Unskilled players affecting attendance, what to do?


Pathfinder Society

51 to 100 of 155 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

BigNorseWolf wrote:
joe kirner wrote:
No excuse for the vos in that area to shun their responsibility.
Not every area has venturecritters.

Although in this particular case...

Redneck GM wrote:
Our Venture Officer has been unable to offer a solution.

...So this area has venturecritters. Now they just need that VC to meet with the couple and go over options, or bid them adieu. And then maybe email all those who gave up on the lodge and ask them to give it a second chance.

Scarab Sages 5/5 Venture-Captain, Netherlands aka Woran

I've got the feeling some things are an issue that are not mentioned here. They are respected people in the community, and my gut feeling is the venue owner doesnt want to do something about it, as it would cause a bad name for his store.

That might also be the reason the VO cant do something about it. As long as the store owner does not want to ban these players, the other option is not to play at the store.

If this is one of the underlying reasons I can see why the OP wants advice from the community. Its not a nice situation to be in.
But if what I am guessing at here is correct, the only solution might just be to find a different store to play at.


Woran wrote:

I've got the feeling some things are an issue that are not mentioned here. They are respected people in the community, and my gut feeling is the venue owner doesnt want to do something about it, as it would cause a bad name for his store.

That might also be the reason the VO cant do something about it. As long as the store owner does not want to ban these players, the other option is not to play at the store.

If this is one of the underlying reasons I can see why the OP wants advice from the community. Its not a nice situation to be in.
But if what I am guessing at here is correct, the only solution might just be to find a different store to play at.

Which is likely compounded by the problem of "What 'other store'?"


Just out of interest, a question for the original poster or someone else in that lodge. How elderly is elderly?

5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Iowa—Quad Cities aka BexLee

This thread has given me a few ideas to try. Thanks for the ideas and suggestions. The GM's here don't let them get away with avoiding skill checks when they must be done. It just slows things down when they are needed. We softball when they first started PFS no different then we would for any other new player to Pathfinder. We know longer do that now. They had I don't know how many characters die, however that doesn't seem to affect them. Didn't think about the cleric that gets the animal companion. Will try to present that one to the druid might help out. Thanks again for the feedback everyone.

Silver Crusade

At this point, why be subtle? You can still be tactful, but be honest and direct.


One other thought. If they are not contributing, can you not increase the size of the party to compensate. Then they can still do their thing but not risk TPK

3/5 Venture-Agent, Georgia—Atlanta

If their characters keep dying they presumably only have low tier characters, yes? You could try scheduling high tier tables so that the other players have something to play that is out of their range, though of course there's always the possibility that they'll just bring a level 7 pregen in that case... Not a great solution though imo - much better would be to work with them to help them improve - though clearly that's already been tried without much success. I wonder, do *they* seem to be having fun? When everyone dies in a tpk do they care or do they just say no problem I'll just go create another clone of this exact character? And do you think they have any awareness that their play style is dragging others down?


I feel like we are missing some information. From everything that we have heard, it seems that you would have every reason to ask them to never come back. You have tried to use diplomacy. You have tried to help them to become better players. From where I am standing, you are left with only the Ban Hammer. The fact that you have been so hesitant to use it is a sign of how justified it is. It really seems that at this point you really are facing the possible death of your lodge. If you can not simply kick them to the curb, then please tell us why.

Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

The Sword wrote:
One other thought. If they are not contributing, can you not increase the size of the party to compensate. Then they can still do their thing but not risk TPK

This doesn't actually work out. If you have 4 people the scenario is easier than if you had 6 people. So if they are the 2 that bumps from 4 to 6 then all the fights just got harder while your team added little. Honestly I think it's easier to carry a bad player if there are less people than more.

2/5

I just wanted to apologize for my earlier post which seems too harsh now. I was only trying to point out that sometimes it's better to focus on the things you can change (yourself) than the things you cannot (players).

Instead of blaming the players for not being skillful enough, maybe the scenarios are too tough? In season 7 I'm finding them very challenging, too challenging in many cases. And I've been bringing optimized characters to the table. And there has been soft balling.

Recently I was astonished by the number of zen archers, tetori, and gunslingers at my convention tables. Wizards that use 5+ source books. And bards to handle the social.

At home as a GM, I'm finding that the 4-player adjustment just isn't adequate (or at least as good as having 6 players) in most cases. Are they playing in a lot of 4-player groups?

You have to talk straight with them and tell them that their characters (and play styles) are not strong enough in combat. If you've already done that, what do they recommend as a solution? You have to include them in the decision making. Do they understand that other players don't like their characters dying? What would they suggest?

Anyway good luck, I'm curious how this works out.

2/5

Chess Pwn wrote:
This doesn't actually work out. If you have 4 people the scenario is easier than if you had 6 people.

Derail:

As a GM and a player, I don't find this to be true. You realize that the 4-player adjustment means that there is usually only 1 less mook in the combat? Having 1 less mook doesn't compensate for losing 2 players. The 4-player adjustment is often inadequate.

Also, if you have 2 players not contributing, would you rather having two characters doing a scenario meant for 4 players (@50% strength) or 4 players doing a 6 player scenario (@67% strength). I know what I'd prefer.

There is also less diversity (for skills), less hit points for the table, less flankers.


4-player tables are tougher than 6-player tables.


Don't play PFS often, but having GM'd for 25 years, seems like there is a certain level of investment and elitism that these players are flaunting. While being cruel or ageist is not ok, using "I have played more years than you sonny" and "we only come here to roll attack and damage rolls, we do not RP or use skills" both sound amazingly problematic.

May sound harsh, but these two player do not have the right to ruin other players PFS experience with poor play and poor teamwork. Also, there is a point where I would think the VO or beyond has to decide (that is assuming the two players cannot be shown the error of their poor player etiquette) whether the entire PFS group takes precedence over two people who are singlehandedly destroying it. I am all for encouraging our hobby, and being inclusive, but sometimes, the only truth is the ugly truth.

Thus, I guess were I the one having to make the call, I would lay it all out on the table. Tell these players (who are more than old enough to conduct themselves in a reasonable and adult manner),

"You are being disruptive to those you are playing with, you are refusing to cooperate with other players, and you continuously throw your former gaming experience around as if it were a weapon. PFS is a teamwork focused event, and all at the table suffer when it is not. You can either adhere to the guidelines and strictures of PFS play, or you will no longer be welcome at the PFS tables here at our FLGS. PFS is a inclusive system for playing PF with others, which only works when all parties involved at the table are on the same page, and currently, that is not the case. If you have questions or confusion regarding the specific rules and requirements of a PFS game, we can provide you that information in detail. Your fellow players and the officers of PFS are also more than happy to help you further your game horizons, but you need to be willing to let them work with you. The other players here abide by all these strictures, and it is expected that you will as well."

My example response may sound harsh, but these players are acting beyond disruptive, and to me, are nearing toxic to the particular PFS group they are playing in. To be honest, the desirers of two players, no matter their age, should never overrule all the other players, especially when the other players are playing by the rules, and the minority other two are not. Not a fun situation, but one that clearly cannot go on as it is now.


Do what I do: subtly manipulate them into playing one of the classes that is notoriously hard to mess up on. Like 2 handed barbarian.

Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

Jason S wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
This doesn't actually work out. If you have 4 people the scenario is easier than if you had 6 people.

** spoiler omitted **

4-player tables are tougher than 6-player tables.

I recently played in one with the 4 player adjustment, the scary fight took out two "mooks" because of it, those mooks were the hardest thing for the party to deal with, Me and some of the players agreed that 2 more probably would have been a death or two if not TPK even with 2 more characters. So for me as a GM and Player if the two bumping you up aren't bring much help, 4 going up against the 6 player is harder than 2 going up against 4.

Silver Crusade 5/5

Chess Pwn wrote:
Jason S wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
This doesn't actually work out. If you have 4 people the scenario is easier than if you had 6 people.

** spoiler omitted **

4-player tables are tougher than 6-player tables.
I recently played in one with the 4 player adjustment, the scary fight took out two "mooks" because of it, those mooks were the hardest thing for the party to deal with, Me and some of the players agreed that 2 more probably would have been a death or two if not TPK even with 2 more characters. So for me as a GM and Player if the two bumping you up aren't bring much help, 4 going up against the 6 player is harder than 2 going up against 4.

The four-player adjustments vary so wildly in terms of how much they actually balance things out that it's pretty hard to say which one is hard, suffice it to say both instances can be pretty brutal. I will say that four (not counting the dead weight) at least leaves the party with a bit of leeway if someone goes down. But yeah, both situations are pretty horrible.

Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

As the VO in question, I'd like to respond.

I haven't spoken to the couple in question. Why? Logistics mostly. They don't attend gamedays only during the week night games when my career and my son don't allow me to attend. Also, they are elderly. I'm not certain of specific ages, but later 60's to early 70's seems correct. Part of the concern was whether their behavior was due to dementia or due to intentional cheating on their part. I am 37, I am loath to call someone out for cheating who is twice my age and may very well have no earthly idea they're doing anything wrong.

But it has gone far enough.

I will be meeting with them as soon as I can contact them. And I will be laying out the concerns and asking them to stop coming.

I am loathe to do this, because as representative of Paizo in my VO capacity, and as a person, I do not enjoy cutting players off from an activity they enjoy. It's bad business, but it has to be done. Thank you for everyone who posted helpful advice.

Grand Lodge 3/5 Venture-Agent, Washington—Bellevue aka Divvox2

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We've got a few players who have similar challenges to overcome. We've been trying to help provide them (and others) with the tools to let them improve their game. Things like character audit days, character build days, and helping them level on a regular basis and process all the new numbers. It's been helping, but they're still impacting enjoyment of a session as they have some difficulty doing some calculations on the fly or determining actions for the turn, and they aren't great at reading a situation which often leads to rough RP interactions. However, they are contributing to the games more now, so it's not quite as much of an impact to others.

So far, we try to set someone up with them to help them on the fly, but games they participate in tend to drag on. If I'm playing with them (instead of GMing) I usually try to coordinate actions with them as it gives them a direction during combat. We're still working on solutions to this, but the last thing we want to do is cut someone out.

OTOH, I know how aggravating it can be with inept players, particularly at high level. Where it not for the hands of the gods coming down and making me save every one of a dozen stunning fist attacks, I would have lost my -1 when I had to solo 4 enemies playing up in a 5-9 during the hardest encounter. Words do not express how annoyed I was with one of the players at the table who had the worst druid I'd ever come across making the worst choices possible every round.


Good luck James, hope things work out for the best man!


BexLee wrote:
Didn't think about the cleric that gets the animal companion. Will try to present that one to the druid might help out. Thanks again for the feedback everyone.

I have another build suggestion.

I play a Life Oracle in a reign of winter campaign, and he simply kicks butt at healing. His healing spells are extremely powerful, and I tend to use the summon monster chain with the occasional ray of admonishment (so long as things aren't immune to non-lethal) for a offense. Sometimes it gets heal-botish, but I do have my utility and combat moments.

I took the Eldritch Heritage line with this oracle, Arcane, and picked up an Improved Familiar (Cassassian Angel) which makes him even more awesome. There is no reason that you couldn't do the same thing (I think? Was it settled that mutated bloodlines are 'ok' to take with Eldritch Heritage?), Sylvan bloodline, for an animal companion. A familiar is a bit better for a healer as it can deliver spells (and angels fly fast), but an animal companion would be cool.


James Martin wrote:

As the VO in question, I'd like to respond.

I haven't spoken to the couple in question. Why? Logistics mostly. They don't attend gamedays only during the week night games when my career and my son don't allow me to attend. Also, they are elderly. I'm not certain of specific ages, but later 60's to early 70's seems correct. Part of the concern was whether their behavior was due to dementia or due to intentional cheating on their part. I am 37, I am loath to call someone out for cheating who is twice my age and may very well have no earthly idea they're doing anything wrong.

But it has gone far enough.

I will be meeting with them as soon as I can contact them. And I will be laying out the concerns and asking them to stop coming.

I am loathe to do this, because as representative of Paizo in my VO capacity, and as a person, I do not enjoy cutting players off from an activity they enjoy. It's bad business, but it has to be done. Thank you for everyone who posted helpful advice.

I, for one, would be interested in hearing the results of your conversation, as it may prove useful to other people in similar situations. I don't envy you. Good luck!

Sovereign Court

Yes please. Let us know how it goes.

3/5

Tabletop Giant wrote:

I took the Eldritch Heritage line with this oracle, Arcane, and picked up an Improved Familiar (Cassassian Angel) which makes him even more awesome. There is no reason that you couldn't do the same thing (I think? Was it settled that mutated bloodlines are 'ok' to take with Eldritch Heritage?), Sylvan bloodline, for an animal companion. A familiar is a bit better for a healer as it can deliver spells (and angels fly fast), but an animal companion would be cool.

You cannot use Eldritch Heritage to take the altered bloodline power of a wild blooded sorcerer, as that power comes from the archetype, not the bloodline. Additionally, even if you could take the altered powers, you still couldn't take that of the Fey (wildblooded: sylvan) bloodline, as the animal companion is both the bloodline arcana and the 1st level bloodline power.

Grand Lodge

I do not envy your situation, James.

As to the condemnation of the area VO (James), I must speak up in his defense. I dont know him personally, nor do I know anything regarding the situation outside of what is posted here, but a blanket 'shame on them for not doing something' is NOT acceptable.

Unless you are one of the three (?) people in this thread from the area, you likely dont know the full story, so saying someone is doing a bad job when you have no idea what is going on is rude and ignorant.

A year or so ago, my region had a similar problem. I would get messages from someone who had started up our weekly Tuesday night group that some of the people in thye group had messaged him complaining about various other people in the group. These were sessions that none of the area VOs attended.

I posted a messaage in our FB group asking everyone to keep in mind that the table GM's word is law, but aside from that (and I told the guy who contacted me this as well) that there was very little I could do.

None of the players were banned from the store, so the store will allow them to play.
I cant force them to stop having the game sessions. If the GM wants to run and players show, I cant prevent that.
If the players, despite their extreme dislike for each other, want to show up and play with each other, I cannot prevent that.

The same thing is going on here with James' area. He can tell those people that they arent invited all he wants, but unless the store is going to ban them from playing or bothering the PFs group, then if there is a GM willing to run and at least one other player willing to sit with them, despite James' ban, he (we, anyone) cannot stop them from playing PFS.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seth Gipson wrote:

I do not envy your situation, James.

As to the condemnation of the area VO (James), I must speak up in his defense. I dont know him personally, nor do I know anything regarding the situation outside of what is posted here, but a blanket 'shame on them for not doing something' is NOT acceptable.

Unless you are one of the three (?) people in this thread from the area, you likely dont know the full story, so saying someone is doing a bad job when you have no idea what is going on is rude and ignorant.

A year or so ago, my region had a similar problem. I would get messages from someone who had started up our weekly Tuesday night group that some of the people in thye group had messaged him complaining about various other people in the group. These were sessions that none of the area VOs attended.

I posted a messaage in our FB group asking everyone to keep in mind that the table GM's word is law, but aside from that (and I told the guy who contacted me this as well) that there was very little I could do.

None of the players were banned from the store, so the store will allow them to play.
I cant force them to stop having the game sessions. If the GM wants to run and players show, I cant prevent that.
If the players, despite their extreme dislike for each other, want to show up and play with each other, I cannot prevent that.

The same thing is going on here with James' area. He can tell those people that they arent invited all he wants, but unless the store is going to ban them from playing or bothering the PFs group, then if there is a GM willing to run and at least one other player willing to sit with them, despite James' ban, he (we, anyone) cannot stop them from playing PFS.

If I am understanding you right, you seem to be saying that unless the game store cooperates, this lodge is domed? I mean, what do you do if players are so disruptive that other people stop showing up? Is there really nothing that can be done unless things actually get bad enough to involve the authorities? Or are you saying that the GMs and players must shun them until they stop showing up? I am likely missing something, but it sound like disruptive players have a lot of power to ruin things. Again, I am sure that I am misunderstanding something, but that is my, hopefully flawed, take on what you are saying.

The Exchange

Nohwear wrote:
Seth Gipson wrote:

I do not envy your situation, James.

As to the condemnation of the area VO (James), I must speak up in his defense. I dont know him personally, nor do I know anything regarding the situation outside of what is posted here, but a blanket 'shame on them for not doing something' is NOT acceptable.

Unless you are one of the three (?) people in this thread from the area, you likely dont know the full story, so saying someone is doing a bad job when you have no idea what is going on is rude and ignorant.

A year or so ago, my region had a similar problem. I would get messages from someone who had started up our weekly Tuesday night group that some of the people in thye group had messaged him complaining about various other people in the group. These were sessions that none of the area VOs attended.

I posted a messaage in our FB group asking everyone to keep in mind that the table GM's word is law, but aside from that (and I told the guy who contacted me this as well) that there was very little I could do.

None of the players were banned from the store, so the store will allow them to play.
I cant force them to stop having the game sessions. If the GM wants to run and players show, I cant prevent that.
If the players, despite their extreme dislike for each other, want to show up and play with each other, I cannot prevent that.

The same thing is going on here with James' area. He can tell those people that they arent invited all he wants, but unless the store is going to ban them from playing or bothering the PFs group, then if there is a GM willing to run and at least one other player willing to sit with them, despite James' ban, he (we, anyone) cannot stop them from playing PFS.

If I am understanding you right, you seem to be saying that unless the game store cooperates, this lodge is domed? I mean, what do you do if players are so disruptive that other people stop showing up? Is there really nothing that can be done unless things actually get bad enough to...

I don't believe that Seth was saying that the Lodge is doomed, nothing is EVER as dire as that.

No matter what the full story is (and we'll more than likely never know the totality of the situation), we cannot say that any VO is doing a bad job. There are easy things as a volunteer and there are hard things; this is one of the hard things.


Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Tabletop Giant wrote:

I took the Eldritch Heritage line with this oracle, Arcane, and picked up an Improved Familiar (Cassassian Angel) which makes him even more awesome. There is no reason that you couldn't do the same thing (I think? Was it settled that mutated bloodlines are 'ok' to take with Eldritch Heritage?), Sylvan bloodline, for an animal companion. A familiar is a bit better for a healer as it can deliver spells (and angels fly fast), but an animal companion would be cool.

You cannot use Eldritch Heritage to take the altered bloodline power of a wild blooded sorcerer, as that power comes from the archetype, not the bloodline. Additionally, even if you could take the altered powers, you still couldn't take that of the Fey (wildblooded: sylvan) bloodline, as the animal companion is both the bloodline arcana and the 1st level bloodline power.

Caution: Thread Drift Ahead - Ahoy!

I'm not so sure that you're correct on this. I became curious and poked around, and I found this long thread on this very topic.

To sum the thread:

That the animal companion is BOTH the bloodline arcana AND the 1st level bloodline power allows the player to have the ability. This is because Eldritch Heritage says you gain the 1st level bloodline power - it doesn't matter what else it is.

The question about whether you can take an altered bloodline power seems to lean towards the positive, and this is because of this FAQ entry. It states:

FAQ wrote:

Sorcerer: Does a sorcerer with the sage bloodline (page 72) use her Int or Cha to determine uses per day of arcane bolt?

The sage sorcerer uses her Int to determine the number of daily uses of her bloodline powers, including arcane bolt. Therefore, whether arcane bolt lists Int or Cha, the sage sorcerer still uses her Int.
The bloodline power lists Cha because that's the standard terminology for sorcerer bloodlines (because all other sorcerers use Cha), and because there may be a way for a non-sorcerer to gain access to that bloodline power, in which case it should be based on Cha (like other sorcerer bloodline powers) instead of Int.

As Sage is an altered bloodline, and here is a statement by a developer implying that 'there may be a way' for non-sorcerers to gain bloodline powers of such an altered bloodline, the community seemed to lean to the conclusion that Eldritch Heritage and altered bloodlines are actually a-ok.

I am no so sure the matter is entirely settled though. If anyone knows of a more up-to-date FAQ/conclusion, please do link it. I'm curious of the 'right' answer (not really invested in either conclusion here).

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nohwear wrote:


If I am understanding you right, you seem to be saying that unless the game store cooperates, this lodge is domed? I mean, what do you do if players are so disruptive that other people stop showing up? Is there really nothing that can be done unless things actually get bad enough to...

Well, it's the store owner's ultimate right to allow someone to be there or not. Speaking with the ownership and letting them know what's going on, why it's a problem, and the steps you want to take to correct them seems to be the natural steps.

If the ownership opposes you on the issues, yeah, you're going to have to find somewhere else to take the games or watch it whither and die.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

Nohwear wrote:
If I am understanding you right, you seem to be saying that unless the game store cooperates, this lodge is domed?

Not exactly. You can only enforce player ban for events you organize. If a general PFS player/GM wants to organize an event and is willing to allow the "problem" player/s to attend, there isn't anything a Venture-Officer can do about it.

The store is a little more tricky. If the store is acting as the organizer, they can do whatever they want. If a VO is the organizer and will not let a particular player join the game, the store can have some influence on that. If they insist you allow the player join in, your only recourse is to stop running at the store.

Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to speak with the players in question as soon as I am able to be in the same place with them at the same time. Being older, neither one uses social media or email as near as I can tell, so it's a matter of catching them at the right time.

I am going to discuss the issues with them and let them know how others feel and hopefully we as adults can come to a satisfactory solution. That might be banning. That might be something I haven't thought of yet.

Honestly, I want to be very clear: these are nice people. I don't 100% believe they are intentionally being bad players. I think they've been playing since the days when Gygax was a lad and the many editions tend to muddle in their heads. I wish there was a Grognardian retirement club I could point them to where old men with neckbeards waxed poetic about the days when they had to carve their dice from bones and mammoths roamed the earth, but we don't have any such group.

Nevertheless, the situation has become divisive and that will not stand.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Double good halfling level luck to you in that case James!

Grand Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

5 people marked this as a favorite.
James Martin wrote:
I wish there was a Grognardian retirement club I could point them to where old men with neckbeards waxed poetic about the days when they had to carve their dice from bones and mammoths roamed the earth, but we don't have any such group

I cannot confirm/deny it exists, but if it does, membership is by invite only ;-)

...and we prefer "Grognyxian"

Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

Tabletop Giant wrote:
If anyone knows of a more up-to-date FAQ/conclusion, please do link it. I'm curious of the 'right' answer (not really invested in either conclusion here).

faq


Think I have about 30 years before I get my invite card!

"In my day, we had to make our d20's by gluing together two d10's with animal glue we render ourselves, from mammoths we hunted with clovis point spears."

Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't envy the folks who have to deal with this situation. For what it's worth, though, I don't think the age of the problem players is germane. 22-year-olds can be grumbly sticks-in-the-mud. 77-year-olds can be dynamic, engaged, active players. I've played with exemplars of both.


Chess Pwn wrote:
Tabletop Giant wrote:
If anyone knows of a more up-to-date FAQ/conclusion, please do link it. I'm curious of the 'right' answer (not really invested in either conclusion here).
faq

Thank you!

We now return to our regular programming.

(I'd still try to sell her on a Life Oracle with Eldritch Heritage 'Arcane' bloodline to get Cassassian Angel familiar then - it's zippy flying speed is great for cross-battlefield emergency heals).

The Exchange

The scenario described by the OP was also experienced in my area. A VL who has subsequently quit PFS gave a problem player several warnings and even offered to help rebuild the offending player's character, a rogue that UMD'ed a 1st level wand of magic missile as almost his sole combat action, even at level 9! This player's character was similarly useless in non-compete roles. When the player refused to make any changes, he was told not to come back. The whole venue rejoiced and became much more active.


Christopher Rowe wrote:
I don't envy the folks who have to deal with this situation. For what it's worth, though, I don't think the age of the problem players is germane. 22-year-olds can be grumbly sticks-in-the-mud. 77-year-olds can be dynamic, engaged, active players. I've played with exemplars of both.

Hear, hear!

Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32

Christopher Rowe wrote:
I don't envy the folks who have to deal with this situation. For what it's worth, though, I don't think the age of the problem players is germane. 22-year-olds can be grumbly sticks-in-the-mud. 77-year-olds can be dynamic, engaged, active players. I've played with exemplars of both.

Indeed. In this case the worry is that while a 22 year old likely has a lot of options for social outlet, an elder may not. I don't want to be the person that makes their life that much dimmer, social wise.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nohwear wrote:
.If I am understanding you right, you seem to be saying that unless the game store cooperates, this lodge is domed? I mean, what do you do if players are so disruptive that other people stop showing up? Is there really nothing that can be done unless things actually get bad enough to...

More so what Bob said than this.

More or less...

If someone is being a big jerk, I tell them they are no longer welcome at events I am organizing, but unless they are kicked out of the store, then they might still be around, and a GM might decide to run a game for them anyway.

Im going to try to lay out this hypothetical situation step by step.

Tom is a jerk.
I ban Tom from games I organize.
I tell all the GMs and players and store workers that Tom is banned and not to game with him.
Tom shows up to game.
A GM decides he doesnt care that I banned Tom and will run for him anyway.
The other players at the table dont care that I banned Tom and will play with him anyway.
I remind all those people that Tom is banned.
They dont care.
I complain to the store.

This is where it divides...

A)
The store likely doesnt care because a bunch of people who want to play a game together are playing a game together.
I look like a jerk.

B)
The store tells Tom to leave.
I now have to decide if I want to give those players and that GM a warning or outright ban them for not obeying* me.

*My point is really all I can do is make suggestions, unless the store is going to actively take part. If everyone listens to those suggestions, great. If not, I cant actually FORCE a change.

In James' situation here I doubt he will have this problem, as just about everyone dislikes these people.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM_Beernorg wrote:

Think I have about 30 years before I get my invite card!

"In my day, we had to make our d20's by gluing together two d10's with animal glue we render ourselves, from mammoths we hunted with clovis point spears."

LOL!

Just so you're aware, in the real old days there were no D10's. The first polyhedral dice sets were D4, D6, D8, D12 and D20 (although tbh the D20 was numbered 0 to 9 twice so it sort of was a D10).

I don't really remember when I saw the first D10 that people now think of as a D10 but I'd been playing for quite a while.

Liberty's Edge Venture-Agent, Online

Nohwear wrote:
If I am understanding you right, you seem to be saying that unless the game store cooperates, this lodge is domed?

I've heard of a similar situation happening in my area, not with a PFS lodge but it was a case of a group playing at a game store and having problems with some of the players. When the organizers tried to kick the problem players out of the group, those players complained to the store owner who told the organizers that if they didn't accept everyone who came to play, they would have to find another venue, which is ultimately what they did.

4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Jessex wrote:
Just so you're aware, in the real old days there were no D10's. The first polyhedral dice sets were D4, D6, D8, D12 and D20 (although tbh the D20 was numbered 0 to 9 twice so it sort of was a D10).

Dice? If only we'd been so fortunate. We had to settle for numbered chits in tiny Tupperware bowls!

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graypark wrote:
Jessex wrote:
Just so you're aware, in the real old days there were no D10's. The first polyhedral dice sets were D4, D6, D8, D12 and D20 (although tbh the D20 was numbered 0 to 9 twice so it sort of was a D10).
Dice? If only we'd been so fortunate. We had to settle for numbered chits in tiny Tupperware bowls!

You had tupperware? We used teacups...

1/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
kinevon wrote:
graypark wrote:
Jessex wrote:
Just so you're aware, in the real old days there were no D10's. The first polyhedral dice sets were D4, D6, D8, D12 and D20 (although tbh the D20 was numbered 0 to 9 twice so it sort of was a D10).
Dice? If only we'd been so fortunate. We had to settle for numbered chits in tiny Tupperware bowls!
You had tupperware? We used teacups...

You had chits? You didn't just pick numbers and depending on how close your number was to the GM's, that's how successful you were?

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Good luck and copious quantities of calden caydens blessing to you. You're gonna need it.

Shadow Lodge

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

You had chits? You didn't just pick numbers and depending on how close your number was to the GM's, that's how successful you were?

The cuneiform numbering system was a chore, especially with the rules on clay tablets.

Of course in the really old days we had a bard recite the rules from memory. The clay tablets were an improvement because rules lawyers couldn't execute the rule books.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

Wow! This post is all full of wrong.

I'm just flabberghasted that anyone would say such things just because they are elderly and all that.

Well, be as politically correct

*BZZT*

Darn! Sorry, this confounded buzzword detector just goes off at the slightest thing...

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
kinevon wrote:
graypark wrote:
Jessex wrote:
Just so you're aware, in the real old days there were no D10's. The first polyhedral dice sets were D4, D6, D8, D12 and D20 (although tbh the D20 was numbered 0 to 9 twice so it sort of was a D10).
Dice? If only we'd been so fortunate. We had to settle for numbered chits in tiny Tupperware bowls!
You had tupperware? We used teacups...
You had chits? You didn't just pick numbers and depending on how close your number was to the GM's, that's how successful you were?

Chits?! We stabbed ourselves with our pencils and the random blood drops was our roll!

4/5 Venture-Agent, Minnesota—St. Louis Park aka BretI

I came in pretty late. I actually got a crayon to color in the dice so you could tell high from low. The dice didn't survive though, they became spheres and then gremlins would frequently take them away. I'm still not sure why.

51 to 100 of 155 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Unskilled players affecting attendance, what to do? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.