|
I am going to explain the situation as thoroughly as I can before asking questions so everyone has context.
I am GMing for new players for starfinder soceity. They are all playing mechanics since one of them found a guide online. They decided to all pick up drones and to qoute them "run a robot fighting ring while shooting who the starfinders tell us to." It was working out as about as well as I can manage when a player threw a grenade at an enemy that was flanked by 2 other players drones. I hide dice rolls from the party so they thought this mook was some kind of boss since it hadn't gotten below a 16 on the dice during combat. Consistently rolling high damage for it made them think that they needed to put as much damage on it as possible.
This started an argument.
The player who threw the grenade said that the no pvp rules only meant he couldn't attack their characters. It didn't say anything about their drones.
One of the players was ok with the grenading. The other was not ok with it. The player who grenaded insisted he didn't need permission. The player who didn't agree threatened to destroy all his gear while he slept. The resolution at the table was bribery with some soda and temporarily extending the no pvp rule to drones for that session.
The only clarification on pvp that I have found is about arc pistols.
Here are the questions I hope I am just misreading something and it is real simple..
Does a mechanic's drone count as the player's character for the purposes of the no pvp rule?
Does a drone a player has purchased (aka armory stuff)count as the player's character for the purposes of the no pvp rule?
Does a player's unattended personal possessions count as the player's character for the purposes of the no pvp rule?
Does a character's equipment (aka aeon stones floating about) count as the player's character for the purposes of the no pvp rule?
For my table I am tempted to rule yes for all of these but I can't find anything to back me up on this. Is there other rules I am missing?
Thanks in advance for your opinions.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The player who didn't agree threatened to destroy all his gear while he slept.
I think all players involved should reflect on their responses to the situation.
Character Versus Character (aka PVP): Character-versus-character conflict occurs when one PC attempts, of his or her own volition, to harm, kill, or otherwise contribute to the injury of another PC. Player-versus-player conflict is strictly prohibited in the Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild. See page 8 for more details.
In keeping with the “cooperate” theme of the Starfinder Society, character-versus-character conflict should be kept to a minimum. Accidental friendly fire can happen (due to missed attack rolls or other factors), but players must obtain the consent of other players before deliberately including fellow PCs in damaging effects. In such cases, the damage dealer should offer to assist with necessary healing costs. This rule does not apply in situations where a character is not acting of his own initiative, such as being mind-controlled by an NPC to attack a fellow Starfinder.
At my tables, people have always asked for permission with even 1 HP of damage splash weapon attacks.
How droids factor into this may be something where you need to negotiate a rule at your table. Apparently, at least one of the people whose drones were harmed feels it is a serious breach of the social contract.
For myself, while I would not be happy if it was unnecessary collateral damage, a drone does not require credits or Fame to be restored, so I, myself, certainly would not fly off the handle at the other player.
However, once you get to the point of intentionally destroying a player's equipment, then you're breaking the community standards: "Don't be a jerk."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does a mechanic's drone count as the player's character for the purposes of the no pvp rule?
Yes. As do their gear, hirelings, class granted features, and little dog too. Anyhthing that belongs to the player belongs to the player.
Mind you, no PVP only covers where the player is TRYING to throw the grenade. If it goes off course, that was the dice, not the player.
But with one player willing to take the blasts, you should be able to position the grenades so that drone and the bad guy antagonist
are the ones getting hit and the one unwilling to take a grenade for the team aren't.
Does a drone a player has purchased (aka armory stuff)count as the player's character for the purposes of the no pvp rule?
Eyup
Does a player's unattended personal possessions count as the player's character for the purposes of the no pvp rule?
Eyup
Does a character's equipment (aka aeon stones floating about) count as the player's character for the purposes of the no pvp rule?
Eyup
thanks for stepping up, and welcome to the hard part of dealing with murderhobos...
|
|
Does a mechanic's drone count as the player's character for the purposes of the no pvp rule?Yes. As do their gear, hirelings, class granted features, and little dog too. Anyhthing that belongs to the player belongs to the player.
Mind you, no PVP only covers where the player is TRYING to throw the grenade. If it goes off course, that was the dice, not the player.
But with one player willing to take the blasts, you should be able to position the grenades so that drone and the bad guy antagonist
are the ones getting hit and the one unwilling to take a grenade for the team aren't.Does a drone a player has purchased (aka armory stuff)count as the player's character for the purposes of the no pvp rule?Eyup
Does a player's unattended personal possessions count as the player's character for the purposes of the no pvp rule?Eyup
Does a character's equipment (aka aeon stones floating about) count as the player's character for the purposes of the no pvp rule?Eyup
thanks for stepping up, and welcome to the hard part of dealing with murderhobos...
I am in agreement that this should be the case however the guide simply says character vs character combat is not allowed.
It doesn't have a clause extending this to a character's possessions or non player companions. I feel like this might be intentional even.
Take a situation where a grenade focused soldier is foiled by a player buying all the basic drones from the Armory and putting them next to enemies. It wouldn't be fair to prevent the soldier from using his class abilities.
The point I am getting at is that the guide doesn't include any provisions of protections for players possessions or followers.
Animate dead exists as a spell and some characters are vehemently opposed to the existence of undead. The spell isn't banned so some people/ ex paladin players might attack your undead servants.
I agree that blowing up a mechanics drone is probably not allowed on the don't be a jerk level.
|
|
Does a mechanic's drone count as the player's character for the purposes of the no pvp rule?Yes. As do their gear, hirelings, class granted features, and little dog too. Anyhthing that belongs to the player belongs to the player.
Mind you, no PVP only covers where the player is TRYING to throw the grenade. If it goes off course, that was the dice, not the player.
But with one player willing to take the blasts, you should be able to position the grenades so that drone and the bad guy antagonist
are the ones getting hit and the one unwilling to take a grenade for the team aren't.Does a drone a player has purchased (aka armory stuff)count as the player's character for the purposes of the no pvp rule?Eyup
Does a player's unattended personal possessions count as the player's character for the purposes of the no pvp rule?Eyup
Does a character's equipment (aka aeon stones floating about) count as the player's character for the purposes of the no pvp rule?Eyup
thanks for stepping up, and welcome to the hard part of dealing with murderhobos...
I am in agreement that this should be the case however the guide simply says character vs character combat is not allowed.
It doesn't have a clause extending this to a character's possessions or non player companions. I feel like this might be intentional even.
Take a situation where a grenade focused soldier is foiled by a player buying all the basic drones from the Armory and putting them next to enemies. It wouldn't be fair to prevent the soldier from using his class abilities.
The point I am getting at is that the guide doesn't include any provisions of protections for players possessions or followers.
Animate dead exists as a spell and some characters are vehemently opposed to the existence of undead. The spell isn't banned so some people/ ex paladin players might attack your undead servants.
I agree...
Anything that will cause the player affected to suffer an unnecessary loss of resources is an attack on that player. As for the all the drones situation, that would best be resolved under don't be a jerk. It would also most likely leave the drone owner in a financial pinch in society play.
|
|
m in agreement that this should be the case however the guide simply says character vs character combat is not allowed.
Look, you can't rules lawyer and take one side to absurd lengths and use that to prove that the other side must be right.
To sunder my gun, your character has to attack my character. Right down to hitting the same KAC +8.
The drone is a player character. It just comes with another player character.
Don't be a jerk was dropped from the official rules for being too vague and too empowering for the people willing to invoke it first to cover bad behavior.
No character vs character is a vague outline, not an Asmodean writ.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The social contract still exists.
You're not going to find a "rule" written down in the guide that spells out the definition of a team player and covers every potential bad behavior.
Rule of thumb to pass along: ask permission before using AOE damage that will include another player's character(s)--as they've mentioned above, a drone mechanic happens to have two characters--and as the GM, enforce it.
John: "I throw the grenade at intersection X."
GM: "That area includes Bob/Bob's drone. Bob, are you OK taking the damage?"
Bob: "Sure. That villain needs to go down soon!" and you proceed.
...or Bob: "No."
GM: "John, you'll need to re-target or choose a different action."
|
|
Ok I was going to let this thread die but I was reading through the core rulebook for unrelated reason and found a list of definitions for some terms and am posting one I found here for anyone else who has this problem.
page 8 of the core rulebook has
Player Character (PC) This is a character controlled by a player.
It has no provisions for a cutoff on the chain of control so drones that you own and have the remote for count as a player character. However your gear does not. Since it is not a character it doesn't have the same blanket ban on breaking it as drones do.
However the other clarifications discourage such behavior and a gm can award infamy points for breaking other players stuff or other illegal activity so the guide has a mechanism to combat this.
Unless anyone has something I am missing here is how I am going to run it at my table for ease of play.
You cannot attack anything controlled by another player without consent. No murdering their zombies or bought drones or "actual" player characters unless they give the go ahead.
Destroying someone's unattended gear is vandalism and an evil act. Therefore the infamy system will be used to discourage such behavior.
Attacking gear on a person requires an attack roll against them so not gonna happen unless they are cool with it.
You can still have a robot fighting ring as long as you ask everyone involved before hand both in and out of character. Per the guide on when pvp is allowed.
This rule does not apply in situations where a character is not acting of his own initiative,
While clearly intended to allow mind control effects to impact pcs it does allow drones given orders to not be subject to the no pvp. They still fall foul of the infamy rule and since they count as a player character you are controlling both, issuing the command and having it carried out are an infamy apiece unless the player being attacked consents. AKA any attacks against other player's stuff/minions is 2 infamy minimum and I'l toss you from the table and your character from the society if you are killing a downed player character since murder is also infamy worthy.
|
|
Are your players, like, 7 years old?
First a little background.
I am in a college town that specializes in engineering disciplines. Nearly everyone who chose that path for their life is literally minded and a non insignificant portion are autistic. My players are students and a non insignificant portion of them are on the autistic spectrum. Spelling out rules about what actions are allowed isn't treating them like they are children.
It is treating them how I would like to be treated. They are not immature they just need social rules explicitly stated so as to avoid confusion.
My word choice might have been better as describing the argument as a rules discussion that paused the game for 10 minutes. I am not trying to berate you but I would appreciate it if you avoided belittling my players by calling them childish.
|
|
The core rulebook
Splatbooks
Society stuff
The further down the list you go the less tightly worded and more fuzzy the rules get.
The society rules are mostly pirate code level guidelines. You always have to weigh the intent against the exact wording, but PVP is such a broad subject that its very, very heavy on the intent. There is absolutely no way to legalistically codify everything that might constitute PVP or every corner case for it. The rules aren't even trying.
Society play is meant to be played... well as a society. A bunch of different geeks playing together. One of the things that does is gives you a culture of how rules are interpreted along with the actual rules themselves. You're supposed to be able to pick up the nuances from other players at least as much from the book. If you're isolated and can't do that it gets a little harder, but please consider that 4 random people in a normally contentious hobby all pretty much aggreed on the same thing (thats kind of rare around here...) it's not on accident. The rule is there to keep the PLAYERS from fighting, and blowing off R2s head is going to make that happen just as fast as shooting at his human.
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Society culture starts with you. If you're starting up a society group, you set the culture from the get go. Emphasize 'Explore, Cooperate, Report!' Make it all about teamwork. You set the culture by having a strong vision in your head for what that culture is.
If you see your players as squabbling children, that's what you'll get. If they say, 'but there's no rule saying that I cannot destroy their equipment', don't go reading frantically through the guidebook at the table trying to prove them wrong. Instead, with confidence, just state, "destroying someone's resources is very much a player-vs-player action, and that's how I'll treat it at this table. Let's not go there."
Instead you can provide a vision to them of a proud history of this cooperative organization. Set down the PVP rules for your club -- including respecting others equipment, and respecting your team. Make the Society you envision, and they'll soon adapt to it. This is the time when you can set all the expectations and create your group's culture.
And quite frankly, this is the culture that I see in most parts of the Society, globally. Most of what we do is teamwork; our scenarios that are team-based missions. (I am a bit worried about your group being all mechanics, but if they've taken different themes to expand out the teams capabilities, that can work.)
A group's culture and rules come not just from the society rulebook, but also from an unwritten social contract of etiquette and respect. If you need to make that contract explicit by writing a code of conduct of your club for these particular players, do so. Some venues put up signs laying out the rules for cooperative table play, so this would not be out of line if it is needed for your sanity.
I hope that this all works out for you!
Hmm
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree with your logic used to create the loopholes you described.
You should make it clear when you present your loopholes to your table that this is not how the rest of Organized Play interprets the rules and they should except a GM to overrule them if they try to destroy a player's character's "unattended" gear or use the "not of their own volition" clause to justify drones attacking PCs or equipment or drones. You should also let them know that those actions will piss off the other players at the table.
If you play publically, then people familiar with Organized Play who visit your table are going to justifiably be filing complaints if your loopholes significantly affect their experience.
...are you sure everyone involved wants to play in Organized Play? I.e. they want to take their characters to other Organized Play games at other venues or conventions? It seems the premise of your players' characters, their desire to PVP, and your inclination to find a way to let them are better suited for a home rules game.
|
I would appreciate it if you avoided belittling my players by calling them childish.
Nothing belittling. That was a genuine question.
My first home game was running for children aged 5, 7 and 9.
Their behaviors and loose social empathy matched your description.
And I have run across many children in Organized Play.
But, regardless of age, you have the same discussion. You don't need to adjust your points. It needs to be the same key aspects that any GM would explain.
|
|
Society culture starts with you. If you're starting up a society group, you set the culture from the get go. Emphasize 'Explore, Cooperate, Report!' Make it all about teamwork. You set the culture by having a strong vision in your head for what that culture is.
If you see your players as squabbling children, that's what you'll get. If they say, 'but there's no rule saying that I cannot destroy their equipment', don't go reading frantically through the guidebook at the table trying to prove them wrong. Instead, with confidence, just state, "destroying someone's resources is very much a player-vs-player action, and that's how I'll treat it at this table. Let's not go there."
Instead you can provide a vision to them of a proud history of this cooperative organization. Set down the PVP rules for your club -- including respecting others equipment, and respecting your team. Make the Society you envision, and they'll soon adapt to it. This is the time when you can set all the expectations and create your group's culture.
And quite frankly, this is the culture that I see in most parts of the Society, globally. Most of what we do is teamwork; our scenarios that are team-based missions. (I am a bit worried about your group being all mechanics, but if they've taken different themes to expand out the teams capabilities, that can work.)
A group's culture and rules come not just from the society rulebook, but also from an unwritten social contract of etiquette and respect. If you need to make that contract explicit by writing a code of conduct of your club for these particular players, do so. Some venues put up signs laying out the rules for cooperative table play, so this would not be out of line if it is needed for your sanity.
I hope that this all works out for you!
Hmm
First thank you for saying this respectfully.
I do not see my players as sqaubling children. Most of them and myself interpret rules and the world at large hyper literally. We understand that most people do not.My guiding philosophy as a GM is to not limit player agency. Unless a rule forbids an action a player may take it. I won't tell the operative he has to see a target to trick attack or the envoy can't use inspiring boost if the enemy they are fighting only has 1 hp left.
As a party they have at least someone with full level ranks in a skill. Not necessarily class skills but ehh.
As a group we tend to think unwritten rules are not enforceable or practical. I know most of them prefer explicit rules as opposed to wishy washy unwritten rules.
Also culture can change without purpose or direction. As an example take the animal companion rules for initiative in pathfinder. It was clearly spelled out in the core book that they got there own initiative but people ignored it so now lots of groups run them on the player characters initiative. Trying to foster culture instead of examining rules and correcting them if need be leads to rules being ignored.
That being said I am not trying to write a general code of conduct. I am trying to follow the society guide as it is written right now. Per the community standards section labelled do not cheat
"DO NOT CHEAT Maintain the integrity of the game and do not cheat. This includes, but is not limited to, falsifying rolls, altering Chronicle sheets, using unapproved resources, not owning the sources used by your character, and lying to event coordinators under any circumstances. Participants caught cheating will be barred from Roleplaying Guild events for a span of time commensurate with their offense. Repeat offenders will be banned from Paizo’s organized play programs."
Now if one considers the guide itself rules for the campaign ,which I do, then not following them is cheating. I enjoy playing the game at conventions and don't want to be banned. If following the rules is bad or inconvenient then they should change the rules.
Thanks for your input.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do appreciate a desire for legalistic readings of the rules, but we do have to remember that the rules serve a purpose. Any reading of the rules that undercuts their purpose is an incorrect reading.
It might help your table to establish a written code of conduct together. The goal of Organized Play is for everyone to have fun. Treat the exercise as a minimization-maximization problem with the baseline in the guide as initial constraints and the goal to maximize fun and minimize not-fun.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Halek: I've found that PFS/SFS can be a safe haven for people tending towards/in the autistic spectrum, because the (social) rules are fairly clear. However, the Guide is not perfectly explicit. While writing it the authors had to strike a balance between putting in every last detail, and not scaring people off because it's too big. So there are some things that you're expected to understand with "common sense". The problem of course is that common sense isn't common for everyone.
That doesn't mean that the unwritten stuff isn't there, or that it isn't important and that you should ignore it because it's not officially written down. It can be a problem teaching it to people with a more literal mindset, but you don't do them any favors by ignoring it. You can help them better by having a talk and telling them "these are unwritten rules, but they are rules, they are widely used and now at least you'll know them".
Another reason that they're not quite written down is because it's hard to write them watertight, and if there are loopholes, some people will say "well that particular thing isn't forbidden so therefore it's not wrong". For some rules, you really have to teach people that they shouldn't look for the loopholes but try to understand the bigger idea behind the rules.
"No PVP" is one of those things. Just because there's an explicit prohibition on direct violence towards other PCs, doesn't mean it's okay to make people unhappy in indirect ways. These are some examples of things that are also against the spirit of it:
* Attacking peoples' companions
* Expressly not helping someone when you normally would, to put them into danger
* Messing with peoples' gear
* If one person is trying to negotiate with an NPC, being rude to the NPC or attacking them so that the negotiation fails
* If someone is trying to achieve something for their faction, making that harder
There are many more examples of things that are antagonistic. Too many to list, and if you tried to make a list, someone would say "ah, but you forgot this thing, and because you didn't list it it's okay to do it".
That's not a way to have a fun game in organized play. Some people enjoy games with light or heavy backstabbing going on in the party; it fits some games like Vampire or Paranoia. But it doesn't work well with organized play where you play with many different strangers, because they don't all know from each other what to expect and what they're comfortable with.
|
|
It was clearly spelled out in the core book that they got there own initiative
Citation? Because we went through that argument a lot of times and no one had one.
Please remember that just because you can make an argument for a position doesn't mean you can't make an argument for the opposite.
PFS clarified at some point that they wanted the critters to act on their own init. But even that's rarely enforced unless the character has cranked their init to make their turtle go faster.
Now if one considers the guide itself rules for the campaign ,which I do, then not following them is cheating.
A few things.
Very importantly, when you read rules that are vague what you have is an interpretation of those rules. Not following the rules the way you read them is not the same as not following the rules.
Secondly, not all rules are the same or are even going to be followed. Much like people tend to drive 5 miles over the speed limit. I don't think I've ever heard someone announce that they had additional resources outside of the core rulebook (even though it is.. was? required) and I've seen more sasquatches than people who fill out the chronicle sheets exactly the way the guide tells them.
I know it's an all official and everything game but it's still a game. You can adjust the persnicket levels a bit without devolving into Galt.
|
Venture-Captain, Online—VTT
|
Destroying someone's unattended gear is vandalism and an evil act. Therefore the infamy system will be used to discourage such behavior.Attacking gear on a person requires an attack roll against them so not gonna happen unless they are cool with it.
You can still have a robot fighting ring as long as you ask everyone involved before hand both in and out of character. Per the guide on when pvp is allowed.
This rule does not apply in situations where a character is not acting of his own initiative,While clearly intended to allow mind control effects to impact pcs it does allow drones given orders to not be subject to the no pvp. They still fall foul of the infamy rule and since they count as a player character you are controlling both, issuing the command and having it carried out are an infamy apiece unless the player being attacked consents. AKA any attacks against other player's stuff/minions is 2 infamy minimum and I'l toss you from the table...
Just to reiterate, I don't mean to beat a dead horse I simply want to make sure everyones expectations are realistic, allowing players to attack or destroy other players gear or drones or anything in any fashion, whether you grant infamy or not, is not how the rules are understood in almost anyone elses Society games (as you can clearly see from the responses in this thread).
I don't want you or your players to think this is how others play and they will be allowed to do it if they go to a game at a con, the next town over, online, etc. If a player owns it, you can't mess with it at all without their permission unless they are under a control outside of themselves (this doesn't mean drones with orders, it means drones hacked by an enemy to attack the party, or players mind controlled, etc).
|
|
Destroying someone's unattended gear is vandalism and an evil act. Therefore the infamy system will be used to discourage such behavior.Attacking gear on a person requires an attack roll against them so not gonna happen unless they are cool with it.
You can still have a robot fighting ring as long as you ask everyone involved before hand both in and out of character. Per the guide on when pvp is allowed.
This rule does not apply in situations where a character is not acting of his own initiative,While clearly intended to allow mind control effects to impact pcs it does allow drones given orders to not be subject to the no pvp. They still fall foul of the infamy rule and since they count as a player character you are controlling both, issuing the command and having it carried out are an infamy apiece unless the player being attacked consents. AKA any attacks against other player's stuff/minions is 2 infamy minimum and I'l toss you from the table...
Just to reiterate, I don't mean to beat a dead horse I simply want to make sure everyones expectations are realistic, allowing players to attack or destroy other players gear or drones or anything in any fashion, whether you grant infamy or not, is not how the rules are understood in almost anyone elses Society games (as you can clearly see from the responses in this thread).
I don't want you or your players to think this is how others play and they will be allowed to do it if they go to a game at a con, the next town over, online, etc. If a player owns it, you can't mess with it at all without their permission unless they are under a control outside of themselves (this doesn't mean drones with orders, it means drones hacked by an enemy to attack the party, or players mind controlled, etc).
Both me and my players understand that other people can interpret rules differently. I understand that such interpretations are not necessarily wrong. We default to what we think expectations are in unfamiliar settings and not argue rules minutiae at cons. Even when GMs get things wrong like what caster level potions are in PFS we have a general rule of not arguing unless someone is gonna die from the mistake.
This is an area of the rules purposefully left vague and we are using rules that effectively ban behavior not explicitly banned in the guide. If you read the infamy rules it gives lots of leeway for to decide what constitutes an act of evil and therefore when 3 such things occur.
Our rules and guidelines are more restrictive than the guide not less.
In regards to not being able to destroy gear I have found that at least in pathfinder society many players are allowed to destroy borrowed gear without asking and sometimes against the wishes of the owner so that might not be as clear cut as you think. I have had many ropes cut, potions used, and alchemist fires tossed without me being asked, heck one guy was allowed to use holy water I bought to douse himself. The rules for pvp are nearly identical so why the variance?
|
|
The rules for pvp are nearly identical so why the variance?Regional problem?
That actually explains a lot about why we're having this discussion now.
None of that is allowed in PFS, either.
All 4 of these happened at gencon. It is a large convention and variance should be a non issue. Are the rules just not enforced?
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
@Halek:
If you loan someone a consumable item, you create the understanding that it might be consumed. It's the only way to use the item after all.
With regards to infamy, I think you're mixing two things that are both bad, but shouldn't be confused:
- In-game breaches of the campaign world's rules, such as omitting an evil act. Punished with Infamy.
- Out of character breaking the rules, such as PVP or cheating with dice rolls. You don't punish that by punishing the character, you warn, suspend or ban the player from the session/group/venue/campaign, depending on how severe and persistent the behavior is.
|
|
Ah. If you're giving it to them to use, that would be different. I was thinking this was about stealing.
Rope being cut doesn't matter. PFS doesn't care about items under, what was it, 10 gold? It's just assumed you find a zero-level Mending at some point. Heck those items aren't even required to be listed on your ITS.
But let's say it's an expensive item. The Guide covers this by telling us that the player damaging the item must pay for any costs associated with its repair. Before someone tosses your spidersilk rope into the magma below, remind them that the Society's expense account won't cover it.
Same with Starfinder.
I think I stated this in another thread, but Starfinder Society and Pathfinder Society operate under the exact same Organized Play principles. Rules for each system are obviously different (Reputation vs Prestige, Gold vs Credits, etc), but the social contract is the same.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All 4 of these happened at gencon. It is a large convention and variance should be a non issue. Are the rules just not enforced?
How does that logic even follow?
The DMs don't get together and pool our brains just before the convention. You have different people from different regions and oddly enough they have different opinions on how the games work. Gencon is where you're going to see MORE variation, not less, because there's less of a unified culture. If the people in albany have a certain ruling it spreads throughout albany so if you go to a con there, 90% of the dms are from there, you have more cohesion. Fly in people from all over the planet, POOF, all the variation under the sun.
By what mechanism would all table variation be eliminated from gencon?
|
|
@Halek:
If you loan someone a consumable item, you create the understanding that it might be consumed. It's the only way to use the item after all.
With regards to infamy, I think you're mixing two things that are both bad, but shouldn't be confused:
- In-game breaches of the campaign world's rules, such as omitting an evil act. Punished with Infamy.
- Out of character breaking the rules, such as PVP or cheating with dice rolls. You don't punish that by punishing the character, you warn, suspend or ban the player from the session/group/venue/campaign, depending on how severe and persistent the behavior is.
I "loaned' it to them to use under certain conditions. I was playing a rogue and had alchemist fire. Handed one to everyone and said use this if we encounter some swarms. They tossed them at the first enemy we encountered. It was not a swarm. I was upset. DM said deal with it.
For the ropes there was an already triggered pit trap. I tied it off at the top. We climbed down and had the barbarian sunder the spikes at the bottom. Afterwards they cut my ropes down instead of untying them.
For the healing potions I had spent prestige to get some cure serious wounds potions. I handed it to them as an a emergency heal if they are down. I said both in and out of character that these are for emergencies only. The party used them to top off after a fight since the cleric wanted to save spell slots and "if we let you use your clw wand the bless spell will wear off."
For the holy water I had given to everyone to use against the undead that the briefing mentioned might be around. This player lit them self on fire and dumped it on their own head. I still don't understand the how or why they were doing it.
My point is that in PFS players have used my gear that was loaned in situations that I hadn't given permission for. So in practice if not in theory the rules about not using gear without permission don't exist.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point is that in PFS players have used my gear that was loaned in situations that I hadn't given permission for. So in practice if not in theory the rules about not using gear without permission don't exist.
Right, and since that weird condition exists where they're destroying items in their possession you can extend that argument infinitely until they're destroying your items not in their posssesion...
No. That doesn't follow.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
Locally, we've solved this issue with the understanding that even if someone has loaned an item to you, you can't use it without their permission. This came up with some especially expensive consumables, such as first aid gloves or scrolls of heal.
It's still your item, even if it is in the possession of another player, and they are using it with your explicit permission - they can't just toss it into lava to spite you even if it is literally in their hand, just like they can't just indiscriminately cast Shatter on your potion bottles.
|
|
Halek, who do you believe has the better argument here?
A forum full of very experienced GMs basically concluding with the same philosophy, or a quadruplet of random GMs you encountered at a Convention?
Because, to me, it sounds like you're leaning towards one interpretation over the other.
I want it to be clear that i believe you (plural you) in that what you all describe is how most people are running the rules regarding item use. I am trying to understand why that is since it seems to not be supported or contradicted by the text of the guide.
I have informed my players that my rules only apply at my table and others might just outright ban such behavior under the no pvp rules despite it not being explicit.
The reason I gave the specific examples was that if we are using how it was done in pfs we should recognize that it was inconsistently ruled then as well.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
@Halek:
If you loan someone a consumable item, you create the understanding that it might be consumed. It's the only way to use the item after all.
With regards to infamy, I think you're mixing two things that are both bad, but shouldn't be confused:
- In-game breaches of the campaign world's rules, such as omitting an evil act. Punished with Infamy.
- Out of character breaking the rules, such as PVP or cheating with dice rolls. You don't punish that by punishing the character, you warn, suspend or ban the player from the session/group/venue/campaign, depending on how severe and persistent the behavior is.
I "loaned' it to them to use under certain conditions. I was playing a rogue and had alchemist fire. Handed one to everyone and said use this if we encounter some swarms. They tossed them at the first enemy we encountered. It was not a swarm. I was upset. DM said deal with it.
For the ropes there was an already triggered pit trap. I tied it off at the top. We climbed down and had the barbarian sunder the spikes at the bottom. Afterwards they cut my ropes down instead of untying them.
For the healing potions I had spent prestige to get some cure serious wounds potions. I handed it to them as an a emergency heal if they are down. I said both in and out of character that these are for emergencies only. The party used them to top off after a fight since the cleric wanted to save spell slots and "if we let you use your clw wand the bless spell will wear off."
For the holy water I had given to everyone to use against the undead that the briefing mentioned might be around. This player lit them self on fire and dumped it on their own head. I still don't understand the how or why they were doing it.
My point is that in PFS players have used my gear that was loaned in situations that I hadn't given permission for. So in practice if not in theory the rules about not using gear without permission don't exist.
Those are some very unfortunate examples, for what it's worth I think those players broke the "don't be a dick" rule of organized play.
To be fair, I think you trying to hand over equipment in case of emergencies was a good call, and in theory, the current rules exist to allow others to replace those consumables. Part of the reason why I like that rule is that it does not penalize well-prepared players.
Over the years I have given limited items (like high CL wands and chronicles to other players to use in emergencies... that had mixed results and really depends on the player.
The penny really dropped after a player I have given a high CL scroll to, dropped it Bonekeep and another enemy found it and used it on the party.
These days I often build characters that can use those items and tend to keep them just in case the excrement hits the windmill.
---
I like that you can play with literally thousands of players but unfortunately, some of them will not be a good fit for you considering the kind of experiences you want to have in RPGs.
That's perfectly normal and is the case for most people.