|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this was an *awesome* way to handle the problem. I feel like you did everything right, here.
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.
Sorry, but this is not true.
If time was short, he should have quickly explained how organized play works, explained about the Guide, and offered a pregen.
That would have been doing "everything" right.
Allowing the guy to play a gnoll, or any other illegal race, is straight up not the right way to handle things.
|
|
I think this was an *awesome* way to handle the problem. I feel like you did everything right, here.
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.
Sorry, but this is not true.
If time was short, he should have quickly explained how organized play works, explained about the Guide, and offered a pregen.
That would have been doing "everything" right.
Allowing the guy to play a gnoll, or any other illegal race, is straight up not the right way to handle things.
I would disagree here. I feel anything that get the player to confirm to rules and keep playing is the right answer. Some players are happy changing right away others are not.
I had a GM misunderstand a corner case that was clarified on a post by mike brock, but since I could not pull up the post in the middle of the game the DM agreed to let me keep my character if I did not use that ability. If he were to force me to stop playing my character 75% of the way through It would have made the game worse for 5 other people playing.
Sometimes you roll with what you got to make the game get by. Ideally you check everyone character before you start. But I seem to the only Dm that I see that does that, and I am very quick with it. So I understand missing things.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really, you are just passing your problem off to another GM, with the added incentive of, "the last guy let me play it".
Not true at all. Read his whole post.
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 corrected the problem so that it *would not* carry forward, and he also made sure the player knew the rules in this regard. He did the perfectly correct thing imo.
When encountering a player who is using a build that is unintentionally not PFS legal, I feel that the GM should mitigate (i.e., 'minimalize or fix') the damage it could cause in the active game while still creating a fun atmosphere for both the individual as well as the rest of the table. After the game is complete, the error should be corrected completed, so as to not allow it to carry forward to future games.
|
|
Really, you are just passing your problem off to another GM, with the added incentive of, "the last guy let me play it".Not true at all. Read his whole post.
While it may not be true in this case, the point GM Lamplighter makes is very valid in general.
The fact that most of us don't check chronicle sheets also makes it harder for the rare GM who actually does what the rules say we're supposed to do. I used to be that rare GM, even asking for them online, but eventually gave up on it because (a) too many people didn't have them ready to send online, and obviously felt put-out, and (b) I wasn't really being all that diligent in actually going through them. In other words, I let laziness and the standards set by everybody else convince me to just stop fighting the trend, thereby becoming part of the problem myself....
For in-person games, we're usuallly time crunched, so I don't ask to see sheets. I'll sometimes look over character sheets, but usually that's for planning purposes. (At one game, I did ask to see sheets, but that's because I wanted to have an NPC make references to the PCs' past achievements later in the game.)
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
75% of the way through is one thing. A flat-out illegal character at the start of the game is another. And it wasn't missed, that's they point. The GM caught it, and chose to allow an illegal PC to play instead of dealing with it.
My point is that each instance should be approached differently and blindly following rules can sometimes be a hinderance.
Wait... so I can play a Gnoll?
Screw this horse concept, I'm doing THAT!
Gnoll or not, bestiality crosses the line! Don't do THAT!
|
|
75% of the way through is one thing. A flat-out illegal character at the start of the game is another. And it wasn't missed, that's they point. The GM caught it, and chose to allow an illegal PC to play instead of dealing with it.My point is that each instance should be approached differently and blindly following rules can sometimes be a hinderance.
I agree that following the rules should not be blind. You should always know what and why you do things. And always know how to apply a rule.
But not following the rules, really should never be an option. In this case the guy with the gnoll should have been handed a pregen.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But not following the rules, really should never be an option.
This is really the core difference in philosophies here, and the potential metaphor using RPG alignments is too easy not to use; your statement here is about as "Lawful" as one can get, in game or out.
I agree that tolerating rules infringement should, ideally, never be an option; however, I do feel there are situations where the interests of players and the fog of RAW collide, and - in such situations - I think it is appropriate to rule on a case-by-case basis, instead of always falling back on "the rules are always right".
The reason I feel this way is due to how I prioritize my own obligations to any table I GM. I feel there are two primary duties of a GM:
- Do your best to help the players have fun.
- Maintain the integrity of game rules.
How these two goals are prioritized are really going to determine the kind of GM one may be. I put about 51% emphasis on helping players to have fun, and 49% on maintaining the integrity of the rules. This means I feel both are very important, but I will always grant a small edge in the player's favor where things get fuzzy and their enjoyment is on the line.
The reason I supported the Divvox2's decision was that he kept the player's enjoyment of the game in priority, he simultaneously kept the other players on board (he described that all the other players were okay with the ruling), he mitigated the transgression so as to minimalize the potential damage it could cause the game, and he also fixed the problem completely at its end. Mitigate, manage, fix. By doing this, he helped the player to have a positive experience, and *also* fixed the situation long term. This feels like win-win.
I do think GM's that follow the reverse - where rules have an edge over players - are fine; it is just a difference of GM'ing style imo. Meaning, I do not think forcing the player to use a pregen would have been 'wrong' in this situation, and I would defend any GM who ruled in that direction. I just think that Divvox2's approach was more constructive, long term.
|
|
Likewise, we think that his approach was more destructive, long term. But we're unlikely to sway each other futher.And that's fine too; disagreeing is not so bad. A mild diversity of opinion is healthy, imo.
There is a huge difference in bending a small rule here or there. The guide talks about this in the context of cheating or fudging. That new players might not enjoy it if you just slaughter thier characters because rules. The guide asks us to use our best judgement in those cases.
But there is a huge difference in keeping 1st level characters alive for the benefit of newbies who are playing with legal characters, and allowing a completely illegal character.
And, yeah, I know what the next argument is going to be, "Why is that OK for you to fudge, and I can't fudge this over here "
It's a difference in the ambiguity, vagueries, and randomness of game play and fundamental hard coded rules. Sometimes circumstances indicate that no rule really applies, so as a GM you adjudicate as fair an outcome as you can. But the legality of a gnoll is not ambiguous, vague, or random.
It is not constructive to allow someone to play an illegal character. Constructive would have been helping to rebuild to legal options while maintaining as much meet of the concept as possible. And time barring that as an option, give them a pregen, and offer to help them between game days.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is not constructive to allow someone to play an illegal character.
I wholeheartedly agree; but I also feel making a judgment without taking in the surrounding context is myopic and even less constructive.
I do not feel that all infringements upon rules need be corrected immediately and with an iron fist. Bring them to the right path; don't shove them. By the end of the situation, Divvox2 helped the player completely rebuild his character, and thus completely fixed the problem. No one can say he didn't fix the problem; it's only the timing of the fix that is an issue.
Being that he did fix the problem by helping the player rebuild his character into the realm of legality, I do not see any destructive fallout from the situation. What Divvox2 did was enforce the rules in a positive manner, and this is likely to attract more players to his table. I applaud him.
And, yeah, I know what the next argument is going to be, "Why is that OK for you to fudge, and I can't fudge this over here "
If you're going to try to predict what I will say next, you're almost always going to be wrong. As Charlie said from Always Sunny in Philadelphia - "Wildcard, b*%*@es!".
|
|
5 other players learned that playing an "non-standard" character is "ok" - as long as we only do it once...
Oh now, that's a stretch. Anyone who would take this particular situation and try to use it to justify "well I guess I can play a beholder for ONE game" is a problem player no matter what. If a player is a problem player, then *that* is the time to enforce the rules ruthlessly. Throw the book at them. They deserve it.
However, I'm not talking about problem players. The ruling guidelines I'm describing are for the 99.98%* of players who are reasonable, honestly want to follow the rules, and are not looking for tiny loopholes to abuse and annoy everyone with. In my experience it is uncommon for anyone to willfully be a problem player like that. Maybe I've been lucky.
I like the link on the Two Schools of RPG Gaming, but I think this question is a little different. It seems to be a question of whether rules should be enforced absolutely and immediately - no exceptions - or if rules may be enforced by working with the players to bring them to legality in a more progressive manner. I think the latter is valid in some (which is to say "not all") situations.
* I admit to making this number up, but I think the real number isn't all that far away from it.
|
It is not constructive to allow someone to play an illegal character.
I wholeheartedly agree; but I also feel making a judgment without taking in the surrounding context is myopic and even less constructive.
I do not feel that all infringements upon rules need be corrected immediately and with an iron fist. Bring them to the right path; don't shove them. By the end of the situation, Divvox2 helped the player completely rebuild his character, and thus completely fixed the problem. No one can say he didn't fix the problem; it's only the timing of the fix that is an issue.
Being that he did fix the problem by helping the player rebuild his character into the realm of legality, I do not see any destructive fallout from the situation. What Divvox2 did was enforce the rules in a positive manner, and this is likely to attract more players to his table. I applaud him.
And, yeah, I know what the next argument is going to be, "Why is that OK for you to fudge, and I can't fudge this over here "
If you're going to try to predict what I will say next, you're almost always going to be wrong. As Charlie said from Always Sunny in Philadelphia - "Wildcard, b*%*@es!".
(Bolding mine)
5 other players learned that playing an "non-standard" character is "ok" - as long as we only do it once...But that's ok, after all, we'd never take advantage of that right?
(This is back to the Two Schools of RPG Gaming)
And that, according to what was posted, was not what was learned, by anyone, except people who skim threads.
What was learned, in your terms, was that, "It's okay, if done with full consent of the table, and full explanation to the new player, to allow the new player a single pass, due to ignorance, and then fix it when we have the time."
Circumstances mitigating this solution:
Insufficient time available before the game started to fix the new player's PC.
Insufficient time, therefore, to go through all the "they don't fit my concept, and I have no idea how to play any of them." pregens.
Honestly, none of the pregens, even the Core pregens, are what anyone could call simple. Some of them require multiple pages, even at 1st level, to give the bare bones of the pregen.
As a quick example, you would think the Fighter, being such a straightforward class, would be simple. Valeros, on the other hand, is a fairly complex build, and I have seen experienced players, who understand the rules, still manage to have issues playing Valeros correctly mechanically.
Two-Weapon Fighting is not simple, and gets, rapidly, into something most new players have difficulty understanding, and, in most cases, don't really need to understand, until they have been playing for some time, the difference between a full attack and a standard attack. For most PCs under 6th level (or higher for non-full BAB classes), full attack and standard attack act and look the same.
For Valeros, and many dedicated archer builds, they show a difference from first level. But that should be the exception, not a pregen we can give out to someone new not just to PFDS but to Pathfinder in general.
And that is still disregarding the person who actually has a concept build, which, honestly, none of the pregens would come close to fulfilling.
20/20 hindsight is amazing, in that it can see options that were unnoticed at the time of an event, and, sometimes, bend reality to suit.
|
(Bolding mine)
5 other players learned that playing an "non-standard" character is "ok" - as long as we only do it once...But that's ok, after all, we'd never take advantage of that right?
(This is back to the Two Schools of RPG Gaming)
No, they saw a mistake corrected in a way that did not infringe on their gaming time. They were there where they saw the illegal character corrected.
They saw that it was not okay and the only reason an exception was made was they were dealing with a first time player who did not know better.
In no way do I see them getting the idea that a 'non-standard character ' is allowed once.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My response to something like an illegal build varies depending on its severity. I have two examples I'll use to highlight what I believe would be two different acceptable reactions.
I'd played maybe half a dozen sessions with my first PFS character and wanted to try out another. I statted up a Holy Gun and brought it to three sessions, leveling up to 2nd. At my 4th game, my GM caught the error. At that point I was still unaware of the Additional Resources document. He told me at the start of the game that I had an illegal character, but that he'd be willing to help me out after the game. He did just that, and I feel I learned a valuable GMing skill because of it.
On the other hand, I had a player show up at a Con with a 7th level "pregenerated" character. It was a Strix, he admitted he'd rolled really well on his stats, and he'd spent what the CRB told him was the appropriate gold amount on a few pricey items that would have likely been above his Fame level had the character actually been legal. I told him up front, even though we were pressed for time, that he'd have to use one of the other official Pregens, but that I'd be willing to help him out after the session to create something legal.
Both examples have inexperienced players using illegal options with too little time at the beginning of the session to correct the issue. The difference was the severity. A level 2 PC with an illegal archetype isn't as disruptive to the game or other players as a level 7 PC with an illegal flying race with overpowered stats and items.
Sure, you could heavy handedly tell each player immediately "No!", or you could tell each player "Sure!", but I think it's better to take it all in context, and consider what's best for the group as well as the player, before coming to a decision.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Could you also not tell both players, "No, I'm sorry, that character isn't legal, but pick a pre-gen, and after the game, I'll work with you to help make your character legal"? Why couldn't a GM do that? I fail to see the problem.
For me, things that don't get caught until you are in the middle of the game are one thing.
Knowing prior to the game that someone is playing an illegal character is entirely different.
|
|
Could you also not tell both players, "No, I'm sorry, that character isn't legal, but pick a pre-gen, and after the game, I'll work with you to help make your character legal"? Why couldn't a GM do that? I fail to see the problem.
From a marketing perspective, since this player is new to PFS (and maybe to Pathfinder as well), I'm weighing the balance of new player experience with table disruption.
If my GM had told me "grab a Pregen", I likely would have walked. Would that have been worth the disruption that a level 2 character could have caused?
If the player of the Strix had walked, I can honestly say that would have been a fine compromise, given the potential disruption.
But, of course, YMMV. This is just how I see it.
|
|
Could you also not tell both players, "No, I'm sorry, that character isn't legal, but pick a pre-gen, and after the game, I'll work with you to help make your character legal"? Why couldn't a GM do that? I fail to see the problem.
For me, things that don't get caught until you are in the middle of the game are one thing.
Knowing prior to the game that someone is playing an illegal character is entirely different.
Seriously, it depends on how much time you have.
Pregens:
Core: 11
ACG: 10
OA: 6
UC: 3
30 pregens, some of them with multiple pages even for the first level version.
If you have someone at the table who knows the pregens, and if the new player has an idea of what ballpark he is interested in (Martial, Divine, Arcane, Sneaky, etc.), then maybe you can do it without impacting the whole game.
So, in general, my stack of even just a single copy of each first level pregen is thicker than the entire scenario I am going to be running.
How long does it take to read and understand even a single pregen?
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Players who show up with fully-tricked-out but illegal PCs are going to have a hard time understanding Valeros? Really? I think you have too little faith in players.
In my experience, when someone gets told they have to play a pre-gen, but that we can help them after the game fix their real character, AND the pre-gen credit can be applied so they aren't even "behind", no one walks away in a huff. And, the other players see that GMs follow the rules and don't just let things go when it's inconvenient.
There is no reason for a mature player to walk away because he's not allowed to cheat break the rules. If between the player and the GM this can't be avoided, there are bigger issues than how complicated a pre-gen is.
|
|
There is no reason for a mature player to walk away because he's not allowed tocheatbreak the rules
Sometimes, you might have to make one-time exceptions for a new, youthful player who is not aware of the differences between the PFS campaign and the core rules to keep them from a perceived bad experience.
|
|
Players who show up with fully-tricked-out but illegal PCs are going to have a hard time understanding Valeros? Really? I think you have too little faith in players.
In my experience, when someone gets told they have to play a pre-gen, but that we can help them after the game fix their real character, AND the pre-gen credit can be applied so they aren't even "behind", no one walks away in a huff. And, the other players see that GMs follow the rules and don't just let things go when it's inconvenient.
There is no reason for a mature player to walk away because he's not allowed to
cheatbreak the rules. If between the player and the GM this can't be avoided, there are bigger issues than how complicated a pre-gen is.
You're categorizing here, and I'm going to have to ask you to tone it down.
My example above, where *I* brought an illegal character to the table, was not "tricked out", would have left if I was told to play a character that wasn't mine, and wasn't cheating OR intently breaking the rules.
Please don't assume that everyone will fall into this category you've created. This is why it's best to handle these sorts of occurrences on a case by case basis.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Players who show up with fully-tricked-out but illegal PCs are going to have a hard time understanding Valeros? Really? I think you have too little faith in players.
In my experience, when someone gets told they have to play a pre-gen, but that we can help them after the game fix their real character, AND the pre-gen credit can be applied so they aren't even "behind", no one walks away in a huff. And, the other players see that GMs follow the rules and don't just let things go when it's inconvenient.
There is no reason for a mature player to walk away because he's not allowed to
cheatbreak the rules. If between the player and the GM this can't be avoided, there are bigger issues than how complicated a pre-gen is.
First time Pathfinder player equals "fully-tricked out"?
And, honestly, even if you have fully-tricked out your greatsword-wielding Gnollish Barbarian, that does not say that you even looked at the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, nor understand how Standard Actions are different then Full Attack Actions, if you wind up running Valeros.
|
|
My point, of course, is that if someone has made a character in advance, they likely are not completely new to Pathfinder. In which case, many of the pre-gens will be easily understandable to them. I didn't mean that everyone who had an illegal character was tricked out (sorry, Nefreet), but someone wouldn't usually choose a non-core race unless they have been around the block a few times. They're going to be able to understand Valeros, or Amiri, or any of the pre-gens.
Even if they ARE completely new, and made up a character without understanding any of it, that DOESN'T MATTER. They can still play a pre-gen, even if they can't yet play it to its absolute full potential, and still learn the system by doing and still get all the excitement and fun of Pathfinder Society and still apply their credit to the PC you help them to make after the game. Plus, the rules get followed without a GM having to decide how illegal is too illegal.
Fears that the player will run away because they don't get their way are unfounded in my experience. I've run a lot of games, organized a lot of events, and I have yet to find a situation where we couldn't enforce the rules and still make the new player feel welcome and enjoy themselves.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Just checking, folks: if someone came to a public game you were running, with a LEGAL Pathfinder Society character, to their first game, but it was a witch, and the game was CORE, would you let the newbie player run their character? Would you still report the table as a CORE game?
|
Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant
|
Just checking, folks: if someone came to a public game you were running, with a LEGAL Pathfinder Society character, to their first game, but it was a witch, and the game was CORE, would you let the newbie player run their character? Would you still report the table as a CORE game?
I'd do the same thing I did a month or so ago when a new player brought the character his uncle made him with archetypes. Tell him I'm sorry, but this is the Core campaign this week so only things from the Core Rulebook are legal this week. Since I know how much you enjoy playing barbarians, here's Amiri again and we'll work on a character after the game or before the game next week.
He ended up actually preferring Core because he fell in love with his barbarian since he made it with my help instead of his uncle just making a character and giving it to him. His uncle had good intentions, but used books the nephew didn't have and the nephew didn't have any input into the character.
|
|
Nefreet, if you would have walked over not being allowed to play your illegal character. I'd have let you walk
And that's a hardline stance that benefits nobody, and that I could never endorse. I honestly don't think you could, either. Do you never drive 66 mph in a 65 mph zone?
As with many social interactions in life, it's better to be flexible and analyze situations on a case by case basis, rather than put your foot down against every minor occurrence.
Ask yourself if what you're doing might have a greater negative impact for Paizo, PFS, the player in question, and the other players at the table. Your determination may be subtly different from the next GM, but at least have that consideration first, rather than being a "no" GM.
|
|
I can say for a fact that Andrew's response comes after plenty of consideration. And he still came to that determination.
Exactly. Conversations like these often seem to present finite and myopic mindsets. Everyone seems to be draconian in thier own point of view. Including Nefreet's statement that he'd walk, 100%, if presented with a pregen.
Point is, the rule I'd rather break is remove your illegal options so your character was quickly made legal, and let you modify to your content after the session, than let you play something illegal. I'd be nice about it, but firm in my conviction that I was doing the right thing. If you left in a huff, I'd feel bad about it, cause being even an indirect cause of another person's upset makes me upset. But it's part of my duty as a VO to uphold the rules of the game.
And so if you would be so hard nosed that playing your illegal character was your only choice, and you were unwilling to take my compromise option or a pregen, I'd have no choice but to let you walk. And if that meant you'd never play again, that would be unfortunate, but I'd sleep fine that night.
I'm not a dick, but I have a job to do, and I take it seriously. And frankly, I don't want players in my player base with the, "my way or the highway" attitude. I try to be fair, but firm. And I absolutely do not put up with trying to hold me or the game hostage with a passive aggressive, "well ill take my ball and go home then."
We cannot be afraid to let people go home if that's what they want to choose.
|
|
If someone is the sort of person who is going to throw a tantrum and refuse to ever come back because in their first five minutes of social interaction with a group of people it's politely explained that there was a misunderstanding of rules and that instead of the character they've brought, they'll need to use one of this dozen of pre-printed ones, and we'll help you after the game to get set making the one you want ... well, I'm perfectly comfortable with said person walking. Toxic anti-social people like that have a great negative impact on Paizo, PFS, and the other players at the table.
Why are your descriptive terms used to paint the player in a general example as "throwing a tantrum" and "toxic anti-social", while the GM's are "polite" and only pointing out "misunderstandings"? Can you conceive of a situation where the terms were in the reverse? I certainly can.
Your languages paints the situation in the flavor you want to persuade; however, it is not an accurate description of what Divvox2 did at all, from any description we have read.
The thread is starting to feel more like a series of increasingly personal attacks on Nefreet rather than open discussion among comrades.
Ask yourself if what you're doing might have a greater negative impact for Paizo, PFS, the player in question, and the other players at the table. Your determination may be subtly different from the next GM, but at least have that consideration first, rather than being a "no" GM.
I agree. "The Rules" are not the only variable to consider when making a judgment. They are a very important variable - but not the only one.
Including Nefreet's statement that he'd walk, 100%, if presented with a pregen.
Andrew - Nefreet did not say any such thing that I can find in this thread. He said he might 'likely' walk. This is not the same thing as the language you just put into his mouth.
|
|
If someone is the sort of person who is going to throw a tantrum and refuse to ever come back because in their first five minutes of social interaction with a group of people it's politely explained that there was a misunderstanding of rules and that instead of the character they've brought, they'll need to use one of this dozen of pre-printed ones, and we'll help you after the game to get set making the one you want ... well, I'm perfectly comfortable with said person walking. Toxic anti-social people like that have a great negative impact on Paizo, PFS, and the other players at the table.
Qualifying the behavior as throwing a tantrum is probably not the best approach.
I have a smaller reference pool than a lot of Dms for this because I live in the boonies, but most of the walk ins i've gotten that haven't come back wanted to play a character or exotic race and couldn't. They probably didn't like the seemingly arbitrary restrictions. The biggest impression i get from pathfinder players who aren't society players is that the game is too restrictive and uptight. That's not actually the case but with threads like this i can definitely see where people are getting that impression.
|
|
Indeed. I didn't throw a tantrum, and my experience wasn't a "my way or the highway" sort of deal. We went around the table doing character introductions and the GM noticed then that my character was illegal. He also realized how much thought and background I'd put into the character. Realizing that my 3xp character was not game breaking, didn't upset anyone else at the table, and that I was relatively new to PFS, he decided it better to address the issue after the game rather than create a negative situation right at the beginning.
Keep in mind that not everyone wants to play a Pregen, either. For a new player, someone who might really want to roleplay the character they brought, possibly because of that very scenario, telling them to play what is essentially someone else's character could potentially be a huge turnoff. I've dealt with enough newbies at Conventions to recognize this. We shouldn't assume that a Pregen is always a viable option.
Plus, selecting and reading through 30+ Pregens, when your game is potentially starting late anyways, is a real problem, and something I'd rather avoid.
Today I consider these valuable skills. The ability to weigh the consequences and repercussions of a decision rather than default to a blanket Yes/No reaction is valuable in many walks of life. PFS is no different.