Venture-Captain, Washington—Spokane
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have just reviewed this thread and I am shaking my head in sincere confusion.
I have read several really good suggestions to justify the change from a horse to a griffin and this topic still continues. John Compton and Tonya Woldridge both offered options that would accomplish the change without breaking PFS rules and still this continues. I love the desire to not just dismiss the horse in favor of the griffin.
The problem I am having with this thread is that it has been ruled by campaign management that the no reskinning rule still stands. Please take a look at the suggestions and take the great advice given. I actually got kick out of the idea presented by John Compton and would love to see something like this happen at one of my tables.
In closing, I feel that this discussion has fully run its course and has been seriously beaten into the ground almost making it to Rovagug's prison. It is my hope that this thread finally is locked before Rovagug has an escape route.
|
Not arguing a point just clarifying. Jared's point is that if you were to use GM credit to get the character up to level five, when you build the character you could just say that you always had a griffon, since it would pretty much be true. And honestly, I think both sides of this conversation are being comically overdramatic.
As an aside, if the local GM's you're actually going to be playing with don't have an issue with what you were wanting to do, why bring it to the forums in the first place? We all should be worrying less about the forums and more about having fun. Nothing on the forums are really worth getting worked up over, I've gotten too worked up over stuff on the boards and believe me it's just not worth it.
As for describing/flavoring a celestial horse, for me I would think of the absolute pinnacle of horsedom. The shiniest coat, the fullest mane, and so on. A good example I would use as a celestial horse is Shadowfax from LOTR, especially that first scene in The Two Towers you see Shadowfax come to Gandalf. Whenever you start to give the horse non-equine characteristics is personally where I'd draw the line, but if you're local GMs don't mind then more power to you.
Now, all of you! Go forth and be awesome!
Edit: And now I'm up past five in the morning looking at pictures of horses...
|
|
UndeadMitch: I understand, but he said, "now". The character is level 1 now, so that wont really work. Especially if I want to play the character now and up. Still... at least it is a positive suggestion.
As far as "why bring it to the forums in the first place?": if you look back at my original post I wasn't asking "May I do this?" I was asking "What do you do?"
I hear ya on Shadowfax. LOTR is fairly low fantasy though and doesn't really have the equivalent of Celestial things. I googled "celestial horse" and the images spread the gamut from things I think they might look like (glowy feathery horses) to things that I think are a bit too far fetched for Pathfinder (the celestial horse mount from WoW). It didn't really help me decide how I can legally describe my horse without trampling on the reskinning rules, sadly. (<- my goal)
And yeah... my brain decided to wake me up at 4am, so I guess I'm on the other side of that issue. : /
|
|
...and yeah, I do plan on talking to my local group. From all the issues this thread stirred up I think there are likely several players overstepping the reskinning rules. I do not personally mind being overstepped (I feel even when I GM I tend to be more for player creativity vs. GM rules enforcement as Bob Jonquet put it) but misinformed players, GMs, etc. can lead to, well... threads like this. It could be worse, I guess. At least this didn't happen in a face to face encounter and start such a heated discussion.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I almost want to say that the chaoticly/neutrally aligned lesson of this thread is, if your meeting the unoffical standards of your local community even though you know you may be skating the edge of what is allowed by more lawfully aligned people on these forums or elsewhere, even the lawful beyond the point of reason (Empathis, not everyone who is lawful here) it is best not to bring it to thier attention lest you bring down an offical ruling that puts you beyond the pale of an unneeded arguement.
If you are going outside your local community, make sure your characters meet the standards of the larger community within the point of reason i.e. you will have a leg to stand on when the unreasonable authority figure declares your character dead and you have to approach a VO on the issue.
Basically, don't make an issue of it and be able to justify yourself if called out.
Everytime you don't do this, somewhere, a cat girl dies.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Just as a note: the Celestial Servant feat only ... sort of .. converts an animal companion into a magical beast. In some ways, yes; in other ways, no. For example, it doesn't change the hit dice of the creature. (See here. )
Also, as people have noted, once your mount becomes a griffin, you might need to retrain most of its tricks.
|
|
Yep. There is a sidebar on it.
And yeah, as Eric pointed out I am going to have to work on training up those tricks again after it is "replaced" (I might go with Digivolved ;) ). Luckily you can train general purposes so I should at least be able to get mounted combat online quickly. I'll actually also probably have a Circlet of Persuasion by then. So it should be 24 with a Take 10 by that level (Take 10 + 5 ranks, +5 Cha, +3 Competence, +2 Untyped, +4 Circumstance for it being my Animal Companion). If I could eek out another +1 somewhere I can Take 10 for every trick and general purpose.
|
|
Yep. There is a sidebar on it.
And yeah, as Eric pointed out I am going to have to work on training up those tricks again after it is "replaced" (I might go with Digivolved ;) ). Luckily you can train general purposes so I should at least be able to get mounted combat online quickly. I'll actually also probably have a Circlet of Persuasion by then. So it should be 24 with a Take 10 by that level (Take 10 + 5 ranks, +5 Cha, +3 Competence, +2 Untyped, +4 Circumstance for it being my Animal Companion). If I could eek out another +1 somewhere I can Take 10 for every trick and general purpose.
Purpose training doesn't speed things up : it still soaks up one handle animal rank per trick.
A training harness (if thats not your +2 untyped) would be another +2
There are ioun stones but they're competence and won't stack with the headband of social skill goodness
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Jared Thaler: Are you talking about the Monstrous Mount feat that I said in my first post that I was planning on getting?
Not neccesarrily. What ever route you want to go. GM till you get to the level where you get the gryphon. Rebuild your "GM credit baby" into whatever class / feats you need to get the gryphon.
Now take the gryphon. It is your first AC, so it starts with the full set of tricks.
Now you have a gryphon rider that starts with a gryphon and has never had anything but a gryphon, and your area gets a very dedicated GM.
Everyone wins.
|
|
Yep. There is a sidebar on it.
And yeah, as Eric pointed out I am going to have to work on training up those tricks again after it is "replaced" (I might go with Digivolved ;) ). Luckily you can train general purposes so I should at least be able to get mounted combat online quickly. I'll actually also probably have a Circlet of Persuasion by then. So it should be 24 with a Take 10 by that level (Take 10 + 5 ranks, +5 Cha, +3 Competence, +2 Untyped, +4 Circumstance for it being my Animal Companion). If I could eek out another +1 somewhere I can Take 10 for every trick and general purpose.
Purpose training doesn't speed things up : it still soaks up one handle animal rank per trick.
A training harness (if thats not your +2 untyped) would be another +2
There are ioun stones but they're competence and won't stack with the headband of social skill goodness
Huh? But it says:
"Alternatively, you may train one animal for a single purpose as long as you have enough ranks in Handle Animal to train the animal in each trick learned as part of that purpose."
Does that not mean that you can get all the tricks in that purpose?
It doesn't matter too much anyway as I will have 5 ranks by the time I replace the critter as that is required anyway.
|
|
Jared: I do DM but I do it about once every 2 months or so. They have a set of people that enjoy DMing. And honestly, I run a home game and play in a different home game as well so I'm kinda booked up.
I know a lot of people probably do the DM baby thing but they probably DM more than I do. My son and I always play together and we like to keep our characters close in level. We tend to play them in pairs. Its just what works for us.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
It's all a matter of how patient you feel.
I did the GM credit baby to get my ifrit mysterious gunslinger / piccaroon to level 4, so I could start play with a double barrel pistol and quick clear. I only GM once a month. Took most of a year. Worth it for my race boon PC to start with nearly enough prestige for a raise dead.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It'd be based on context for me. I read the ruling above, which is cool and makes sense more or less. But there are some situations where I feel I'd be fine in breaking it in PFS play:
- It's a new player who didn't understand there were all these rules. I'd feel it out during the discussion and explain how to find the PFS rules, but depending on how bummed they were, I'd go as far as letting them play with whatever they brought assuming it wasn't horribly game breaking. I've seen a gnoll played during the confirmation and wasn't a broken character. Guy had fun and came back with a fixed character during our next monthly game with a (I think) human who was convinced he was a gnoll. After the immediate games, I'd work with them to adjust their concept into something they enjoyed, but was more in-line with the rules.
- The player has fully accepted and is using the legal stats for what they have, but is excited for being able to have something else once they take a few feats. I would suggest they stylize the animal's barding/saddle to look like what they want, or use a costume, as long as they are mechanically playing accurately and they are made aware/are okay that other GMs don't have to allow it. I've found suggesting delusion as a character trait an effective tool that most players really find fun. Again, I'd let them get away with it the first game (or monthly game day that we hold), particularly if they were new and it wasn't broken, and work out RP reasons it "loses" any broken abilities (young, etc...). This tends to be reasonable to most players and they come back with fixed builds.
In the end, I care that the players are having fun, and I work with them to get what they would like while still being able to have fun. Mechanically I tend to draw a line though, with examples like the first one above being the only sort of exception (new, not min/maxed and broken). But I opt to see more value in active players than a rule that has no mechanical impact on the game
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a new player who didn't understand there were all these rules. I'd feel it out during the discussion and explain how to find the PFS rules, but depending on how bummed they were, I'd go as far as letting them play with whatever they brought assuming it wasn't horribly game breaking. I've seen a gnoll played during the confirmation and wasn't a broken character. Guy had fun and came back with a fixed character during our next monthly game with a (I think) human who was convinced he was a gnoll. After the immediate games, I'd work with them to adjust their concept into something they enjoyed, but was more in-line with the rules.
I understand what you're saying here, but the answer is an unequivocal "no." It doesn't matter that the gnoll may not have been "game breaking", it is absolutely prohibited.
The past view (and I think still holds true) is that mistakes happen - if something really is a mistake, you just fix it and move on. A newish player used a feat that he or she wasn't allowed to have, and it gets discovered after the game? Fix it and move on, no problem. Playing a prohibited race is not one of those "ooops" items - and that is one the GM should have addressed before the game. Now, I'm not looking at this point to get anyone in trouble, but in that case, the GM knowingly allowed a serious violation of PFS campaign rules.
This, folks, is how we end up in the more complicated situations - "well, THIS GM allowed it, why won't you?" When GMs (and, worse, VOs) allow these types of violations to occur, it makes the job harder for those of us who will (and are required to) enforce the campaign rules. You might see it as a minor, one-time thing, but often times when it happens, someone else has to deal with it down the line, when it is harder to do.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It'd be based on context for me. I read the ruling above, which is cool and makes sense more or less. But there are some situations where I feel I'd be fine in breaking it in PFS play:
- It's a new player who didn't understand there were all these rules. I'd feel it out during the discussion and explain how to find the PFS rules, but depending on how bummed they were, I'd go as far as letting them play with whatever they brought assuming it wasn't horribly game breaking. I've seen a gnoll played during the confirmation and wasn't a broken character. Guy had fun and came back with a fixed character during our next monthly game with a (I think) human who was convinced he was a gnoll. After the immediate games, I'd work with them to adjust their concept into something they enjoyed, but was more in-line with the rules.
- The player has fully accepted and is using the legal stats for what they have, but is excited for being able to have something else once they take a few feats. I would suggest they stylize the animal's barding/saddle to look like what they want, or use a costume, as long as they are mechanically playing accurately and they are made aware/are okay that other GMs don't have to allow it. I've found suggesting delusion as a character trait an effective tool that most players really find fun. Again, I'd let them get away with it the first game (or monthly game day that we hold), particularly if they were new and it wasn't broken, and work out RP reasons it "loses" any broken abilities (young, etc...). This tends to be reasonable to most players and they come back with fixed builds.
In the end, I care that the players are having fun, and I work with them to get what they would like while still being able to have fun. Mechanically I tend to draw a line though, with examples like the first one above being the only sort of exception (new, not min/maxed and broken). But I opt to see more value in active players than a rule that has no mechanical impact on the game
This is what being a reasonable authority figure is all about. Let's just say doing this encourages repeat players as opposed to declaring the character dead and alienating a new player.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I understand what you're saying here, but the answer is an unequivocal "no." It doesn't matter that the gnoll may not have been "game breaking", it is absolutely prohibited.
I understand your concerns, and the ruling. However, I look at PFS and see an acre of rules that many players aren't aware exist and are hard to learn when the're new, and I look for ways to include them and make sure they have fun while they learn them. I also understand the purpose of the ruling here, which is why I make it expressly clear that the build they have is not PFS legal. However, I value a new player having fun over one or two PFS rules, AND I help them fix the conflict for the next game while still keeping as much of the fun and flavor of the build they wanted. Everyone knows how the evergreens goes, so they in particular are fertile ground to allow variation while new players acclimate themselves.
So yes, I'd break a few rules for a new player in a heartbeat, but I'd do it through compromise and reasonably so and work with them to fix the problem. Hardasses only chase new players away, which is not what being a PFS GM is about. And if it still concerns you, making sure new players feel welcome and have fun is a ruling that's been made by Paizo for ages.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And if it still concerns you, making sure new players feel welcome and have fun is a ruling that's been made by Paizo for ages.
And in my view, it is possible to both enforce the rules of the campaign and to make "sure new players feel welcome and have fun." Those two items are not mutually exclusive.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if it still concerns you, making sure new players feel welcome and have fun is a ruling that's been made by Paizo for ages.And in my view, it is possible to both enforce the rules of the campaign and to make "sure new players feel welcome and have fun." Those two items are not mutually exclusive.
And yet there's still nothing wrong with my approach either. There is no willy-nilly handwaving of rules. It's something I break out when the player is really put off by the news, and particularly when the game starts in 5 minutes and a rebuild is out of the question. Seeing as I ensure it's fixed before the next game and I work with the player to find a legal build that they enjoy, there is not really an impact to other GMs either (though I know all our local GMs, so often we're all aware of these things and agree with the approach).
Your approach might be really effective, but not everyone to go about resolving the issue the same way. I've found success with my approach, and we have a really strong player base in our local area despite a lack of a large local population.
|
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've had to sit at a con with a player whose *third level* character was totally illegal. Rolled his stats, was a banned race, banned archetype. Thanks, home GM, for taking the easy way out because you didn't want to waste any of your precious time, so that I, his first non-you GM, had to waste a bunch of time at a con picking up your mess.
If you're not enforcing campaign rules, you are messing with tables down the road, and making other GMs clean up your mess. This is not *only* about a player enjoying one table's worth of play. PFS is like a career. If your first boss teaches you to break the rules, you are set up for a lifetime of problems.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've had to sit at a con with a player whose *third level* character was totally illegal. Rolled his stats, was a banned race, banned archetype. Thanks, home GM, for taking the easy way out because you didn't want to waste any of your precious time, so that I, his first non-you GM, had to waste a bunch of time at a con picking up your mess.
If you're not enforcing campaign rules, you are messing with tables down the road, and making other GMs clean up your mess. This is not *only* about a player enjoying one table's worth of play. PFS is like a career. If your first boss teaches you to break the rules, you are set up for a lifetime of problems.
None of which I do in my outlined resolution. If someone is 3rd level, they get corrected, period. I'm talking newbies, first game of PFS, as I stated above. I suspect both of you are framing my response to include a much wider set of circumstances than I am. I've not had any repeat "offenders" as far as I can tell, and the last time this occurred it was months ago.
Again, it's made clear the character is illegal and they have to change it, but I'm willing to make compromises to ensure the player still wants to play and has fun in their first game. It's the same reason why we hand-wave a 1st game death (something I had happen to me and I greatly appreciated the breaking of the rules).
The kind of situation that spawns a 3rd level illegal character are far afield of the steps I take, and I think it's pretty clear in my descriptions above. The only way this would happen in my scenario is if the player is being deliberately misleading in an attempt to break the rules. It should be, and is in our area, dealt with exactly like someone fudging their dice rolls. However, when someone new comes to our area with such a character, I work with them to correct it beforehand or provide them with a pregen for that game. They've been playing long enough to have had a chance to read the rules, and they get less flexibility.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've had to sit at a con with a player whose *third level* character was totally illegal. Rolled his stats, was a banned race, banned archetype. Thanks, home GM, for taking the easy way out because you didn't want to waste any of your precious time, so that I, his first non-you GM, had to waste a bunch of time at a con picking up your mess.
If you're not enforcing campaign rules, you are messing with tables down the road, and making other GMs clean up your mess. This is not *only* about a player enjoying one table's worth of play. PFS is like a career. If your first boss teaches you to break the rules, you are set up for a lifetime of problems.
None of which I do in my outlined resolution. If someone is 3rd level, they get corrected, period. I'm talking newbies, first game of PFS, as I stated above. I suspect both of you are framing my response to include a much wider set of circumstances than I am. I've not had any repeat "offenders" as far as I can tell, and the last time this occurred it was months ago.
Again, it's made clear the character is illegal and they have to change it, but I'm willing to make compromises to ensure the player still wants to play and has fun in their first game. It's the same reason why we hand-wave a 1st game death (something I had happen to me and I greatly appreciated the breaking of the rules).
If this is who I think it is, yer welcome.
|
|
If this is who I think it is, yer welcome.I've had to sit at a con with a player whose *third level* character was totally illegal. Rolled his stats, was a banned race, banned archetype. Thanks, home GM, for taking the easy way out because you didn't want to waste any of your precious time, so that I, his first non-you GM, had to waste a bunch of time at a con picking up your mess.
If you're not enforcing campaign rules, you are messing with tables down the road, and making other GMs clean up your mess. This is not *only* about a player enjoying one table's worth of play. PFS is like a career. If your first boss teaches you to break the rules, you are set up for a lifetime of problems.
None of which I do in my outlined resolution. If someone is 3rd level, they get corrected, period. I'm talking newbies, first game of PFS, as I stated above. I suspect both of you are framing my response to include a much wider set of circumstances than I am. I've not had any repeat "offenders" as far as I can tell, and the last time this occurred it was months ago.
Again, it's made clear the character is illegal and they have to change it, but I'm willing to make compromises to ensure the player still wants to play and has fun in their first game. It's the same reason why we hand-wave a 1st game death (something I had happen to me and I greatly appreciated the breaking of the rules).
Critting my sorcerer from behind with a scythe for enough damage to go from full HP to full dead? XD If so, HI and thank you! :D
|
|
Trial by Machine at Gencon?
B%%#~%@s, no. I survived that monstrosity. You were potentially in the right area too (and the right first name... I'm still not entirely convinced you aren't him)! Mine was at Just For Fun Games in Peoria, IL. I had an evil cleric whack me from behind before we even knew she was evil, while we were dealing with some zombies.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if it still concerns you, making sure new players feel welcome and have fun is a ruling that's been made by Paizo for ages.And in my view, it is possible to both enforce the rules of the campaign and to make "sure new players feel welcome and have fun." Those two items are not mutually exclusive.And yet there's still nothing wrong with my approach either. There is no willy-nilly handwaving of rules. It's something I break out when the player is really put off by the news, and particularly when the game starts in 5 minutes and a rebuild is out of the question. Seeing as I ensure it's fixed before the next game and I work with the player to find a legal build that they enjoy, there is not really an impact to other GMs either (though I know all our local GMs, so often we're all aware of these things and agree with the approach).
Your approach might be really effective, but not everyone to go about resolving the issue the same way. I've found success with my approach, and we have a really strong player base in our local area despite a lack of a large local population.
Actually, there is a huge problem with your approach. You let someone break campaign rules. Playing a gnoll is not one of the obscure rules. It is clearly in the Guide what races you can play. In all my years as an organizer and VO, I've had several show up with egregiously illegal characters (gnoll are egregiously illegal) and if we had time we corrected things and if we didn't I gave them a pregen and info on how to download the guide.
Of all of those, only one never showed up again, but organized play was not what that guy was looking for. We can't be so afraid that someone might be turned off of organized play, that we aren't willing to enforce the rules.
Now you have a table of players that are like, "damn, I wish I could play a gnoll if even just once."
No, I'm sorry, your suggestion is not ok. And suggesting it is, on the boards is advocating cheating. I know you mean well, but please don't do th I should again, and please don't post that breaking the rules like this is ok.
|
|
So yes, I'd break a few rules for a new player in a heartbeat, but I'd do it through compromise and reasonably so and work with them to fix the problem. Hardasses only chase new players away, which is not what being a PFS GM is about. And if it still concerns you, making sure new players feel welcome and have fun is a ruling that's been made by Paizo for ages.
You're right that being hardass is not what PFS GMing is about. But GMs ARE expected to be firm and follow the rules. Allowing someone to play a banned option 'just once' is establishing a precedent in the players minds. And that precedent can cause problems later on down the line.
|
|
So yes, I'd break a few rules for a new player in a heartbeat, but I'd do it through compromise and reasonably so and work with them to fix the problem. Hardasses only chase new players away, which is not what being a PFS GM is about. And if it still concerns you, making sure new players feel welcome and have fun is a ruling that's been made by Paizo for ages.You're right that being hardass is not what PFS GMing is about. But GMs ARE expected to be firm and follow the rules. Allowing someone to play a banned option 'just once' is establishing a precedent in the players minds. And that precedent can cause problems later on down the line.
And there is a huge difference in being a hardass and disallowing a gnoll.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Divvox2, you are in a no-"win" situation. You are essentially "arguing" that there are times when breaking the rules is okay, but doing so in an official forum. Unfortunately, the rules are what they are and most people here, especially the community leaders are going to crack your knuckles with the proverbial ruler. Officially no one is going to endorse breaking of the rules. However, in the moment, away from the prying eyes of the community, when dealing with an individual or a small group, like a table of players, virtually every GM/VO I have ever met has made an exception to the rules to accommodate a situation they were forced to deal with. They don't talk about it afterwards, especially not bragging about it in the forums, but believe me when I say it happens.
Officially, what you did was a violation of the rules and should not have been done, but as the GM at the table, you had the burden of evaluating all the parameters of the situation and make a decision that was fair to everyone involved. We have the benefit of not having the pressure of the situation to adjudicate and can "what-if" you forever. I was the VC of your area until very recently and am now the RVC of the same area. Officially, I will say you should not have allowed someone to play a session with a gnoll PC, but I trust that you did what you thought was best in that situation. I am happy to discuss this with you directly if you are interested, but its not necessary.
In general terms, we all know this was breaking the rules as written. It has been thoroughly explained and I'm sure Divvox2 knows it. I also believe that s/he did what s/he thought was best. I would say at this point, let it go. We don't need to add more dead horse beatings to this thread.
Explore! Report! Cooperate!
|
|
Zan Zhomek: I draw my katana from its sheath. The blade is obviously heavily inspired by the designs of ancient Osirion; it's lines, from the large ovoid opening opposite the blade to the narrow knotch near the hilt, evoke the feel of the khopesh, the hilt is stylized in the Garundi manner, and the pommel bears the Solar Disk of Ra.
GM: Is it a khopesh?
Zan Zhomek: No. Only a fool or the martially illiterate would ever mistake the two. While the lines and stylizing of the sword pull inspiration from the khopesh, it is obviously merely a highly stylized katana. Nobles who see the weapon may take me for a doting Osrionophyle or may be honored that I try to embrace their culture, but no one would ever mistake me for a honored khopeshman.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Divoxx, even though you're getting flak, you have the right attitude (it's the internet, can't take it too seriously). I don't know that I'd go so far as to allow a gnoll (though I understand in the case of a brand new player, I'd probably give them a quick race change).
I had some VCs years ago that ran my first character though scenarios even tough he was a level or two below the minimum (he went easy on me). We only had one table going, and it was the best option in his mind. VCs like that are what grew our lodge to a very popular group that spanned the county and regularly hosted 7+ tables per week over three locations and days. Unfortunately, Paizo's heavy-handed approach to some rules and seeming distrust of the player base drove them away, and reduced one of the most vibrant and popular PFS lodges in the country (if not the world) to a minor group -- in Paizo's own backyard no less!
|
|
I only read through the second page...Maybe read one more page. ;)
Which is essentially what I said: flavor it as you like, but keep the mechanics ;)
Edit- I kept skimming the thread, apparently I can't resist controversy. :P
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am relatively curious about the gnoll example, something tells me, that the race might not have been the only thing that made the character illegal (point buy, starting wealth etc.)
Personally I would have explained the problem to the player and "fixed" the character by magically transforming it into a legal level 1 human character... or just give him a pregen.
If this is enough to stop a player from comming back, either I failed my diplomacy check, or organized play might not have been the right format for them (nothing wrong about that, some people just search for something decidedly different).
Regarding killing fresh level 1 characters, I did that recently do one of my regular players... it felt bad but at that point I had already rolled openly and the group let the unconscious character drown over 3 rounds....
I suggest reading GM 101 and 201 on this very side, when it comes to this subject.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was the VC of your area until very recently and am now the RVC of the same area. Officially, I will say you should not have allowed someone to play a session with a gnoll PC, but I trust that you did what you thought was best in that situation. I am happy to discuss this with you directly if you are interested, but its not necessary.In general terms, we all know this was breaking the rules as written. It has been thoroughly explained and I'm sure Divvox2 knows it. I also believe that s/he did what s/he thought was best. I would say at this point, let it go. We don't need to add more dead horse beatings to this thread.
Explore! Report! Cooperate!
Thank you for being a voice of reason.
I will say that over the years, I've seen fewer and fewer people with this viewpoint and bluntly, I think it's hurting pfs.
Like Paulicus, I have seen a decline in the number of tables taking place in my area and in my judgement it is for many of the same reasons.
|
|
I am relatively curious about the gnoll example, something tells me, that the race might not have been the only thing that made the character illegal (point buy, starting wealth etc.)
Personally I would have explained the problem to the player and "fixed" the character by magically transforming it into a legal level 1 human character... or just give him a pregen.
If this is enough to stop a player from comming back, either I failed my diplomacy check, or organized play might not have been the right format for them (nothing wrong about that, some people just search for something decidedly different).
Regarding killing fresh level 1 characters, I did that recently do one of my regular players... it felt bad but at that point I had already rolled openly and the group let the unconscious character drown over 3 rounds....
I suggest reading GM 101 and 201 on this very side, when it comes to this subject.
|
|
I am relatively curious about the gnoll example, something tells me, that the race might not have been the only thing that made the character illegal (point buy, starting wealth etc.)
Personally I would have explained the problem to the player and "fixed" the character by magically transforming it into a legal level 1 human character... or just give him a pregen.
If this is enough to stop a player from comming back, either I failed my diplomacy check, or organized play might not have been the right format for them (nothing wrong about that, some people just search for something decidedly different).
Sure man. This was, as Bob indicated, absolutely a case of last minute on-the-fly decision to keep cohesion in the game (an thanks Bob, you've got a pretty good take on the situation, and I agree entirely). The player was really excited with his build idea, and we had to begin the game to keep on track. I informed him that the race was not legal, and he was pretty dejected as he had played a Gnoll in some home game. A quick scan of his character sheet didn't raise any flags and he stated he had missed the part regarding racial limitations in the guide to organized play. I made a quick racial power level calculation and concluded it wasn't wildly out-of-bounds of available races, and allowed it for the single game in order to save time. The rest of the table accepted and understood the fiat. I offered to help him come up with alternatives that would still fit his concept choices after the game. Afterwards I helped him build out, if I remember correctly, a delusional half-elf who "couldn't" speak anything but gnoll. He was pretty happy with that.
Would he of walked? Dunno, probably not, but I didn't want him to sit there for 4 hours, dejected, playing something he didn't have anything invested in, and have that be what he remembered for his first game. Particularly on top of taking the time to audit his character and reference Gnoll/other racial traits. Instead he growled and gargled at people (mostly incoherently because nobody spoke gnoll) and had a positive game experience.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I had some VCs years ago that ran my first character though scenarios even tough he was a level or two below the minimum (he went easy on me). We only had one table going, and it was the best option in his mind.
Unfortunately, this can cause massive problems when the character gets audited, because those sessions aren't legal, the XP, gold, and prestige don't count, etc. There have been times when I've checked over a character's Chronicles, and caught errors where the character had played either below tier or, in some cases, above tier. (According to the player, the GM made up new encounters to fit the higher-level PCs.) Making those PCs legal was unpleasant for everyone involved. In a couple of cases, the character walked away from the audit two levels lower than when he started.
(It could have been worse. Once we adjusted for the out-of-tier scenarios, other scenarios ended up being out-of-tier. We chose to ignore the cascading effect.)
If you want to play a PFS scenario out of range, go ahead, but just don't assign a Chronicle sheet and play for fun. If you don't have a PC in tier for the scenario, play a pre-gen.
|
|
Sure man. This was, as Bob indicated, absolutely a case of last minute on-the-fly decision to keep cohesion in the game (an thanks Bob, you've got a pretty good take on the situation, and I agree entirely). The player was really excited with his build idea, and we had to begin the game to keep on track. I informed him that the race was not legal, and he was pretty dejected as he had played a Gnoll in some home game. A quick scan of his character sheet didn't raise any flags and he stated he had missed the part regarding racial limitations in the guide to organized play. I made a quick racial power level calculation and concluded it wasn't wildly out-of-bounds of available races, and allowed it for the single game in order to save time. The rest of the table accepted and understood the fiat. I offered to help him come up with alternatives that would still fit his concept choices after the game. Afterwards I helped him build out, if I remember correctly, a delusional half-elf who "couldn't" speak anything but gnoll. He was pretty happy with that.
I think this was an *awesome* way to handle the problem. I feel like you did everything right, here.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except follow the rules. Yes, everyone is happy for the player who didn't have to play a pre-gen. But, it is not a table GM's call to decide what races can be added in. Sorry, but this is the sort of thing that undermines Organzied Play. People shouldn't be afraid to tell a player, "that's not legal" and have them play a pre-gen. Really, you are just passing your problem off to another GM, with the added incentive of, "the last guy let me play it".