Issue with a problem player and VC's open gaming policy


GM Discussion

1 to 50 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Hello,

I'm making this on a throw away account because I'd like some advice on this issue without making an enemy of certain parties involved in my issue.

I have recently started running GM sessions for PFS that I host out of my home. However, in order to host these sessions I have to use the local societies meet-up.com group in order to advertise these sessions. I have an individual gamer that is very active in the local area that I am simply not comfortable inviting into my home and will generally avoid having to plan any games that he is involved in. With general games this is not an issue as I can simply monitor the meet up and see whether or not he is signed up for a specific table. However with the meet up form when I am hosting I do not have this same ability.

I have previously spoken with the VC for my area and he has stated that the open play rules means that all sessions advertised through the societies page must be open to all comers. Does anyone have any suggestions for steps that I might take to remedy this situation?

I would prefer a way that I can maintain an open sign up for everyone else in my area to give them an opportunity for games.

Thanks for all the advice that you can give me

Sincerely,

Arestes

Liberty's Edge 2/5 *

Arestes:

He is right. Organised play is about allowing people of all creeds, personality types etc to meet up and game. If you are feeling uncomfortable about letting this particular person play at your place, then you need to do what you have done already. Apart from flat out telling the guy he isnt welcome at your place, Im not sure what else you can do.. cept of course not advertise on meetup at all and simply communicate behind the scenes on something like say Facebook.


You do have the right to say "I'm not going to GM for you;" ideally you'd say this with more tact.

I wonder, Arestes, why you don't just create your own event or meet-up page. This allows you some freedom in who you allow, when you allow them, and why you allow only certain people. You can advertise this to some of the people you trust the most, i.e. Hey, check out this URL Page and subscribe; pass the word along to your friends! Since you're pretty much doing Home PFS, you can have stricter rules on the players and characters you allow. (not to be mistaken with changing the rules, but say you don't feel comfortable GMing for rogues. You can say, "I'm hosting the PFS game at my home; please don't bring your rogue." Same goes for individual players.


Matthew Pittard wrote:

Arestes:

He is right. Organised play is about allowing people of all creeds, personality types etc to meet up and game. If you are feeling uncomfortable about letting this particular person play at your place, then you need to do what you have done already. Apart from flat out telling the guy he isnt welcome at your place, Im not sure what else you can do.. cept of course not advertise on meetup at all and simply communicate behind the scenes on something like say Facebook.

Matthew:

Thank you for the response. I find it frustrating but I understand the policy. Just to give a little background on the situation at issue here, this player was the second GM that I played with at PFS and almost convinced me to never deal with it again. I found him to be very abusive, and incredibly inappropriate (we had a 12 year old kid who had come with his father for his first game, and during part of the adventure where he was RPing as a fence offered to sell the child naked pictures of his mother.)

I know other gms in the area who have adopted a policy of scheduling games on nights when they know he isn't available, but unfortunately I can't run things on those nights.

I suspect I will go ahead and cancel and try to run things purely off the grid as much as possible.

Grand Lodge 3/5

I'd recommend talking to your other regulars and say something along the lines of "hey, I'm going to continue running games at my house, but I don't want it to be open to everyone. If you're interested, let me know and I'll keep you in the loop."

Paizo Employee 4/5 Developer

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Arestes,

In a quick search of the Guide to Pathfinder Organized Play, I did not see anything along the lines of open gaming rules. It may not be in print as a rule, but it's a great guideline for PFS's goal: facilitate and promote Pathfinder gameplay worldwide. The more welcoming we are as a community, the more likely it is that someone will have a chance to try the game and decide that the community is somewhere where he or she might fit in and enjoy a great adventure.

However, there are largely unwritten caveats to this that are important to consider for any store liaison, venture-officer, or volunteer. If an individual is toxic to the experience of the community, it's entirely within your rights to take appropriate action to address the issue. I recommend taking the player aside to discuss the issue in private and establish reasonable expectations for his behavior in a particular setting. That might mean not swearing loudly at a game store, whose owners might be trying to maintain a family-friendly atmosphere. It might mean not browbeating a kid at a table if his actions don't line up with that player's strategic vision. Don't be accusatory; just state what you're seeing as the issue, lay the ground rules, and see if the person's willing to accept. Give him a chance to clean up his act, then be firm in your decision to boot him if he doesn't change.

It's just not worth repeatedly bending over backward to accommodate someone who will scare away other players—especially if the venue is your own home. If you have a local venture-officer, consider chatting with him or her about your grievances; this may not be the first time the issue has come up, and he or she may have some advice that's more targeted for how your region operates. In rare cases, campaign volunteers have banned a repeat troublemaker from participating in PFS at one or more locations. Sometimes that's indefinite, and sometimes it's for several months to give the person time to reconsider his behavior before giving another chance. Sometimes a player cleans up really quickly when he realizes that a host or store liaison is willing to follow through on a ban.

If you're interested in running private games, nothing's stopping you from running private, sanctioned events and enjoying PFS with the same group of friends; for my first six months of Pathfinder Society, that's basically what I did. If you're interested in helping the community to grow and are comfortable hosting strangers in your home, keep advertising publicly.

Best of luck, and thank you for GMing,
John

Liberty's Edge 2/5 *

Arestes: I think the one thing we have to realise is that people are nowhere near as 'self policing' as they used to be. Players might normally play with their same group of friends week after week year after year, hell some people go to conventions with the same group of friends then play in tables with that same group of friends.

When you introduce a new player in the mix, you will get some issues. Its especially evident if that player is perhaps female or quite young, and what seems normal word byplay to those players can be quite offensive.

All gamers start somewhere too. We are not all perfect to start with, so we all deserve some leeway. While we all once (I like to think we did) get told what to do in society, we do get a lot more players come from broken backgrounds where this sorta stuff wasnt taught or was but in completely different aspect.

Im not taking into account mental illnesses here which can cause a player to have episodes (and mental illness are becoming more prevalent). These things as a gm we cant do much about, we have to cope with them.

Im more referring to the stuff like :Not speaking when somebody else is, texting during the game, playing on your laptop when its not your 'turn', turning up late.

When it comes down to it though, you are running a game out of your place and its the most personal place you have. If you arnt comfortable having certain people at your place you need to make this known so everyone is aware of whats going on. Chinese Whispers where some people know, some dont know, some know who shouldnt know and so on do not help anyone.

3/5

I would just organize things through email.

Get the emails of the players you really want to play with and send out emails to organize things.

I agree with the VC that he has the right to set the rules for his own website though. So do not use his tools.


Arestes wrote:


Thanks for all the advice that you can give me

Sincerely,

Arestes

Arestes,

PFS being open and an inclusive social club is great. It's one of the reasons I enjoy playing when I do. However, being open and inclusive doesn't, and shouldn't come at the price of you being uncomfortable in your own home. One person should not stop you from enjoying PFS, and you shouldn't be forced to feel like you need to hide the gatherings for fear of this one person finding out. I trust that everyone involved is a G.A.M/W (Grown Arse Man / Woman). When the guy signs up next, tell him he's not welcome in your home, and if he wants to play with you GMing, he's free to sign up at the local gaming club the next time you run there (if you do). You don't need to cause any drama, just flat out tell the guy what's going on and move on. It's your house, and your time for christsake. You pay for it!

Sovereign Court 5/5 Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Let's have a little hypothetical exercise, guys:

I announce all of my game days on an open forum. Everyone who is a member of the list gets those announcements, and there are hundreds of members. I host my games at my store, as I am a store owner. I recruit GMs from the community and, obviously, the players.

I know of one player who is a member of this list who has a "checkered" past. He has played at card game tournaments where he has made women feel uncomfortable, or he has berated a child who was playing a board game he was in, or he has been in my store on non-PFS days dropping f-bombs over and over despite my repeatedly asking him to stop. I have subsequently added him to my list of "ask this guy to leave when he comes in" style of customers.

Well, guess what: when he replies to my open calls for players, I'm going to reply to him with, "Sorry, but I do not have any space for you."

And there is zero that anyone can do about that, except me.

Arestas, you have full authority to deny access to your home to whomever you want. John Compton's post is very insightful with regards to the nature of PFS but, I'm sorry, he does not hold the keys to your home.

If you don't want someone in your house, even if it's simply because you don't like how he combs his hair, then NO ONE has the right to tell you you have to let him play in your games.

Post your events as your VC is asking. Get players via a public call. But don't in any way feel obligated to invite someone into your home whom you're not comfortable with. And you don't have to justify your reasoning to anyone. Period.

Grand Lodge

The problem seems to center more on the use of the Meetup.com site rather then PFS, as it is well established that the organizer of a venue can ban players from the venue (i.e. your home).

Ultimately the owner of the site (your VC), the Organizer, decides how their site operates; that's how Meetup Support will respond to any complaints.

I think you are left with two options:

1) Explain the venue ban with your Organizer and that this is acceptable by PFS rules. See if they will grant you latitude in the use of their Meetup site. (I wouldn't count on this one, but might be worth trying again with the rules backup you've received from your post here)

2) Organize your PFS sessions via other means, many good ones suggested above. Creating your own Meetup.com group would also be a possibility, then you can set your own rules for how events can or cannot work, and it might even offer opportunities to other PFS event planners in your area who might be chaffing under similar restrictions and wish to join your new Meetup.

4/5

Drogon wrote:
Post your events as your VC is asking. Get players via a public call. But don't in any way feel obligated to invite someone into your home whom you're not comfortable with. And you don't have to justify your reasoning to anyone. Period.

Please do not do this. If you use the site, please respect the rules. If you can not respect the rules please do not use the site.

Doing what Drogon suggests may result in you being banned from the meetup and being unable to use it in any matter.

You have every right to determine who can and can not enter your home. You do not have the right to use another person's website in a manner that you are ask not to use it in.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/5

Arestes wrote:
I have previously spoken with the VC for my area and he has stated that the open play rules means that all sessions advertised through the societies page must be open to all comers.

Speak to the VC, making it clear that you really want to GM PFS sessions, and do it through the central organising point (meetup.com) for the players' convenience (and to give the VC oversight), but that you're not prepared to allow this one antisocial person in your home. I would expect most people would favour an enthusiastic GM over an antisocial player in terms of trying to grow PFS in their area.

Are there any sessions advertised that take place in game stores? What would he do if a game store owner disallowed entry to someone banned from that store (e.g. a known shoplifter)?

Silver Crusade 3/5

Fortunately, there is another way to advertise your event:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderSociety/events

Don't put your address on there, just list an email (maybe even a throw away) address.

You can go from there.

Alternatively, hand out invitations to the players you want to invite when you next attend one of the public events.

Grand Lodge 1/5

Or do what I do sometimes... just tell your friends that you are running a game at your home and it'll be PFS. You simply gather players and then just run the game... and log your results at the end of it.

Also important to note that you re-talk with your VC: There is NO rule stating that you have to invite unwelcome players into your home.

At a paid for convention? In a public area? You have less control - the VC arranges the event, you volunteer to show up and run a table for him, and you take whatever players you get. Nature of the gig.

But your OWN house dude? Even if its on the local forum? He has no say at all. There is no rule that ALL PFS events are open when it comes to a private residence.

The other driving reason for talking to the VC again is to emphasise that this problem player has the ability to hurt the hobby in your area MASSIVELY. Tell him that the last thing as a *registered* VC that he'd want is a news crew hassling him for a story on gaming and sexual harrassment or a story on gaming and the spread of porn to minors etc (sure it was IC rather than real but you think the media will get that nuance?)... If this guy is toxic the VC can boot him and then the player can appeal to the guys who run Society Play for Paizo.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

I'd tell that guy to his face that he isn't allowed in my home and be clear and exact on my reasons.

Sovereign Court 5/5 Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

Jeffrey Fox wrote:
Drogon wrote:
Post your events as your VC is asking. Get players via a public call. But don't in any way feel obligated to invite someone into your home whom you're not comfortable with. And you don't have to justify your reasoning to anyone. Period.

Please do not do this. If you use the site, please respect the rules. If you can not respect the rules please do not use the site.

Doing what Drogon suggests may result in you being banned from the meetup and being unable to use it in any matter.

You have every right to determine who can and can not enter your home. You do not have the right to use another person's website in a manner that you are ask not to use it in.

I guess I'm confused by the nature of this situation.

You want to run PFS out of your home. Your local VC has asked you to use the site he set up for that. He has gone on to insist that you have to allow ANYONE who responds into your home (even, for instance, someone who makes your family uncomfortable). But YOU are the one violating some rule somewhere? I don't get it.

If this has to do with the nature of Meetup, then, yes, you need to use another method and tell your VC that you cannot use his site.

If this has to do with your VC then someone needs to step in and explain to him how a person's right to maintain their home works.

But I cannot fathom, even for a moment, how it is that you should be forced to let someone into your home who you want nothing to do with.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

This us an argument of property.

You own your home and reserve the right to disallow anyone you want into it.

The VC, on the flip side owns their meetup website and sets the inclusive parameters for their property.

If your exclusion of one fellow does not meet their parameters, then they have the right to ask you not to advertise on their meetup.

That being said. Continue dialogue with your VC. Be explicit with your reasoning.

If they aren't willing to allow you to advertise on their site if you insist on excluding this guy, then your recourse is to find another advertising medium or venue.

Grand Lodge 5/5

The VC may "own" the website. As a Meet-up website, they are probably the person paying for it. But the VC is also an official volunteer representative for PFS which is owned by Paizo who pays Mike Brock to oversee the organization. Mike Brock has made it clear that event organizers have the right to ban problem players/GMs from their events. Mike also expects VCs to foster growth of the PFS community and support their local event organizers.

Perhaps you might be able to have a rational discussion with the VC and get them to understand that you want to use the Meet-up site so that you can reach the full local PFS community, yet restrict a certain person from your event because you are well within your rights to do so.

If you can not reach an understanding with your VC and you feel they are limiting the growth of PFS in your area because of it, send a private email to Mike Brock.

The VC is well within their rights to set the terms of use for a Meet-up site they are paying for, but as a VC they answer to Mike Brock too.

The Exchange 5/5

Finlanderboy wrote:

I would just organize things through email.

Get the emails of the players you really want to play with and send out emails to organize things.

I agree with the VC that he has the right to set the rules for his own website though. So do not use his tools.

This is the most logical suggestion. If you know who you ARE comfortable around, contact them and organize your games privately. Many people do it this way. There's no need to have a confrontation with this person or to make your VC's job more difficult. However, you can't have it both ways. Posting games on a public forum creates opportunities for more people to get involved who otherwise wouldn't play. Not all of those people are going to get along.

4/5 5/5 **

Everyone is assuming that the OP has spoken with his VC and informed him/her of the incident in question. That may not be true.

Paradoxically, the more people that witness an event, the less likely it is that it will be reported. Everyone assumes that someone else will do it, and in reality no one does.

If there's a problem player in your community and table-level efforts to correct his behavior aren't working, make sure to report the specific incidents of his behavior to the VC or organizer each and every time. VOs can't be everywhere and witness every game, thus please do not assume that we are omniscient of what occurs at each table. Armed with a list of grievances, we can then decide what to do. If the actions are correctable we can talk to the player in question to give them an opportunity to improve. My policy is to keep all complaints confidential, which I'm confident is shared by most VOs. However, if the grievances are determined to be well across the line then the local ban-hammer can be properly wielded.

We Venture-Officers do not want one bad apple ruining the local PFS communities we work hard to foster, so be sure to bring him to our attention before all the good apples start to leave.

3/5

Doug Miles wrote:
This is the most logical suggestion. If you know who you ARE comfortable around, contact them and organize your games privately. Many people do it this way. There's no need to have a confrontation with this person or to make your VC's job more difficult. However, you can't have it both ways. Posting games on a public forum creates opportunities for more people to get involved who otherwise wouldn't play. Not all of those people are going to get along.

But then the misapplication this open play rule will do what it always does and drive willing DMs into private groups which harms the entire community.

You should email Mike and have him sort things out with the VO to remove the problem player before the exodus from public play becomes necessary.

4/5

Saint Caleth wrote:

But then the misapplication this open play rule will do what it always does and drive willing DMs into private groups which harms the entire community.

You should email Mike and have him sort things out with the VO to remove the problem player before the exodus from public play becomes necessary.

You dont have to invole Mike in everything.

Just dont announce your game on the meetup do as Doug says via email or text, phone whatever. Tat way you get the players you are comfortable with allowing into your home.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

Would it be possible to have a session or two in a public venue? This way you could have a game or two with various people before you make your decision as to which you'd like invited to your home.

Use the VO's website to organize the public event in a public space, then go private (email, text, etc) with the players you want from there.

I think this would be perfectly acceptable and is great common sense--never tell someone you only know online where you live. Meeting them in person might weed out "the weirdos."

Dark Archive 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

I'm gonna go with the dissenting opinion and say "Mike and this VO need to talk about where the line is between inclusiveness and geek social fallacy 1".

There is no PFS rule, no guideline, and no statement that a VO can make that can require EVERYONE be able to come to an event.

Hypothetical example that makes the forumalation of such a rule a non-starter: Store Employee A has a restraining order against Person B. Person B will not be allowed into a public PFS event at the store. Event organizer is aware of this and removes any signups that Person B makes for that event.

Public posting of an event has not been and will hopefully never, ever be a 'contract' to seat all comers, nor will it be a contract to seat in a particular order.

It is, however, a 'contract' that for those players you seat, you will run the game according to the Guide to Organized Play.

5/5

I thought there was a huge dust-up awhile back about this, and basically it was stated that if the event was posted on the Paizo website and listed as open, it had to be inclusive... I don't believe that that would hold muster to something being in someone's private home or listed as a game on another site.

I believe (if I remember right) that Mike stated that if you were holding a game in your home that you could invite anyone you wanted or not invite those you didn't. Keeping in mind that this was in reference to it being a private game at that point and not a public one.

Without knowing specific circumstances past what we were told...

Who says that you have to use the local meet-up group? the VC so that he can keep track of the games played in his area? In my opinion that is overstepping the boundaries of a VO position to insert public practices into a private home setting.

I personally would suggest making your own meet-up site, the VO can be part of it if he wants to keep tabs on it. But then you can deny people that you don't want in your home.

3/5

Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:
I thought there was a huge dust-up awhile back about this, and basically it was stated that if the event was posted on the Paizo website and listed as open, it had to be inclusive... I don't believe that that would hold muster to something being in someone's private home or listed as a game on another site.

That was a different issue involving the player of a synthesist. It resulted in a very narrow and specific ruling about banning content at individual tables beyond what PFS bans, not a blanket rule that the DM has no control over who is at their publicly advertised table.

Don't mis-apply that inclusion ruling to excluding players rather than characters. All that does is drive DMs into private groups and lessen the number and quality of public games. You can absolutely refuse to seat certain people for any reason.

2/5

John Compton wrote:

Arestes,

In a quick search of the Guide to Pathfinder Organized Play, I did not see anything along the lines of open gaming rules. It may not be in print as a rule, but it's a great guideline for PFS's goal: facilitate and promote Pathfinder gameplay worldwide. The more welcoming we are as a community, the more likely it is that someone will have a chance to try the game and decide that the community is somewhere where he or she might fit in and enjoy a great adventure.

However, there are largely unwritten caveats to this that are important to consider for any store liaison, venture-officer, or volunteer. If an individual is toxic to the experience of the community, it's entirely within your rights to take appropriate action to address the issue. I recommend taking the player aside to discuss the issue in private and establish reasonable expectations for his behavior in a particular setting. That might mean not swearing loudly at a game store, whose owners might be trying to maintain a family-friendly atmosphere. It might mean not browbeating a kid at a table if his actions don't line up with that player's strategic vision. Don't be accusatory; just state what you're seeing as the issue, lay the ground rules, and see if the person's willing to accept. Give him a chance to clean up his act, then be firm in your decision to boot him if he doesn't change.

It's just not worth repeatedly bending over backward to accommodate someone who will scare away other players—especially if the venue is your own home. If you have a local venture-officer, consider chatting with him or her about your grievances; this may not be the first time the issue has come up, and he or she may have some advice that's more targeted for how your region operates. In rare cases, campaign volunteers have banned a repeat troublemaker from participating in PFS at one or more locations. Sometimes that's indefinite, and sometimes it's for several months to give the person time to reconsider his behavior before giving another...

This is exactly what I would do. Thanks for your words John. Sometimes it's a good wakeup call for people to change attitudes and habits when their peers no longer want to spend time with them.

5/5

Arestes wrote:
I suspect I will go ahead and cancel and try to run things purely off the grid as much as possible.

This is the straightforward option.

To accomplish all of your goals (Run the Game, Using Meetup, Without that Player), there is really only one option (assuming you've already fully explained your position to the VC):
Write to the player. Simply explain that you're not comfortable having him at your home, and ask for his agreement not to sign up for events at your home. You can add any explanations you want, or not.

In this way, the event is open, but will simply not occur if he signs up.

3/5

Majuba wrote:
Arestes wrote:
I suspect I will go ahead and cancel and try to run things purely off the grid as much as possible.

This is the straightforward option.

To accomplish all of your goals (Run the Game, Using Meetup, Without that Player), there is really only one option (assuming you've already fully explained your position to the VC):
Write to the player. Simply explain that you're not comfortable having him at your home, and ask for his agreement not to sign up for events at your home. You can add any explanations you want, or not.

In this way, the event is open, but will simply not occur if he signs up.

Except that this is the worst possible outcome. The VO needs to deal with that player if his participation in the community is indeed preventing DMs from running games at certain times or at all since they would be forced to seat this player. We should not be cavalier about excluding people, but better to remove one bad apple than lose enthusiastic DMs and events on certain nights.

Deal with the underlying problem instead of giving problem players rulings to hide their bad behavior behind.

5/5

Saint Caleth wrote:
Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:
I thought there was a huge dust-up awhile back about this, and basically it was stated that if the event was posted on the Paizo website and listed as open, it had to be inclusive... I don't believe that that would hold muster to something being in someone's private home or listed as a game on another site.

That was a different issue involving the player of a synthesist. It resulted in a very narrow and specific ruling about banning content at individual tables beyond what PFS bans, not a blanket rule that the DM has no control over who is at their publicly advertised table.

Don't mis-apply that inclusion ruling to excluding players rather than characters. All that does is drive DMs into private groups and lessen the number and quality of public games. You can absolutely refuse to seat certain people for any reason.

Wasn't mis-applying and that's not the one I'm thinking of ... though yours did link to the one I was thinking of... so I wasn't miss-applying anything... The real thread

I think this is more of a corner case, it it kinda falls in with what Mike was saying, however, there are a couple of twists that could say other wise ...

3/5

Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:
Saint Caleth wrote:
Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:
I thought there was a huge dust-up awhile back about this, and basically it was stated that if the event was posted on the Paizo website and listed as open, it had to be inclusive... I don't believe that that would hold muster to something being in someone's private home or listed as a game on another site.

That was a different issue involving the player of a synthesist. It resulted in a very narrow and specific ruling about banning content at individual tables beyond what PFS bans, not a blanket rule that the DM has no control over who is at their publicly advertised table.

Don't mis-apply that inclusion ruling to excluding players rather than characters. All that does is drive DMs into private groups and lessen the number and quality of public games. You can absolutely refuse to seat certain people for any reason.

Wasn't mis-applying and that's not the one I'm thinking of ... though yours did link to the one I was thinking of... so I wasn't miss-applying anything... The real thread

I think this is more of a corner case, it it kinda falls in with what Mike was saying, however, there are a couple of twists that could say other wise ...

Hmm. I didn't remember that first thread. I still don't see any ruling that you have to seat any and everyone who signs up. Only a reiteration of the ruling that a DM of a public game cannot impose rules limits beyond those for PFS as a whole.

There has to be discretion for a less community-destroying solution than just canceling every table that the toxic player signs up for, or scheduling all public games for when he cannot participate.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I wonder where online tables fall in this.

As the GM of the Roll20 table, only those players that I send the table link to get in. I can easily pick and choose who those are.

If my signup is on Warhorn, are there any rules to follow regarding signups? I try to reserve seats for specific people and make sure that people know some seats are already taken.

5/5

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I wonder where online tables fall in this.

As the GM of the Roll20 table, only those players that I send the table link to get in. I can easily pick and choose who those are.

If my signup is on Warhorn, are there any rules to follow regarding signups? I try to reserve seats for specific people and make sure that people know some seats are already taken.

Easiest way for this, if you're not able to add the registrants to the table yourself, then just create the table with fewer seats. i.e. you have 3 seats saved, so only have the Warhorn game offer the 3 seats that are left.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Sniggevert wrote:
Easiest way for this, if you're not able to add the registrants to the table yourself, then just create the table with fewer seats. i.e. you have 3 seats saved, so only have the Warhorn game offer the 3 seats that are left.

And I have done just that on many occasions. :)

5/5

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Sniggevert wrote:
Easiest way for this, if you're not able to add the registrants to the table yourself, then just create the table with fewer seats. i.e. you have 3 seats saved, so only have the Warhorn game offer the 3 seats that are left.
And I have done just that on many occasions. :)

Thinking alike, great minds, all that....you know. =p

Grand Lodge 4/5 ** Venture-Agent, Colorado—Denver

Here's what I did and it was so easy: I posted an announcement on my local community PFS website that I was going to be running a PFS sanctioned adventure path and needed players. After getting several responses, I went through the list and chose 6 people I knew I would enjoy playing with, had experience with the game, and were willing to play a long AP. After contacting the players I wanted in the game, I simply stated to the others that the game was full and they would be contacted if there was an opening in case a current player had to drop out.

Bam! Easy. No one's feelings were hurt that didn't get into the game.

4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to post a few things on some of the topics in this thread with some personal views about what being a VC can do, should, or shouldn't do. These are my personal beliefs and obviously other VC's may disagree.

First no VC can require people to use Meetup to organize their games, and while I've seen people say this VC has I don't see that in the original post. The Original Post reads to me that the OP has to use the meetup group in order to get the players for his game, most likely because that's where all the PFS players in that area look to find games.

Next the VC has no right to tell an organizer who can and not come into their property. At least not in the US anyway.

The VC or any other organizer does have a right to decide who uses or does not use their means of organizing/ advertising. (Meetup, Warhorn, dry erase board). This goes hand in hand with the above.

The bottom line with the last two is that we all need to respect other people's property and the rules they have for the use of that. Even if it's something as simple as a meetup group everyone needs to follow the owners rules if they want to stay apart of the group.

Now the issue with problem Players/GM is not as simple as a lot of people want to make it seem. Let me discuss that for a little bit.

So everyone hears about the offensive, and/or threatening bad player/GM that everyone avoids. We all agree that that person should be gone.

Problem is it's very rarely that black and white.

I had a local player who pretty much liked offending people because he thought that was how social interaction with people worked. He was against political correctness and thought that busting chops was the best way to go about making friends.

That didn't work out well for him.

So a bad player and so I should automatically boot him right? Sorry, you have to at least give the guy a warning. I warned the player and he improved for the next game session at one of the venue's I organize at.

Unfortunately for him he had already pissed players off and didn't have a chance to improve elsewhere before the venue decided to ban him. The player has left PFS now.

Now could the player have improved to a point where he didn't offend people? Possibly. Had I done a better job and warned him earlier that player may not have been lost to PFS. The venue that banned him had to do it because he would have cost the venue business.

Now most people on these forums would say banning him was the right move, and overall it might have been. We'll never know if he could have blossomed into a better player though because he got banned before he had a chance of turning things around.

Next up the area has a GM/Player that some people avoid playing with. I've heard a few complaints about the way he interprets rules at the table. The whole dreaded Table Variance. As a player he can be a bit of a bully at times. In fact before I was a VC I really didn't like playing with him. Though he changed a bit after I became a VC.

So a lot of you think I should toss him because people avoid playing with him?

You see the other side of the coin is that I have equally the number of people that like the way he runs games, and like playing at a table with him. They find his advice helpful and not as off putting as some other players do.

Tossing the guy would lose me more people then I would gain, and would hurt the area in the long haul.

Really the problem player thing isn't always as simple as people make it out to be. Because it's extremely rare that you find a player that is a problem that is universally disliked.

I have GM's that have English as a secondary language and some people want them banned from GMing because it's harder for them to communicate.

It's hard as a VC to know the full impact a problem player will have because a lot of people won't talk to VC's, organizers, or venue owners when they have problems. A lot of people would rather just leave and be quiet. Which means that a problem player won't get addressed.

VC's are only as good as the information the players are giving him, and it's hard for a VC to make an informed decision if only one person complains. Because you never know if it's a real problem or a personal gripe.

Generally if I get a complaint I try and talk to the people who were at the table to figure out what happened and to sort things out, but that can take time. Sometimes I won't hear about things until a week, or month later and then I have to figure out what happened.

Now not all VC's are the same, and imagine some are far better at me at judging problem players and what needs to be done. I tend to lean heavily on the venue owners myself when it comes to dealing with problem players.

But I guess the whole thing I'm trying to convey is that VC's do the best that they can, with the information that they have. And that even in the situation of the problem player and the all inclusive meetup page not everything is black and white simple.

What happens if the the VC allows the OP to ban the player from signing up on meetup and that causes several other players to leave because they think it's unfair?

What happens if other organizers using that site see that as a precedent and start banning people they rather not play with that aren't problem players? What if they start doing that in public places?

They're a lot of ramifications that can happen just because of a simple decision on a problem player, not all of which are good for the health of a community. And banning people is one of those things that can set a community on edge.

Sorry for the short story, I just wanted to try and convey honestly why things aren't always as simple as we all want them to be.

Silver Crusade 4/5

So here is my personal take on it:

So by most laws in the US, your home is your "private domain" which means, by default these games are considered "Private Games". Which mean you get to determine whom is welcome in your home and who is not.

When I was organizing I made it very clear, if you want to run a game at your house and you want to control who is welcome or not, DO NOT, put them on any of our public sites such as Facebook or our Meetup site. If you place it on a *public* site, then it's considered a *public game* regardless of whether it's your house or not. Which means all players (whether you like them or not) are welcome to sign up and attend. If you do not like that, then sorry, consider hosting in a more public place. Or don't host in your home.

This being said...

If there is someone you do not like, and you do not want them in your house, then sorry to say it, but you have to play stealthy a bit and don't use the open community sites. Create your own Warhorn/Meetup (Private Facebook Group is cheaper and faster from my experience) and go from there.

If the player has a beef, they come to you about it and then you can tell them, without dragging an entire community through drama that can be harmful and more frustrating than it is worth. (Although, I am A LOT more direct, and would have spoken to them a long time ago already and let them decide whether they want to get right or not.) \

Although I believe in not being "cliquey" in PFS, I can understand why it comes to pass that way. So long as those players are not being jerks about why they host private sessions, there isn't much I, nor any organizer can go about it.

Edit: BUT BE SURE TO EXPLAIN WHY THIS IS HAPPENING TO YOUR VO. Issues like this need to be dealt with by a higher authority, at no time should players make others feel uncomfortable.

Best of luck to you! May Sarenrae guide your troubled player's path to righteousness.

The Exchange 1/5

Warhorn is another alternative to Meetup for organizing games. You can make your own warhorn site and then you'll have approval of who can register for events there.

1/5

It amazes me that volunteer organizers for a hobby would have the audacity to tell another person who must be admitted into that person's house. I don't think I could take them seriously.

If they didn't host at their own home's, they would be hypocrites. If they did host at their own house, I would go there and party like its 1999.

4/5

Sitri wrote:

It amazes me that volunteer organizers for a hobby would have the audacity to tell another person who must be admitted into that person's house. I don't think I could take them seriously.

If they didn't host at their own home's, they would be hypocrites. If they did host at their own house, I would go there and party like its 1999.

And no VC has said that.

All the mystery VC has said, is don't post exclusive meetup on my website that is for all inclusive meetups.

I find it amazing that people only care about the property rights of the OP and not the property rights of the mystery VC. It's like people think VC's don't have any rights to control their personal property as much as anyone else does.

1/5

I guess it depends on how literal this statement is.

Arestes wrote:


...However, in order to host these sessions I have to use the local societies meet-up.com group in order to advertise these sessions....

Additionally, as someone stated earlier, paid members of Paizo have stated that organizers do have the right to remove problem players.

And yes physical property rights are more important than virtual ones.

I think this mystery VO is speaking way out of his/her pay grade.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Still property rights. Its hypocritical to ignore only one.


Jeffrey Fox wrote:
Sitri wrote:

It amazes me that volunteer organizers for a hobby would have the audacity to tell another person who must be admitted into that person's house. I don't think I could take them seriously.

If they didn't host at their own home's, they would be hypocrites. If they did host at their own house, I would go there and party like its 1999.

And no VC has said that.

All the mystery VC has said, is don't post exclusive meetup on my website that is for all inclusive meetups.

I find it amazing that people only care about the property rights of the OP and not the property rights of the mystery VC. It's like people think VC's don't have any rights to control their personal property as much as anyone else does.

Per Arestes:

Quote:
I have previously spoken with the VC for my area and he has stated that the open play rules means that all sessions advertised through the societies page must be open to all comers.

Seems clear to me what was told to him.

Grand Lodge

Cubic Prism wrote:
Seems clear to me what was told to him.

That he can't use the public site to advertise for a private game?

No one is forcing the OP to host the game in his home, nor are they requiring him to play with the problem player. The VC wants the public site to be used only for public, inclusive games.
Collect players through another means, most likely by privately talking to and/or e-mailing them.

I would hope the OP would still coordinate with the VC, to prevent the same scenario from being run privately, after which not enough players show up for the public event.


Effectively you're saying that the venue can't enforce their own bans on people if they want to take part of the main PFS gathering mechanism. Also lets be honest, if you can't advertise to the main PFS group, you're being treated like a second class member.

If this were a game shop and the person in question were a thief, would this discussion be occurring? There is no difference if Arestes tells the guy he's not welcome in his home, and opens up an invitation for everyone else; or a FLGS saying X person is not welcome, and keeping the doors open for the rest of the local PFS chapter.

Lets not forget that Arestes by all accounts, appears to be a solid member who has not made anyone uncomfortable, been complained about or been kicked from a venue. Yet he's the one who's being put out. The VC and community in general should be more inclusive for his needs, than a problem player that makes inappropriate comments toward children, and ruins first timers experience with PFS. From where I sit, the problem player reaped his reward, and shouldn't expect a frankly ludicrous interpretation of "inclusiveness" to excuse his immanently poor behavior, and force himself into another mans home. Arestes should be supported in his decision to close the doors of his OWN HOUSE to the problem player, yet told in no uncertain terms if he's running a game outside his venue he has no control over who sits at the tables he plays or runs. He's done the correct thing in informing the VC of his concerns and reasons, and taken it a step further and asked the nationwide community for assistance in finding a decent solution to his problem. He's being "inclusive" with everyone else in the PFS chapter, no, rather being inclusive with the entirety of PFS world wide, as he's effectively opened his home for every single PFS member except one player who made him so uncomfortable, that he's not welcome in Arestes house. That is NOT being "UN-Inclusive".

The VC's need to support his decision to not allow a single player into his venue, and not force him to go through back channels to take part in our collective hobby.

Grand Lodge 5/5

Things to take away from this thread:

1. You are advertising the game to the general player base + The game is in a public place = You should not be limiting who can and cannot attend just because you do not like the person in question*

*Certain circumstances may change this. A store can ban individual players, etc. Also, please understand that I mean attending the event, not who can and cant sit at any given table.

2. You are advertising the game to a select few people + The game is in a public place = You CAN limit who can and cannot attend

3. You are advertising the game to a select few people + the game in going to be in a private location (like your home) = you CAN limit who can and cannot attend.

4. You are advertising the game to the general player base + the game is going to be in a private location (like your home) = you CAN limit who can and cannot attend.

/end thread

Silver Crusade 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cubic Prism wrote:

Stuff...

The VC's need to support his decision to not allow a single player into...

Cubic Prism,

There is only so much one can do about people. I understand Artestes position and it really is a sucky one, but leadership can only do so much. ALL communities get that one jerkface player, that despite multiple tellings and even banning, is still a part of a community and still does jerkface things.

I agree, we do need to take more steps to help that jerkface player see the light. But if someone doesn't want them in their house, they have to take necessary steps to do so. Even if that means they have to create their own private settings. I've seen groups do this all the time. I don't agree with it, but sometimes that's the only way to prevent a whole area from rioting over decisions that are made.

Example: I had a friend, whose PFS organizer told them that they are not welcome to a game day due to their rude behavior. This person actually, was not a bad person, and apparently it was a misunderstanding on all sides. But instead of handling it privately, they went onto our public space and the entire community backlashed on it, many supporting the player that was kicked out because no one knew the whole story and did not find the problem. So it turned into this ten day drama fest about whether or not they could return to the community, which is way worse than talking to them privately. So you have to be careful about how you navigate problem players.

While we strive to be inclusive in all matters of things, sometimes that cannot be possible. The beauty of PFS, is that it can be just as exclusive and inclusive as peeps want it. Our online community, runs completely private and they control their own games, locations and links. So if we say one group in real life gets one thing, versus another group its all bad.

Sovereign Court 5/5 Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

I'm going to re-introduce the store situation:

I announce on a public venue (one run by my local VC, set up at the behest of Paizo staff). I do this because I am the largest PFS organizer in the state, running around 200 games per year.

As a store owner, I have the right to deny any particular individual entrance to my store. So long as I am not violating a state or federal law when I deny that person entrance, THIS IS MY RIGHT.

What I am seeing above is that, if I intend to deny someone entrance to my store, I should pull out of the public announcement venue set up by the local VC and Paizo. Losing my 200 games worth of players by splitting them off of their player-base would be pretty detrimental to the other dozen stores that organize games on that site, don't you think?

People's insistence on maintaining the rights of the public cannot override my own rights as a proprietor. This discussion is starting to break down into just that, and needs to be refocused.

1 to 50 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / GM Discussion / Issue with a problem player and VC's open gaming policy All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.