|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First: My Bone Fides: I've played PFS for a little over a year, but I've been playing RPGs for a lot longer (17 years.) I've played a lot, GMed a fair amount, and done a bunch of different games. Dnd (second, 3rd, 3.5, 4th). D20 modern, BESM, Shadowrun, Palladium, just to name a few. I even have the Buffy the vampire slayer RPG just for fun.
Okay, so recently I had the chance to go to a PFS event, the first major one I've gone to outside of my hometown. My schedule had me GMing the entire time, meaning a GMed 4 games, including a special) over the course of three days.
The combination of GMing for mostly new people (that is, new to me), combined with some of the regulars I knew back home, made me finally realize something. I'm going to put that here. I fully expect a lot of people flaming me for putting this out there on the boards, and no, I am not trying to be a flame source or trolling or flame-baiting. I'm trying to say something that I have come to understand. Please read what I have to say to the end, and then think about it.
Pathfinder Society is not an open 'free-for-all' game. It is not a completely open game where anything goes. It is basically one, giant, strange 'home-game' that has certain home rules. You don't get to keep what you find. Certain feats (item creation), archetypes (vivisectionist) and alignments (evil) are outlawed.
The bit part of this, and the one I've seen violated the most, is that PFS is a 'theme game.' The theme is that you are basically scholars, archaeologists, and bodyguards. Explore, co-operate, and report are the axioms of the society.
It is like if, in a home game, a GM declares that his campaign is going to be something that involves holy knights and the forces of light defeating an unrelenting tide of evil. If you come to the campaign with a stereotypical chaotic evil antipaladin, your GM is going to say "That's a fun idea, but that character doesn't fit the campaign I've been working on for the past year."
Similarly, in PFS, you are supposed to be scholars, sages, and maybe some muscle to make sure that said sages don't die. Making an illiterate, feral barbarian who kills anyone he meets named 'Bob' is not someone that fits into the PFS 'home game.' If you find that restriction too difficult, you don't have to play PFS
I've seen WAY too many people who do not operate under the guidelines 'explore, report, co-operate,' and I have seen it do nothing but hurt parties and diminish fun for everyone at the table (except maybe for the one not co-operating.) That is not what PFS is about. If you want to play that way, fine, go find other like-minded individuals and make that group. When you sit down at a PFS table, you have agreed to play by their guidelines. They are fairly open and unrestricted, but when you openly disregard the rules, it isn't fun for anyone.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Society is broad enough to embrace many different concepts and given that it engages in wholescale tomb robbing/exploration in a world filled with magic not every member is going to be a sage or scholar. You need far more than the occasional bit of muscle when your next expedition might be torn apart by manticores, liches or dragons.
Also, the reality is that many classes make very poor sages. Clerics, Paladins, Fighters etc, basically any class that gets 2+Int skills and has little mechanical reason to invest in Int is going to struggle.
Sure, sure, I'm not saying everyone has to be a scholar, I get that. I (and the fictional society) recognize that sometimes fighting prowess is required. I am not arguing that.
I'm saying don't make a character that is DIRECTLY OPPOSED to scholarly duties. When you have a 30 min. discussion if the barbarian is allowed to attack the scholar because 'talky man talk to much,' you have a problem. When you have a brawler who is intentionally being difficult and destroying the ancient tomb instead of letting the investigator study it, causing everyone to lose prestige, that is a problem.
When you have people who try to turn every encounter into a combat, and murder plot-critical NPCs because 'they don't like spellcasters,' that is a problem.
Your charactes don't have to be scholarly, your characters have to recognize that they have joined a scholarly institution.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why you need a soapbox or a potion of Resist Energy (fire) just to state the obvious. Like most other Organized Play options, PFS has its own unique setting and theme. If people aren't keen on those two elements, they can go elsewhere to find what they're looking for.
And that's why we here in the Forums often don't have a problem telling people that PFS isn't for everybody. We'd like everyone to give us a try, because how else would you determine if you like it, but once you've given it a shot you're not obligated to love it.
Unless I'm missing some obvious reason why you thought your post would be disgruntling.
|
|
I don't see why you need a soapbox or a potion of Resist Energy (fire) just to state the obvious. Like most other Organized Play options, PFS has its own unique setting and theme. If people aren't keen on those two elements, they can go elsewhere to find what they're looking for.
And that's why we here in the Forums often don't have a problem telling people that PFS isn't for everybody. We'd like everyone to give us a try, because how else would you determine if you like it, but once you've given it a shot you're not obligated to love it.
Unless I'm missing some obvious reason why you thought your post would be disgruntling.
It's been a experience of mine that any time you put any limitation on any player, people online will come out of the woodwork to try and burn you at the stake.
I think you're fundamentally correct. But it sounds to me as if you're talking about players who haven't fully internalized the "don't be a jerk" rule.
When you have people who try to turn every encounter into a combat, and murder plot-critical NPCs because 'they don't like spellcasters,' that is a problem.
Your charactes don't have to be scholarly, your characters have to recognize that they have joined a scholarly institution.
I think it's a combination of the two. Some people who play PFS haven't read the guide to organized play, or understand that it is 'explore, report, co-operate.' If you come to the table expecting to be any old murder hobo, and you end up doing a heavy RP scenario (like the disappeared), some players will lose it.
I think it's a problem that people who have had 'open table, do whatever you want' games expect PFS to be the same way, and all of the sudden, it's not, and they continue to play like it is.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that you definitely have a point.
There are a reasonable number of characters who wouldn't be allowed into the society in the first place or who would be asked to leave. If you were playing a home game with the characters as members of the society a lot of the shenanigans wouldn't be allowed.
But its not a home game, its Organized Play. Which means that the character rules HAVE to be quite permissive. Just look at any of the "is this evil" threads to see how much players disagree with what is reasonable, what is evil, etc. Any attempt to actually write down rules that were intended to stop characters from acting badly would almost certainly be worse than the problem.
In fact, I think that the problem has been significantly reduced with the new (I'm an old timer :-)) rules on secondary success conditions. The players know that if they act out too much it is likely to cost them prestige so they tend to behave better.
I've also found that some of the worse offenders are at cons. They have nothing invested in the character or the campaign so they're more likely to act out. Regular players can be influenced by social pressure, by threats of prestige, or by ostracism if it comes to that point.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have one of those dumb brutes. 8th level warpriest, been yelled at enough now that I am always nice. When that role playing time comes up, I always ask the party face real nice, " you want i should kill him now?" usually right before the diplomacy roll.....
Again, I'm not saying dumb brutes can't be played. I'm saying that you have made a character for PFS, so you know that you are in a scholarly orginization, even if you aren't a scholar.
I have a friend with a Suli that has 5 int. He is super agreeable though. So he just follows people around and asks "what you want suli to punch?" He knows that there are scholars in the society, and that he needs to work with them and protect them.
I know a lot of people who have made dumb characters. However their character concepts still allow for working with scholars. It is the people that make characters directly contrary to this that don't seem to get it.
|
|
Ok, heck, you got me on this thread.
I got the popcorn out, pulled up a chair to ringside and got ready to watch the fights... And not one mention of anything flame worthy.
No mentions of;
Paladins,
Summoners,
Animal companions/mounts,
Take 10 rules,
Grandmaster Torch,
Buying a cure wand,
infernal healing spells,
Race boons,
Bacon,
Or anything to do with evil spells...What's up?
Did I miss something? I even pulled off my Ignore filter and don't see anything...
Like I said, in the past it has been my experience that anyone who tries to infringe on any character in any way will have their throat jumped down promptly.
Suggesting that 'you can't play X character' usually has people yell at you for being a faciest and a lot of whining (in my experience.)
I just . . . I just wish people would come to PFS to play fun scenarios and hang out with friends and have a fun time. I never got the appeal of playing a jerk character that won't help others. And it is worse in PFS because those characters SHOULDN'T be in the society.
I guess, I dunno. I think there should be a 'quick primer.' Like a book that introduces the concept of PFS in one page, that all players have to read before getting their number. The sheet basically would say:
"You are joining the pathfinder society. The main tenants are 'explore, report, cooperate.' The pathfinders are a scholarly institution. While you don't have to play a scholar, you have agreed to join an institution who's primary goals are academic in nature. You will often be sent on missions of scholarly import. If you don't want to cooperate with your fellow players to find ancient lore (or help them find ancient lore) then maybe Pathfinder Society isn't right for you."
|
The above is why this character, a dwarven ranger with the guide and deepwalker archetypes, is built the way he is. He's not much of a scholar, though he can make a nature or dungeoneering check. However, he is made to lead the scholars safely through the dangerous underdark so they can find the nifty ruins.
|
|
So if you have a disruptive player doing disruptive things in game is causes disruptions? WHOA!!! REVELATION HERE!!!
But seriously. That's more to do with the players than any "character concept"
a thousand times this.
It's not the PC that is the problem. It's the player.
And it normally isn't a player that is unfamiliar with PFS. If it was just ignorance (the player doesn't realize what the Society is about), we can fix that OOC by just telling the player. Right there when he starts down that path. "Hay guy - we need to be able to talk to this guy to do the mission. You aren't going to 'win' by killing the target!"
No, the biggest offenders (in my experience) is the guy who plays "anti-social" knowing full well what he is doing. Who builds a PC intending to be as disruptive as possible.
The guy who, while running an Investigator, with the party facing a 300 ft climb, checks to be sure that everyone has only 50' of rope and then casts monkey fish to do the climb - taking his rope with him. That way the party has only 250 feet of rope. Yea. Been there, done that. NOT going to play with that guy again.
So, how do we fix this?
To quote the OP: "... That is not what PFS is about. If you want to play that way, fine, go find other like-minded individuals and make that group. When you sit down at a PFS table, you have agreed to play by their guidelines. They are fairly open and unrestricted, but when you openly disregard the rules, it isn't fun for anyone..."
How do we fix this problem? How do I fix it when I encounter it? I note who is doing this. (put them on "the list") I tell my friends (other gamers). We avoid this guy. Maybe for weeks, maybe for years, maybe forever.
"Playground rules." We don't play with people we don't like, who don't "play right". People who aren't fun to be with. Burn me in a game, and I'll think twice about playing with you again. Burn my friends and they have the same issue. Do it enough and no one will sit with...
Problem with PFS, especially in my hometown, is that A, it's done in a public place, and B, it's a fairly small group. There are maybe a total of 20 of us, and at most, 11 will show up at any given time. PFS rules, we can't just turn them away (and believe me, there have been a few that we really wanted to), so what do we do? Just cancel PFS if one of the 'problem players' show up?
On top of that, a lot of people just don't get it, even after you explain it to them. You say "Hey, listen, I know you are playing your anti-social ninja, but PFS is about explore, report, co-operate. And you're not doing that."
Then they say "I co-operate, I participate in combat." Then they proceed to make the knowledge check on the monster and not tell the rest of the party because 'they should have known' or 'I'm anti-social,' or 'my character doesn't like you' and someone ends up really hurt or worse. They 'get it' but don't 'internalize it.'
I just . . . it frustrates me.
|
|
On top of that, a lot of people just don't get it, even after you explain it to them. You say "Hey, listen, I know you are playing your anti-social ninja, but PFS is about explore, report, co-operate. And you're not doing that."
Then they say "I co-operate, I participate in combat." Then they proceed to make the knowledge check on the monster and not tell the rest of the party because 'they should have known' or 'I'm anti-social,' or 'my character doesn't like you' and someone ends up really hurt or worse. They 'get it' but don't 'internalize it.'
Talk to your organizer, store owner, or whoever has power over these things. Make sure everyone else in the group agrees that this person is a problem. Then when they answer like this, the person in authority can flat out say "You are violating the 'don't be a jerk' rule. If you continue, you'll be banned from playing here". Then make sure it isn't an idle threat.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Vamp is a player in my local scene, and I know some of the participants that are being mentioned. As with any teaching experience, it's a process and it doesn't happen overnight.
The issue with murderhoboing is an issue with gaming in general, not PFS. In my opinion, it's just a juvenile perspective on gaming, but given enough time and encouragement I think that people can move past it.
Picture our understanding of anything like a road that stretches indefinitely in both directions. We're all just at different places on the road, between more and less knowledge, but that doesn't mean we have to remain there. We just have to start walking.
At my FLGS, we've tutored our own share of hobos on how to play something more enriching, some of which have gone on to help other hobos improve, thus ensuring the knowledge lives on.
When you GM a convention you're a lot more likely to see this kind of play, because the player base is more diverse than are used to and chances are, more of them are be newer to the game. The best approach is to lead by example and drive your games in a direction that rewards roleplaying instead of hoboing. It can be a tiring process, especially if you're GMing full slots at a convention, but change is possible.
|
|
Thanks for piping Up Walter, I think that really gets at the heart of what I'm trying to say. I've just met a few people that refuse to walk down that road. Happens sometimes, and that's when it gets tiring as you say. Keep in mind that this is a lot of accumulated experience. I'm not venting against any one person, this is a year of accumulated PFS experience finally 'clicking' for me.
I think one thing we can do, is when we talk to new players, make sure they understand the base assumptions of PFS, whether we be players, GMs, or Venture-officers. Just tell them something like:
"So, In PFS, you play a pathfinder. Pathfinders are a group of scholars, explorers, and bodyguards devoted to finding ancient knowledge and preserving it for future generations. You don't have to play a scholar of course, but you work with people who are, in order to recover lost lore. The tenants of the pathfinders are to explore-find ancint lore, report- report that ancient lore, and co-operate-work with your teammates to recover that lore and try to make sure everyone gets out alive."
I guess I feel new players don't get that spiel enough.
|
|
I just . . . I just wish people would come to PFS to play fun scenarios and hang out with friends and have a fun time. I never got the appeal of playing a jerk character that won't help others. And it is worse in PFS because those characters SHOULDN'T be in the society.
I've been to a lot of cons and everyone (for the most part) has been great. Friendly people.
If there's a character/player that doesn't want to cooperate at all in the scenario or mission, it's up to the GM to give him a warning, write the warning on his chronicle, and tell him this character concept isn't suitable for PFS. Possibly kick him from the table if the player himself is being disruptive. If it's any way PVP related you have even more leniency in how you handle it.
Personally if I find a player being disruptive and not playing nice, I have no problem giving them a warning and then booting them if it's ignored. They're just trying to ruin the game for everyone, and it's your job as GM not to let that happen.
In my home (PFS) game some of the players said their characters would never want to be part of the PF society. I told them I could mark their characters dead and we could start over with characters that actually did want to be part of PF society. They changed their tune pretty fast.
In general, ANY organized play campaign has some caveats to participating.
You really need to be a team player. Lone Wolf or antisocial characters seriously don't work well in these venues.
You really SHOULD at least do a bare minimum of research into the setting and theme of the campaign, and at least pay lip service to it.
You need to prepare. Nearly all OP campaigns have paperwork and tracking that has to be kept current. It is best done off site, not five minutes before the convention because you didn't touch the characters since you threw them into your bag last convention.
I mean, these are really things that players of any game should be doing, but they go especially so for organized play,
-j
|
|
I've been playing PFS for almost a year and a half, and rpg of various types and sorts for over thirty.
I'm currently in a RotRL campaign and we reached an encounter where we felt stealth and 'black-ops' style of play was the only way we could handle it.
Shortly after, one of the other players mentioned the fact that how *different* the scenario would have been if we'd been playing PFS -- ie, essentially assassinating a major leader of the enemy forces when he could have been a huge wealth of information -- was rather jarring for a few moments as we absorbed it.
We as a party committed to the 'assassination' method after seeing the resources available to the opponent and coming to the very rapid realization that if the leader had the chance to even shout an alarm, our adventure would come to a quick and bloody end.
We may do a bit of 'grab-ass' in the party, but in general we're closer to 'Explore, Cooperate' than the typical death vagrant crew, and we try to use diplomacy whenever possible -- but sometimes... well.
As far as the rather liberal yet cohesive rules (for the most part) of PFS? Compared to a couple of other long-term campaigns I've participated in, they feel a bit more viable with hard-learned lessons implemented and corrected for.
One such other campaign had a campaign book that was twice as large as the core rulebook for the setting, with more being added on a monthly basis...
|
|
This is not org play even that is the problem.
I do not know any home games where a player that refuses to play with the group is kept around.
By playing D&D you agree to a social contract of sorts to all play to have fun. So it is implied to agree to work together.
Now people notice this in ORG play much ,ore often because the jerks that can not find home games because they are a jerk go to what is left to them.
Infact if you look at the people that break your rule of having characters that do not work towards the goal still submit to the party's rule. There is nothing wrong with a murderhobo on a chain of his teammates as long as they all agree on it.