Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
Note: this isn't meant as an attack, though I might sound quite harsh. I'm just looking for advice for myself. I've tried talking to this person, and she seems pretty convinced in her ways. I can't change how she plays and that's fine. I'm looking for ways to keep myself from stressing out over this, rather than changing the situation.
Okay, so there's a person in my group who often plays with another person, and they play an engaged couple. The idea of the character is that she's a pacifist Bard who doesn't like to attack until someone hurts her fiancee. Problem is, she plays a Strength-based Bard, and the other a caster-based Oracle who often stays in the back (luckily, she's pretty impulsive, so she runs into melee a lot). Until the fiancee is hit, she stays in full defense because she doesn't want to hurt anyone.
This drives me crazy, though I know it shouldn't. Everyone has their right to play their own character in their own way, but half the time, she doesn't contribute to the fight and doesn't even throw out a buff. She says it's in character for her to do so, and I'd agree, but this way, she doesn't contribute to the fight. Most of the time, we have characters that can compensate for that, but sometimes it's pretty close. She says she's having fun and I don't want to take that away from her, but the fact that she doesn't help out half the time is driving me crazy.
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
Here's one giant thread on "Sorry, but it's what my character would do" that might help.
Oh yeah, saw that a while ago. Will check it out.
This was mostly me whining. My apologies. I needed to vent, I guess.
Does she understand that she's taking away from the fun of other people on the table by not contributing?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If she doesn't participate at all in the encounter should she recieve credit for the game? A player is supposed to participate in 2/3 of a scenario in order to recieve credit right? I would inform her of that, and keep very close tabs on what sh did and did not participate in during the game. Not all encounters are necessarily combat, and she might end up contributing in other ways but I'd keep a very strict count on that.
That is of course assuming that I'd communicated with her what was expected to receive credit, and discussed with her and the party the unnecessary risk she putting everyone else's characters in, etc.
|
ALSO.
Sometimes putting out 'full defense' is the only way to raise one's AC high enough to not get hit by every mook on the table.
So while it doesn't add to the MOAR DEEPS NAO! mentality that permeates some tables, it is better than "Oh, you got hit by Mook #6. Oh, crit chance. Confirmed on roll of 14"
|
|
If she putting herself out as a target, and distracting enemies I agree that is still participating. Going full defense does not necessarily mean that though. Based on the OP's description and level of frustration I took it to mean she stood off to the side and went full defense taking no part in the events whatsoever. If that's incorrect then I stand corrected.
|
|
Being there does not make you a target. It makes you a potential target. Also, I would like to state that I'm not trying to push the murder hobo play style either. I have been part of adventures that were completed with absolutely zero combat, and I think that's awesome. However, I would be really unhappy if I was at a table with a pacifist character and lost a character when I might have survived had I been at a table with actively contributing characters.
|
Usually when you have a niche character like this, the party needs to be able to adapt to a very different situation than they may be used to.
She probably has some sort of obligation to tell the table about her pacifist ways before the game begins, and the table should work out how to deal with combat in what could effectively be an encounter with one less party member. That might mean changing formation, or different tactics, or maybe buffing and healing the party regularly.
Without that kind of organisation to begin with, it might become a matter of bad party management if half of you go in just hoping for the best.
|
|
From a mechanical point of view, the player is there and the character is there, so it is unfair to say that she is not contributing. The distinction between "potential target" and "target" is not one that makes any sense to me. If the character is there, she is a target. Whether she is actually attacked is another thing.
Some GMs have this 'blind spot' mentality where they focus their attacks on targets that 'do damage/debilitation' in a fight to the exclusion of all else. And then get frustrated at players because they do things like 'block choke-points with tankish characters that "full defensive" while rest of range party members tear up the encounter'.
It actually happened at a table I was at, where I was playing the tankish one and trying to buy time for the rest of the party to react, and the GM got visibly frustrated because he couldn't hit the Full Defensive AC.
GM: "Why don't you Fight Defensively, so you can maybe get some damage in ? You're just making the combat last longer!"
|
|
Where I see the distinction, and I understand this strictly my interpretation of the situation and is no more valid than anyone else's interpretation, is that on the one hand the player places themselves in the midst of combat, goes full defensive and gets attacked. This makes the character a target, eats up enemy attacks, which means someone else isn't taking the attack/damage, and can continue attacking the enemy combatants. In this case it would be unfair to say they didn't contribute. On the other hand the character stands off to the side where they are unlikely to get attacked, and goes full defensive on the off chance a ranged attack comes their way. If no attacks are made against that character events play no differently than if they had simply never been there, and I don't think its unfair to say that person didn't contribute.
|
|
My comments about receiving credit were also posed as a question originally. I'm not a VO or Paizo employee, and wouldn't withhold a chronicle sheet unless I had spoken with someone who was, and been explicitly told that was the correct way of handling the situation. That does not alter my feelings on someone not taking part though. I admit this is an extreme example that would likely never happen, but a full group of pacifists would likely either all die or simply be unable to complete quite a few scenarios. There are plenty of encounters that can be resolved peacefully, but quite a few more that require combat. I don't believe a pacifist character is "badwrongfun," but its certainly not ideal for most pfs encounters just like playing an evil character is not wrong. Its just not a good fit for this play environment.
|
Everyone has thier own style of play. And generally we should not impinge on that until they've stepped on your fun.
That being said, PFS is primarily a campaign based on cooperation. Indeed that's one of the tenets of v the society. If a character can't or won't cooperate, then that concept is not likely correct for this campaign. I, however, am not saying this is the case with this particular example. But there are certainly some concepts that are inappropriate for PFS.
|
Where I see the distinction, and I understand this strictly my interpretation of the situation and is no more valid than anyone else's interpretation, is that on the one hand the player places themselves in the midst of combat, goes full defensive and gets attacked. This makes the character a target, eats up enemy attacks, which means someone else isn't taking the attack/damage, and can continue attacking the enemy combatants. In this case it would be unfair to say they didn't contribute. On the other hand the character stands off to the side where they are unlikely to get attacked, and goes full defensive on the off chance a ranged attack comes their way. If no attacks are made against that character events play no differently than if they had simply never been there, and I don't think its unfair to say that person didn't contribute.She may not be contributing much, or effectively, but denying her the xp, pp and gp rewards at the end is not fair to her. If the players at the table have no trouble with her character doing this, then any one else's opinion does not matter. If the players at the table have a problem with her play, then they need to talk it out.
Actually, I could see where she might not only not be contributing positively to the party, but actually contributing, if you want to call it that, negatively.
If she is the 5th player at the table, she is ramping up the difficulty (removing the 4 player adjustment) without contributing enough to compensate for said change in the scenario's difficulty. Equally, her PC's level is also affecting things like the APL calculation to determine sub-tier.
Explore! Report! Cooperate!
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Question: did the player attempt skill checks out of combat?Thats.. really not enough of a contribution these days.
I don't know. On some of the newer scenarios, the right skill check can completely by pass several combats.
My wife's rogue is not useless, but often far from optimal in a fight. (Well except for a recent scenario that has resulted in some PCs dubbing her "Moxie the Harpy Queen") But she made up for it many times over with the 30+ diplo checks she makes regularly.
I agree, send them to Sacramento. We'll take them.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Question: did the player attempt skill checks out of combat?Thats.. really not enough of a contribution these days.
These days its pretty much the easiest way to avoid a TPK, getting arrested, and actually being able to do anything in the entire scenario.
|
|
If she is the 5th player at the table, she is ramping up the difficulty (removing the 4 player adjustment) without contributing enough to compensate for said change in the scenario's difficulty. Equally, her PC's level is also affecting things like the APL calculation to determine sub-tier.
Explore! Report! Cooperate!
Alternatively, if she and her SO's characters are characters 2 and 3, they are making the table *possible*.
Or characters 3 and 4, they're taking the burden of NPC-running to fill the table off the GM.
Explore! Report! Cooperate!
|
|
Consider yourselves lucky it isn't "Paladin refuses to attack a Devil because the Devil had been in disguise as a (humanoid) bureaucrat, and proceeds to heal said Devil and apologize for the party attacking it." Going out and full defending is at least not directly AIDING the enemies in an encounter.
Personally if I had a friend I could count on to always be around for games I'd definitely do something like a married couple duo.
|
|
These days its pretty much the easiest way to avoid a TPK, getting arrested, and actually being able to do anything in the entire scenario.Question: did the player attempt skill checks out of combat?Thats.. really not enough of a contribution these days.
Its far too easy for just about anyone else to have skills in the party.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Its far too easy for just about anyone else to have skills in the party.These days its pretty much the easiest way to avoid a TPK, getting arrested, and actually being able to do anything in the entire scenario.Question: did the player attempt skill checks out of combat?Thats.. really not enough of a contribution these days.
I think you're underestimating the difficulty in skills especially if you have a party that is combat based because those classes don't necessarily have that good of a spread that season 7 requires (Can only think of 1 where Strength checks was relevant). Also its not exactly like the scenarios I'm talking about required one person. Very often you need multiple people good at skills to even complete them.
|
Other player's actions aren't for me to decide nor are they beholden to me to ensure my fun. Conversely, I am not beholden to you to ensure you enjoy yourself If your character is a pacifist, that's rather interesting and I would dig it. Just don't be upset when my Liberty's Edge character feels it might be more of a righteous act to kill the baddies than spare them, or attempt to bring your oracle lover into combat or the combat to the oracle.
I think it's a gamist perspective to be concerned about contributions in combat. There's nothing wrong with it, but you have to realize not everyone thinks like that, and not everyone wants to feel like only your dpr/heals/CC matters. I try to live by my interpretation of the PFS motto: Explore (the scenario), (try to) Report (in a reasonable amount of time), Cooperate (so others maybe also enjoy the game). Sometimes people block your charge lanes by accident; combat can be hectic. Sometimes you're not going to be in that perfect situation to use your signature combo. If that bothers you, try to find a table's worth of players who it also bothers so you can play together. Otherwise, try not to sweat it.
In a game where the GM reduces the challenge to compensate, there should be no problem with a pacifist PC.
In PFS, if you make a pacifist PC you're forcing everyone else in the group to optimize for combat or die. If the other players are OK with that, it's not a problem. But not everyone wants that.
|
|
The Society is a group of Special Agent/Treasure Hunter/Diplomat/Academics, field agents are repeatedly sent into situations where brains, brawn, and beguilement are required. Much like the illiterate barbarian, if the character is not able/willing to support all three of these endevours how did they make it into the Pathfinder Society? (Yes, this does call out any no-knowledge warriors).
We've all had a lot of fun playing encounters in non-optimal manners: An archer without any two weapon training gets inspired by a skald's war chant and jumps on a table to fight with a handaxe in each hand. A dwarf with 5 charisma attempts join in the story telling contest and drags the whole group one step towards a fight. The rogue without knowledge skills says "It's a Yeti, don't worry, they are mostly harmless". But these are all silly moments along the path of Pathfinder Field Agents, professionals in Golarion, completing their mission. When push comes to shove, that archer will draw a bow and go Legolas on the Aspis, that dwarf will suck up his gut and act like a dignified bodyguard aiding the diplomacy talks, and that rogue will pull help from his Sovereign Court contacts to aid in researching some obscure fact. Everyone cooperates to ensure the success of the mission.
That bard has a fun concept, but their implementation of it would be frustrating. There are so many buff and aid and non-lethal options that is should be a breeze to have a pacifist bard. Do they not want to contribute, or do they just need help and encouragement?
-End of rational discussion, start of rant- Played at a 10-11 table where the ranger always kept his animal companion at his side, and never used him to support the melee. When questioned on this the ranger said the animal was protecting him and that was his job. It was extremely difficult not to ask what he thought the Paladin who was getting mobbed and took 100 points of damage in the last round was doing, who he thought the paladin was protecting?