|
@BNW: I just want to say, that while I agree with you wholeheartedly, I also see why someone might say the things that Murdock Mudeater is saying.
Imagine, you have a very diplomatic character, and no matter how well you roll, your "friends" and fellow players all tease you about your character saying really dumb stuff and generally making a fool of themselves. That's going to make you feel really crappy and want them to stop and treat what your character is doing within the light of what your character is actually doing.
There are better, more adult ways, of handling things, than trying to enforce a diplomacy roll or intimidate roll on the other characters, obviously. One of them is handling it person to person with those who are treating you poorly.
are you suggesting that Mr. Mudeater is asking for an in-character skill fix for a problem with one or more PLAYERS? a way to use a character skill, to use a character ability, to change the way a PLAYER is playing their character? To force someone (a real person) to play a way they don't want to? If so, then that is bad. We do not want to go there. "I'm going to use my characters skills to make you (the player) do what I (the player) want you (the player) to do!". I'll even go so far as to say this is "bad-wrong-fun"... If that is what you think he is looking for, I would strongly advise him against it.
I'm not asking for one, I'm asking if using skills on players, or on player abilities, qualifies as PVP for PFS.
I do, wishfully, think the social skills should work on other players, but I'm really arguing that. I see nothing wrong with character sheet abilities reflecting actual characters, rather than allowing chasimatic players to have low CHA and still function as high CHA characters because they get a free pass due to social skills not applying to players.
As for forcing players to play in ways they don't want to. I've run a necromancer before, I summon some undead, and the "good-aligned" dick players focus on destroying my summons with priority over facing the actual enemy. They say this isn't PVP because my summons aren't me. As a result, I can't really play that type of character because of allowed discrimination in PFS seen against that character build. Wasn't even casting evil spells.
Also tried an illusionist. GM says that NPCs which pass spellcraft on my illusions automatically disbelieve them. Could not do anything with illusions all session (apparently, every NPC is trained in spellcraft). Very disappointing. Entire school of magic became useless.
Forcing players to be unable to play certain builds, or otherwise bullying them, seems to be an accepted part of PFS. Not a fan of that.
I think making Spellcraft rolls to figure out what spells your allies are casting is not PVP because you are not harming them in any way, but doing so would be an unnecessary delay of the game unless you as a player actually don't know what they are doing. In that case, the casters being secretive about what spells they are casting might be more of an issue.
Venture-Agent, Australia—QLD—Brisbane
|
Forcing players to be unable to play certain builds, or otherwise bullying them, seems to be an accepted part of PFS.
I think you might be mistakenly confusing local conventions as applying to the whole of PFS. Although I have also seen instances of anti-Necromancer sentiment, I don't believe the illusion thing is anything like universal - that just sounds like a bit of a dud GM to me.
|
|
Forcing players to be unable to play certain builds, or otherwise bullying them, seems to be an accepted part of PFS.I think you might be mistakenly confusing local conventions as applying to the whole of PFS. Although I have also seen instances of anti-Necromancer sentiment, I don't believe the illusion thing is anything like universal - that just sounds like a bit of a dud GM to me.
Yeah, to be fair, it's not like PFS officially supports this sort of thing. They just don't offically ban it either, which allows it to continue.
@David: An unnesscessary delay of the game? I can see where it would be a delay, like using any skill delays the game, but it is a role playing game, so your character is supposed to be acting based on her/his abilties in game, including skills. Seems like it would a nesscessary delay of game. Or maybe I'm taking the RP too far for PFS play?
|
Venture-Agent, Australia—QLD—Brisbane
|
They just don't offically ban it either, which allows it to continue.
From the current PFS Guide -
When participating in public Pathfinder Society events, be mindful of any controversial or edgy concepts in your character and consider limiting them to bylines or dice rolls. Dysfunctional or uncooperative play will not be tolerated. Behaving in a hateful or disruptive fashion simply because “It’s what your character would do” means you’ve probably lost sight of the purpose of organized play and may be asked to amend your behavior or leave the table. Extreme or repetitive cases of inappropriate behavior will be resolved by asking the offender to leave the table or venue.
Some would say the Necromancer falls into the 'dysfunctional' area, but destroying another player's resources, especially in combat, would certainly qualify as 'uncooperative play' in my book.
If you're having an issue like this, and can't resolve it, report it to the local Venture Agent, and it should be fixed officially. If you take a look at paizo.com/pathfindersociety/policies , you also have the option of escalating to Organized Play Coordinator (OPC) via email at pathfindersociety@paizo.com
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not asking for one, I'm asking if using skills on players, or on player abilities, qualifies as PVP for PFS.
I don't think there's going to be answer to such a broad question, other than "It depends". There's so many factors that can add to the situation, that a blanket statement 'by the rules' isn't going to solve the issue.
I'm sorry to read that you had (at least) two unfortunate incidents with your characters. Out of curiosity: Have you discussed those things with the GM and the rest of the group before the game? Maybe not the first time that they came up, but in further scenarios that you played with those characters? A necromancer could quality as a controversial concept, as could a lawful-stupid paladin, a kleptomanic rogue, a hunter abusive to their animal companion, or a multitude of other things. The same could be said about characters that rely on a particular rule - or rules interpretation.
I think the best approach in those situations is to bring it up at the table in advance. Explain that you're playing a necromancer, that you have a rationale for doing what you do, and ask the others whether that will cause problems. If not, then you know you're in the clear. If there is discussion, you can come to a compromise before play starts: This could be an agreement to tone certain aspects down, for the other characters to turn a blind eye or - in extreme cases - for one or more people to pick different characters to play.
Either way, everyone will be on the same page before the scenario starts and hopefully nasty surprises can be avoided during play. Ultimately, the goal is for everyone to have a good time and I believe honest and early communication is key to that.
|
|
I'm not asking for one, I'm asking if using skills on players, or on player abilities, qualifies as PVP for PFS.I don't think there's going to be answer to such a broad question, other than "It depends". There's so many factors that can add to the situation, that a blanket statement 'by the rules' isn't going to solve the issue.
I'm sorry to read that you had (at least) two unfortunate incidents with your characters. Out of curiosity: Have you discussed those things with the GM and the rest of the group before the game? Maybe not the first time that they came up, but in further scenarios that you played with those characters? A necromancer could quality as a controversial concept, as could a lawful-stupid paladin, a kleptomanic rogue, a hunter abusive to their animal companion, or a multitude of other things. The same could be said about characters that rely on a particular rule - or rules interpretation.
I think the best approach in those situations is to bring it up at the table in advance. Explain that you're playing a necromancer, that you have a rationale for doing what you do, and ask the others whether that will cause problems. If not, then you know you're in the clear. If there is discussion, you can come to a compromise before play starts: This could be an agreement to tone certain aspects down, for the other characters to turn a blind eye or - in extreme cases - for one or more people to pick different characters to play.
Either way, everyone will be on the same page before the scenario starts and hopefully nasty surprises can be avoided during play. Ultimately, the goal is for everyone to have a good time and I believe honest and early communication is key to that.
I'm not upset. It's an annoyance that certain types of characters don't seem to work in PFS, but I like building characters, so it isn't a huge loss.
I did a paladin once, actually got complimented on my RP of the paladin (Not sure if I know how to RP lawful stupid, but mine wasn't stupid, despite strict adherence to both alignment and code). That said, I was knocked unconscious 3 times that session, so while the character was a success in role playing, it was kinda a faliure otherwise. Character was a Paladin of Iomedae, so I was really big on that "first to battle, last to leave it" aspect of her paladin code, despite poor odds in combat.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess it sometimes happens that two different characters are individually not a problem; they're both legal and can be fun to play with. But because they have strong ethical baggage they're mutually exclusive.
So a dedicated necromancer and a paladin, for example. Either one can be fine, but having both at the table isn't.
In such cases ideally the players can amicably agree which of them will be replaced with a different PC or pregen stand-in. If you play an "extreme" character you have to be prepared to bench it occasionally. Sometimes it's your PC that has to be benched, sometimes it's the other guy.
If you can tone down the extremism of your character (building your necromancer so he could also rely on blast/SoS/SoD spells instead of animation, picking a deity with a pragmatic paladin code) you reduce the number of times you have to sit it out.
Of course, sometimes it's not another player but the adventure that's a good reason to bench your PC. I would not bring my paladin to infiltrate Bloodcove for example.
|
|
I guess it sometimes happens that two different characters are individually not a problem; they're both legal and can be fun to play with. But because they have strong ethical baggage they're mutually exclusive.
So a dedicated necromancer and a paladin, for example. Either one can be fine, but having both at the table isn't.
Honestly, when playing either, I don't personally have issues with the other. The key thing here, is that we're members of the "Neutrally aligned" pathfinder society faction. If my character wanted to exclusively associate with like-minded people, I wouldn't have joined the society. A necromancer and a paladin, both pathfinders, can certainly be allies in a professional capacity. My paladin may attempt to "show the error of their ways" to PCs with differing moral codes, but that's as far as it goes for PFS play.
As a paladin, my bigger issue is chaotic pathfinder characters, which seem to have zero qualms with committing all manner of crimes in the name of completing the mission. And since I'm in their party, any crimes include me as an accomplice (which is a crime of it's own). Ideally, I can steer the party, just a bit, towards a more legal solution to their problems.
|
|
@BNW: I just want to say, that while I agree with you wholeheartedly, I also see why someone might say the things that Murdock Mudeater is saying.
Imagine, you have a very diplomatic character, and no matter how well you roll, your "friends" and fellow players all tease you about your character saying really dumb stuff and generally making a fool of themselves. That's going to make you feel really crappy and want them to stop and treat what your character is doing within the light of what your character is actually doing.
There are better, more adult ways, of handling things, than trying to enforce a diplomacy roll or intimidate roll on the other characters, obviously. One of them is handling it person to person with those who are treating you poorly.
are you suggesting that Mr. Mudeater is asking for an in-character skill fix for a problem with one or more PLAYERS? a way to use a character skill, to use a character ability, to change the way a PLAYER is playing their character? To force someone (a real person) to play a way they don't want to? If so, then that is bad. We do not want to go there. "I'm going to use my characters skills to make you (the player) do what I (the player) want you (the player) to do!". I'll even go so far as to say this is "bad-wrong-fun"... If that is what you think he is looking for, I would strongly advise him against it.
It will not end well. Many people would resent being bullied that way. The result would be that the bullied player would avoid playing with the bully. They would at best no longer play with the bully, at worst they would leave PFS (maybe leave the hobby entirely).
** spoiler omitted **...
Oh, I wholly agree with you. It is certainly not an appropriate use of the skill system to try and impose actions on other players.
But I can see why someone may want to try and resort to that if are the one being bullied by others ignoring their characters successes and teasing them about how awful their character is.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@BNW: I just want to say, that while I agree with you wholeheartedly, I also see why someone might say the things that Murdock Mudeater is saying.
Imagine, you have a very diplomatic character, and no matter how well you roll, your "friends" and fellow players all tease you about your character saying really dumb stuff and generally making a fool of themselves. That's going to make you feel really crappy and want them to stop and treat what your character is doing within the light of what your character is actually doing.
There are better, more adult ways, of handling things, than trying to enforce a diplomacy roll or intimidate roll on the other characters, obviously. One of them is handling it person to person with those who are treating you poorly.
are you suggesting that Mr. Mudeater is asking for an in-character skill fix for a problem with one or more PLAYERS? a way to use a character skill, to use a character ability, to change the way a PLAYER is playing their character? To force someone (a real person) to play a way they don't want to? If so, then that is bad. We do not want to go there. "I'm going to use my characters skills to make you (the player) do what I (the player) want you (the player) to do!". I'll even go so far as to say this is "bad-wrong-fun"... If that is what you think he is looking for, I would strongly advise him against it.
I'm not asking for one, I'm asking if using skills on players, or on player abilities, qualifies as PVP for PFS.
I do, wishfully, think the social skills should work on other players, but I'm really arguing that. I see nothing wrong with character sheet abilities reflecting actual characters, rather than allowing chasimatic players to have low CHA and still function as high CHA characters because they get a free pass due to social skills not applying to players.
As for forcing players to play in ways they don't want to. I've run a necromancer before, I summon some undead, and the "good-aligned"...
using skills on players is decidedly not appropriate. That's other people, and forcing other people to act a certain way by rolling dice is pretty silly, to be honest.
using skills on characters is not as clear cut. In some cases, the game and even PFS requires you to (some faction missions require you to use bluff or sleight of hand vs. another character's sense motive or perception, respectively.) But you should never use a skill on another character in an effort to make the player have their character react in a way they don't want to have their character react. This is EXACTLY the type of action that the no-PvP rule is meant to stop. To stop players from griefing other players instead of just roleplaying.
As for your complaint about necromancer vs. paladin/pharasma worshipers, being respectful of other player's characters is a two-way street. Summoning undead, willy nilly, around such characters can be seen as much of a jerk move as jeopardizing the entire team to kill the undead that are currently helping the team. Save it for when it matters (if it matters).
As for your spellcraft complaint, I don't feel its relevant to this discussion really. But if an NPC has spellcraft, why wouldn't they try to identify what spell you are casting? Player Characters do it all the time, so it fits the campaign that a smart badguy would do that as well. Additionally, if I know you are casting an illusion spell, it seems reasonable they would not need to make a save. I probably would just give them the +4 to save though, because that's how illusions work.
|
|
I guess it sometimes happens that two different characters are individually not a problem; they're both legal and can be fun to play with. But because they have strong ethical baggage they're mutually exclusive.
So a dedicated necromancer and a paladin, for example. Either one can be fine, but having both at the table isn't.
Honestly, when playing either, I don't personally have issues with the other. The key thing here, is that we're members of the "Neutrally aligned" pathfinder society faction. If my character wanted to exclusively associate with like-minded people, I wouldn't have joined the society. A necromancer and a paladin, both pathfinders, can certainly be allies in a professional capacity. My paladin may attempt to "show the error of their ways" to PCs with differing moral codes, but that's as far as it goes for PFS play.
As a paladin, my bigger issue is chaotic pathfinder characters, which seem to have zero qualms with committing all manner of crimes in the name of completing the mission. And since I'm in their party, any crimes include me as an accomplice (which is a crime of it's own). Ideally, I can steer the party, just a bit, towards a more legal solution to their problems.
Not every player plays to play within the Society. Some players play to play some type of character build.
I have opinions on that, but for the purpose of this conversation, either way can be a legitimate way to play PFS.
|
|
Didn't know you could play a PFS character that wasn't part of the PFS. New thing every day.
For skills on other characters, one that came up last session, as using bluff to pass on secret messages and then sense motive to notice it. No disputes arose in game, so I didn't touch it, but it was an example of players using social skills on each other.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Didn't know you could play a PFS character that wasn't part of the PFS. New thing every day.
For skills on other characters, one that came up last session, as using bluff to pass on secret messages and then sense motive to notice it. No disputes arose in game, so I didn't touch it, but it was an example of players using social skills on each other.
1) I did not say that they are playing a PFS character that wasn't part of PFS. I said that some players don't play this game to engage in the actual campaign fluff of the game. They play the game to play certain character builds. Frankly, for someone worried about the RP of playing a character that would fit within the Pathfinder Society, I find it very, very hard to believe that an active necromancer would fit that bill.
2) you keep saying "using social skills on one another." and that isn't what is happening. Using bluff, sleight of hand, or stealth to hide something from a fellow character is not using a skill on someone else. That is using a skill for yourself. But by doing so you are tacitly agreeing that the other characters get to perceive or sense motive. This is not using social skills ON another character. Using diplomacy or intimidate to enforce another character to do something that the player would not want the character to do, is using a social skill ON another character and that is essentially PvP.
You keep conflating too completely separate things.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
PvP is an amorphous subjective call trying to answer the eternal question of society: how to delineate the rights of an individual to act vs the rights of other individuals to be free from those actions. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether something is a skill or not.
|
|
Didn't know you could play a PFS character that wasn't part of the PFS. New thing every day.
For skills on other characters, one that came up last session, as using bluff to pass on secret messages and then sense motive to notice it. No disputes arose in game, so I didn't touch it, but it was an example of players using social skills on each other.
There is a huge difference between this example and using skills on another player to dictate their behaviour?
[edit]