And sometimes they die in embarrassingly stupid ways.

Hell, in tonight's Core game for my lodge the GROUND did more damage to us then any enemy, and one player did over 200 damage combined to the same 3 enemies over the course of the session long running battle.

Word to the unwise: chasing after a fleeing badguy through the entire Aspis outpost is a really bad idea. Fit his character to a T though, the new guy had made a char with 7 Int and 7 Wis. Also was kind of fitting for his chaotic neutral alignment.

But cheaters ruin the game for everyone and can drive off new players. Best to put a stop to it quickly. And if that takes banning the person, so be it. Although some people that blatantly cheat when a player do turn out to be great GMs. Not usually, but sometimes.

4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Tennessee—Memphis aka Mulgar

Finlanderboy wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
Reasons for outsiders to hate PFS.

We are at almost complete disagreement. Having emotional attachment to character doe snot give you right to break the do not be a jerk rule. If you can not handle your character suffering without an outburst at slight issues you should consider not playing in public.

Yes, our store holds us responsible for mediating issues. I talked to the store clerks and apologized and tried to make amends on my own well after. If we create issues they made it clear they will take actions. If i prevent and mediate it before they do something extreme we are better off. Plus I do not PFS to be known as the vulgar jerks in the store. I think you will find few VOs that agree with you on this.

I know the guy because I tried to convince him to play pathfinder. I try to be friendly and sociable with all the people that have potential to play. I do not know him closely. Although jokingly chanting that is not an issue to me. The fact it is an issue to you makes me question your judgement. The fact the player even admitted he was wrong and he should have not gotten mad at him saying that only defends my opinion. This type of rhetoric I Personally find offensive.

What I find personally offensive is your deleting my comments and representing your opinions as my statements.

I never said I agreed with what the player said. I only found it strange that you required the player to apologize to continue playing.

I see a situation where the two people needed to work it out, not have a third party to decicde who should apologize. Both people were jerks, and from the level of response I would expect that they had some history together already. Pausing the game to deal with it was the right move in my opinion, FORCING one person to apologize was a jerks move.

4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Tennessee—Memphis aka Mulgar

kinevon wrote:
nosig wrote:
Mulgar wrote:

Actually, no, not one that I can think of.

There are people I don't like and that don't like me. But if they wanna play a game at my table, they are welcome.

There are people I would rather not game with. But no one that I can honestly say I would walk away from the table instead of playing with.

then you are blessed. And I hope this continues for you. (truly and not in a snarky way or anything.)

I agree with nosig. As ad hoc coordinator for LFR in the past at my local game store, I was asked to intervene with the store by the other two LFR GMs. They both had a problem with a player who was constantly and blatantly cheating. They had already discussed it with the player, and his actions were causing both the GMs and the other players at the tables involved to have less fun.

At their request, we discussed it with the store owner, and banned him from participating in LFR at any of our tables.

Would I also prevent him from, playing at any PFS table I am GMing? Without any mitigating factors, like him apologizing and saying he would not cheat again, probably not. Would I sit at a table he at which he was playing or GMing? For RPGs, yes. For other games, it depends. YMMV.

I know people who cheat at pfs. I don't throw them out either. If you are cheating at a rpg then you have some serious issues......

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

Mulgar wrote:
I know people who cheat at pfs. I don't throw them out either. If you are cheating at a rpg then you have some serious issues......

Then what do you do with them?

4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Tennessee—Memphis aka Mulgar

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
I know people who cheat at pfs. I don't throw them out either. If you are cheating at a rpg then you have some serious issues......
Then what do you do with them?

Nothing, if you lie about your rolls, I will not start an incident about it.

If you are literally cheating with your chronicles or item purchases I will call you out on it. If you are using a not legal option, I will call you out on it.

Sovereign Court 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Wisconsin—Pleasant Prairie aka Brew City Crafter

Mulgar wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
Reasons for outsiders to hate PFS.

We are at almost complete disagreement. Having emotional attachment to character doe snot give you right to break the do not be a jerk rule. If you can not handle your character suffering without an outburst at slight issues you should consider not playing in public.

Yes, our store holds us responsible for mediating issues. I talked to the store clerks and apologized and tried to make amends on my own well after. If we create issues they made it clear they will take actions. If i prevent and mediate it before they do something extreme we are better off. Plus I do not PFS to be known as the vulgar jerks in the store. I think you will find few VOs that agree with you on this.

I know the guy because I tried to convince him to play pathfinder. I try to be friendly and sociable with all the people that have potential to play. I do not know him closely. Although jokingly chanting that is not an issue to me. The fact it is an issue to you makes me question your judgement. The fact the player even admitted he was wrong and he should have not gotten mad at him saying that only defends my opinion. This type of rhetoric I Personally find offensive.

What I find personally offensive is your deleting my comments and representing your opinions as my statements.

I never said I agreed with what the player said. I only found it strange that you required the player to apologize to continue playing.

I see a situation where the two people needed to work it out, not have a third party to decicde who should apologize. Both people were jerks, and from the level of response I would expect that they had some history together already. Pausing the game to deal with it was the right move in my opinion, FORCING one person to apologize was a jerks move.

Mulhern, let me me summarize it and put this to bed

Random schmuck makes an unwarranted comment.
Player A takes offense.
Player A looses his composure and let's out a vulgar/profane response.
GM stops the game and takes Player A aside and discusses Player A's unacceptable behavior.
Player A agrees that his behavior was unacceptable and agrees to apologize.
Player A apologizes to everyone at the table.
Play resumes.

In response to your comment about it not being the GMs job to intercede. When we play at a public venue, we are "guests" and should we not be able to control the behavior of those at our tables, we will not be invited back. It is that plain and that simple.

Silver Crusade 5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

*Walks into thread, looks around in confusion...*

Whoa... Deja Vu.

*Backs away slowly, then dives out the window.*

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mulgar wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
I know people who cheat at pfs. I don't throw them out either. If you are cheating at a rpg then you have some serious issues......
Then what do you do with them?

Nothing, if you lie about your rolls, I will not start an incident about it.

If you are literally cheating with your chronicles or item purchases I will call you out on it. If you are using a not legal option, I will call you out on it.

You don't think that a player cheating at your table negatively impacts the fun of other players at your table? I have to disagree. I know it would detract from my enjoyment of the session.

I have never encountered a situation like this before (GM obviously turns a blind eye to player cheating), but if I did I would make a mental note to not play at that GMs table again.

4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Tennessee—Memphis aka Mulgar

Daniel Ziermann wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
Reasons for outsiders to hate PFS.

We are at almost complete disagreement. Having emotional attachment to character doe snot give you right to break the do not be a jerk rule. If you can not handle your character suffering without an outburst at slight issues you should consider not playing in public.

Yes, our store holds us responsible for mediating issues. I talked to the store clerks and apologized and tried to make amends on my own well after. If we create issues they made it clear they will take actions. If i prevent and mediate it before they do something extreme we are better off. Plus I do not PFS to be known as the vulgar jerks in the store. I think you will find few VOs that agree with you on this.

I know the guy because I tried to convince him to play pathfinder. I try to be friendly and sociable with all the people that have potential to play. I do not know him closely. Although jokingly chanting that is not an issue to me. The fact it is an issue to you makes me question your judgement. The fact the player even admitted he was wrong and he should have not gotten mad at him saying that only defends my opinion. This type of rhetoric I Personally find offensive.

What I find personally offensive is your deleting my comments and representing your opinions as my statements.

I never said I agreed with what the player said. I only found it strange that you required the player to apologize to continue playing.

I see a situation where the two people needed to work it out, not have a third party to decicde who should apologize. Both people were jerks, and from the level of response I would expect that they had some history together already. Pausing the game to deal with it was the right move in my opinion, FORCING one person to apologize was a jerks move.

Mulhern, let me me summarize it and put this to bed

Random schmuck makes an unwarranted comment.
Player A takes offense....

Well, the only thing you left out of putting it to bed was that in your post the gm talked to player and he agreed.

Oh finney boy FORCED his player to apologize. Not talked to him. Not discussed it with him. But FORCED him to. Go back and reread funney boys first post.

4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Tennessee—Memphis aka Mulgar

dwayne germaine wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
I know people who cheat at pfs. I don't throw them out either. If you are cheating at a rpg then you have some serious issues......
Then what do you do with them?

Nothing, if you lie about your rolls, I will not start an incident about it.

If you are literally cheating with your chronicles or item purchases I will call you out on it. If you are using a not legal option, I will call you out on it.

You don't think that a player cheating at your table negatively impacts the fun of other players at your table? I have to disagree. I know it would detract from my enjoyment of the session.

I have never encountered a situation like this before (GM obviously turns a blind eye to player cheating), but if I did I would make a mental note to not play at that GMs table again.

Well, I don't sit there and stare at every dice roll. Never have, never will. I know people who have never missed a saving throw.....ever....no really ever.

So, hey, if you gotta "win" an rpg, go ahead. We got a player who will do all the talking, even talking over other people. And when the gm says okay roll diplomacy he asks, who's got the highest skill rank. Is that cheating?

A player in our area played waking rune with us. We even show'd up early to plan what we might need to bring. He had some really great suggestions. When we started playing he kinda whispered to the gm " oh I'm using a gm star to replay this." We had everything we needed to counter the scenario. Is that cheating?

When this same player is in a core game, he always tries to cake people take the most optimal route, bypassing traps etc. Is that cheating?

When he plays at a seven player table he tells the gm, jus double all the monsters. Is that cheating?

Btw, this person is a venture captain. So just who do you report him to?

And how can I justify calling out anybody else for cheating? Not worth my time.......

Dark Archive 5/5 5/5 Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Mulgar wrote:

And when the gm says okay roll diplomacy he asks, who's got the highest skill rank. Is that cheating?

I always enforce that whoever does the most talking takes the lead. If anyone else contributes, they are allowed to assist. Someone doesn't say anything and just rolls? I don't include it.

Quote:
A player in our area played waking rune with us. We even show'd up early to plan what we might need to bring. He had some really great suggestions. When we started playing he kinda whispered to the gm " oh I'm using a gm star to replay this." We had everything we needed to counter the scenario. Is that cheating?

Yup. "You must inform the GM that you have already played the scenario. The GM has the right to deny players the opportunity to replay a scenario for any reason."

Quote:

When this same player is in a core game, he always tries to cake people take the most optimal route, bypassing traps etc. Is that cheating?

When he plays at a seven player table he tells the gm, jus double all the monsters. Is that cheating?

Btw, this person is a venture captain. So just who do you report him to?

Sounds like he can't separate player knowledge from character knowledge and doesn't like 'run as written'. If this is disruptive and detracting from the game - which is sounds like it is - I would first talk to him. If that doesn't work, I would report him to another VC, or the campaign coordinator once he is chosen. Metagaming detracts from the fun of the other players, even if they aren't aware of it. He's playing against the spirit of Core and the spirit of replays and, if everything you say is accurate, not living up to the expectations of his position.

5/5

Mulgar wrote:
So, hey, if you gotta "win" an rpg, go ahead. We got a player who will do all the talking, even talking over other people. And when the gm says okay roll diplomacy he asks, who's got the highest skill rank. Is that cheating?

It may not be cheating but it wont fly at my table. If you want to roll then you had best have actually been in the conversation. If one player is making all the noise they are rolling regardless of what anyone else's skill might be.

5/5 5/55/55/5

andreww wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
So, hey, if you gotta "win" an rpg, go ahead. We got a player who will do all the talking, even talking over other people. And when the gm says okay roll diplomacy he asks, who's got the highest skill rank. Is that cheating?
It may not be cheating but it wont fly at my table. If you want to roll then you had best have actually been in the conversation. If one player is making all the noise they are rolling regardless of what anyone else's skill might be.

You may want to make sure the table understands that's how it works.

This is one reason that players playing a low charisma/diplomacy character will shut up during the RP encounters and let the diplomancers do their thing.

4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Tennessee—Memphis aka Mulgar

Keith Apperson wrote:
Mulgar wrote:

And when the gm says okay roll diplomacy he asks, who's got the highest skill rank. Is that cheating?

I always enforce that whoever does the most talking takes the lead. If anyone else contributes, they are allowed to assist. Someone doesn't say anything and just rolls? I don't include it.

Quote:
A player in our area played waking rune with us. We even show'd up early to plan what we might need to bring. He had some really great suggestions. When we started playing he kinda whispered to the gm " oh I'm using a gm star to replay this." We had everything we needed to counter the scenario. Is that cheating?

Yup. "You must inform the GM that you have already played the scenario. The GM has the right to deny players the opportunity to replay a scenario for any reason."

Quote:

When this same player is in a core game, he always tries to cake people take the most optimal route, bypassing traps etc. Is that cheating?

When he plays at a seven player table he tells the gm, jus double all the monsters. Is that cheating?

Btw, this person is a venture captain. So just who do you report him to?

Sounds like he can't separate player knowledge from character knowledge and doesn't like 'run as written'. If this is disruptive and detracting from the game - which is sounds like it is - I would first talk to him. If that doesn't work, I would report him to another VC, or the campaign coordinator once he is chosen. Metagaming detracts from the fun of the other players, even if they aren't aware of it. He's playing against the spirit of Core and the spirit of replays and, if everything you say is accurate, not living up to the expectations of his position.

I know it is cheating. I won't let that crap fly. Well except for the rolls, not gonna check your rolls.

One venture captain got no power over other venture captains and there isn't a campaign coordinator right now

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

Mulgar wrote:
Btw, this person is a venture captain. So just who do you report him to?

The player base.

If you talk to other people at the table and find they have noticed the same thing, then you bring all those people before him and call him on the carpet. If he doesn't budge, you go over his head. John Compton is the acting CC right now, and Erik Mona is very involved in managing the transition behind the scenes. One of them WILL slap him down if it is best for the campaign.

Dark Archive 5/5 5/5 Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Mulgar wrote:

I know it is cheating. I won't let that crap fly. Well except for the rolls, not gonna check your rolls.

One venture captain got no power over other venture captains and there isn't a campaign coordinator right now

Apologies, your 'Is this cheating?' combined with 'And how can I justify calling out anybody else for cheating? Not worth my time.......' made me think that you were actually asking if that was cheating and that you were doing nothing to prevent/respond to it.

And TOZ is right.

The biggest tool we have is the community. Calling someone out, or laying down how you are running the table, at a game day and quoting the rules puts them in a position where they're either accepting it or openly defying the GM/rules, which should be a red flag to any other players there.

4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Tennessee—Memphis aka Mulgar

Keith Apperson wrote:
Mulgar wrote:

I know it is cheating. I won't let that crap fly. Well except for the rolls, not gonna check your rolls.

One venture captain got no power over other venture captains and there isn't a campaign coordinator right now

Apologies, your 'Is this cheating?' combined with 'And how can I justify calling out anybody else for cheating? Not worth my time.......' made me think that you were actually asking if that was cheating and that you were doing nothing to prevent/respond to it.

And TOZ is right.

The biggest tool we have is the community. Calling someone out, or laying down how you are running the table, at a game day and quoting the rules puts them in a position where they're either accepting it or openly defying the GM/rules, which should be a red flag to any other players there.

The community is speaking, his tables are the last to fill up usually. And often times they don't even make.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
andreww wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
So, hey, if you gotta "win" an rpg, go ahead. We got a player who will do all the talking, even talking over other people. And when the gm says okay roll diplomacy he asks, who's got the highest skill rank. Is that cheating?
It may not be cheating but it wont fly at my table. If you want to roll then you had best have actually been in the conversation. If one player is making all the noise they are rolling regardless of what anyone else's skill might be.

You may want to make sure the table understands that's how it works.

This is one reason that players playing a low charisma/diplomacy character will shut up during the RP encounters and let the diplomancers do their thing.

It makes sense to me that diplomancers will do the most talking. That's sort of the point of playing a Face character. Although if another player does most of the talking, that player is rolling the check instead. So sometimes after a first check by a non-Face that goes poorly you might say "why don't you let me take the lead next time?"

We go one step further. You can't Aid Another on the Diplomacy check unless you actually participated somehow in the conversation. That can be as simple as offering a few helpful comments, or noting that you make yourself look big and stand behind the Face to make him look more important. But you actually have to engage with the social encounter to be able to contribute mechanically.

The combination of these things - the player who talks the most makes the roll, and only players that contribute get to roll - actually works to improve RP encounters. Players are more aware of the need to allow someone to be spokesperson without too many interruptions, but everyone also wants everyone to find a way to participate.


Mulgar wrote:
Deceptive words

I did not force anyone. I did not hold him to the ground until he did it. I did not put a gun to his head and make him do anything. Since you did not read my first post clearly let me repost what I put" I called a break and talked with that player and convinced him to apologize to everyone including that other person. Had he been difficult or refused I would have removed him from the table."

What in there suggests forced? Quite deceptive to totally change the context/

Everyone that sits at a table represents EVERYONE else at that table. If one jerk wants to be a be obscene then that whole table looks obscene. Someone else being silly and saying something stupid, but not at all offensive does not give anyone the right to make 5 other people look like jerks.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/5

Mulgar wrote:
One venture captain got no power over other venture captains and there isn't a campaign coordinator right now

You would be surprised at how wrong you would be on this, at times. There are venture-captains that have a great deal of power over other venture-captains. Whether it's based on their character, influence, experience, or whatever, there are a number of veteran VCs who actually do hold a great deal of influence over newer ones.

No, they don't have any formal powers over other VCs, but they certainly have many informal ones, and influence is among them.

And yet, I don't know of a single VC that will let another VC get away with cheating, including die rolls. Peer accountability, and the threat of reputation, are powerful tools in the volunteer community. If you don't think VCs hold each other accountable, you'd be sorely mistaken.

That fact that there is currently no formal campaign coordinator only means that, absent some behavior that is likely to reflect poorly on Paizo, a VO isn't going to get fired. That doesn't mean the VO in question won't be held accountable among the VO corps - he or she will be.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Southwest

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
Btw, this person is a venture captain. So just who do you report him to?

The player base.

If you talk to other people at the table and find they have noticed the same thing, then you bring all those people before him and call him on the carpet. If he doesn't budge, you go over his head. John Compton is the acting CC right now, and Erik Mona is very involved in managing the transition behind the scenes. One of them WILL slap him down if it is best for the campaign.

Exactly this.

When you perceive a problem, talk about it with someone else who can hopefully do something about it. All else is just a recipe for suffering.


Just because no one is here right now to with the specific job of correcting VOs actions does not mean there will not be one soon.

I think you would have a very stupid VO that used that to defend poor behavior.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Southwest

Eric Brittain wrote:


When you perceive a problem, talk about it with someone else who can hopefully do something about it. All else is just a recipe for suffering.

Adding clarity

- I am a big supporter of speaking your mind (kindly) and asking for what you want. I have found no better way to get needs met than having a conversation about them specifically. When you need to resolve an issue I strongly suggest communicating with someone that you feel can do something about the issue if you feel you cannot accomplish that change yourself

4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Tennessee—Memphis aka Mulgar

Finlanderboy wrote:

Why are DMs being so exclusive?

I will DM for anyone that does not try to wreck other people's fun. I have yet to boot someone from my table. I have warned person and forced a guy to apologize to others, but removing someone is pretty extreme.

Finney boy, your first post in this thread is quoted above. Note the use of the word "forced"

So I belive I read your first post correctly.

4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Tennessee—Memphis aka Mulgar

Finlanderboy wrote:

Just because no one is here right now to with the specific job of correcting VOs actions does not mean there will not be one soon.

I think you would have a very stupid VO that used that to defend poor behavior.

Tru that.......

Paizo Employee 5/5 Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with what Steven, Mark, Eric, and others note above.

Cheating is not allowed, spelled out explicitly on page 19 of the Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide. I admit I look the other way when hearing the occasional story that a GM fudged a roll to avoid ruining a brand new player's experience, but otherwise I expect players and GMs to abide by the rules of the campaign. Cheating might not bother one person, but it can be an absolute deal-breaker for other participants.

Venture-captains and venture-lieutenants are model members of their respective communities and representatives of the campaign at large; I am confident saying that maintaining the integrity of those two titles is really important to our regional coordinators. If there's a significant issue with such a leader that you cannot resolve by corresponding politely with that person—and so long as the topic or situation doesn't make you especially uncomfortable, I do encourage you to discuss and resolve any grievance you have with the person in question—understand that campaign staff are available to help handle that situation. Until we announce our new campaign coordinator, feel free to contact me.

4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Tennessee—Memphis aka Mulgar

John, thanks for the info. Just to be clear: I do not allow cheating, but in the same breath, I'm not gonna stare at every single die roll the players make. There has to be a sense of trust at the table.

If another player catches another player cheating rolls then I will start watching that player.

I do have problems with a venture captain in my area and some of the things they do. If I can't get the situation resolved in discussions with them, I will contact you.

Sczarni

First of all I would like to thank everybody for their responses to my question, and I believe that it has be satisfactorily answered. That being said, I was vague with my question and would like to clarify for those who asked. The behavior that the player in question was exhibiting came in two forms. 1. On almost every action taken by another player, this player would feel the need to rules lawyer every other player. I have dealt with players like this before, and actually I usually find them helpful, but the problem is that this player is wrong nine times out of ten. He has been verbally warned about this problem on multiple occasions. 2. He applies the same logic (that is to say, wrong) to his own characters. While we deal with people who misunderstand the rules regularly at PFS games, the overwhelming majority are happy to fix mistakes when they are pointed out. This player often doesn't change his character after mistakes have been pointed out.

Look, I'm not overly sensitive, and I'm not an enormous jerk. I've only been playing PFS for two years and have only been GMing for one. I understand that mistakes are made and that some people gaming in a public setting can be hard to deal with. Obviously I was asking this question as a possible last resort and not just as a means to bully other players.

Again, thank you all for your responses, you've been a great help.

Sczarni

A few more quick comments:

We have a healthy weekly game, the player would always have the options of playing at one of the other three tables.

I will not even resort to that yet, I will have a conversation with the person and the event coordinator before it comes to that.

I was vague in my initial posts to get the widest varieties of answers. I as OP probably won't be the only person who comes to this thread for answers. I feel as though this worked, not only did I receive answers for my question, but many other scenarios related to the original question were answered.

I have no desire to have this player banned as I feel that other GMs might be able to get through to him, but he's always at my table, I honestly think that he enjoys tormenting me.

Again, further explanations I feel that people were asking for. Thanks again for all of your responses.

51 to 93 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / GMing question... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.