Difference between game design and dungeon mastering

It seems that many of the posters are so accustomed to looking at things from the point of view of DM that they are unable to change their perspective to that of a game designer.

A DM when confronted with a player who tries something which is certainly "broken", unfair, unrealistic etc either uses "Rule 0" and forbids it outright, creates a homerule forbidding it, or invents or deduces some balancing factor. Eg when the player abuses planar binding, DM can either forbid it or allow eg a friend or a master of the bound creature to attack player, or some other tactic. Similarly, when the player tries to "rule-lawyer" an imprecisely worded rule to his benefit, DM interprets in the balanced fashion, not troubling too much about the exact wording.

Unfortunately, when the same problems are mentioned here on the forum, most of the answers are EXACTLY THE SAME as if they were answers of a DM to the player in the game. Unfortunately, this is a completely wrong attitude. Since the aim of Pathfinder is to create better, new rules, the posters should look at the rules from the point of view of game designers, not of DMs.

Accordingly, when we see some rule that can be expoited, the answer "DM can rule in such a way as to neutralize the exploit" is all right were DMing or advicing the DM, but not when designing and playtesting the rules. In fact, such an attitude makes the playtest useless, since it does not report the potential problems, which have been avoided thanks to DM. The better reaction would be:

1) Note the problematic rule, the problem posed by it, and the solution used by DM.
2) propose either change in the rule, to make the DM intervention unnecessary, or
3) if in some case such a change would be either impossible or too casuistic, propose some advice for DMs how to solve the problems posed by the rule (Such advice to be part of the rulebook).

The rulebook should be enough to DM, without the necessity of searching for obscure posts on Internet or creating rules on the spot. Additionately, when something is clearly mentioned in the rulebook, it serves to avoid the potential conflict between DM and players, since the problem has been solved by an independed authority.

Unfortunately, this is a completely wrong attitude.

Step back for a minute.

As much as we've had posters "hiding behind rule zero," we've had posters making declarations about how to think. You have good points in this post, but by couching them in these terms you force me to choose between agreeing with you and maintaining my own freedom of choice.

In future, you might avoid such declarations. Your points are good and stand on their own.

Anyway, DMing is actually several different activities lumped under one title. Adventure writing, player management, balancing the challenge. In some sense, all DMs do a little bit of game design, in the form of balancing a challenge every session to make it fun. This has process has different criteria than the process of creating a ruleset from scratch, surely.

DMs are also the primary users of the product. If enough of them say "it's alright paizo, we can handle some obvious abuses through rule 0, no need to spell it out for us..." then it would be foolish to go ahead and ignore them, gut the system anyway just to make the rules "complete". Then we end up with the equivalent of that stupid MS word paperclip: annoyingly trying to help us with tasks we already knew how to do.

The rulebook should be enough to DM, without the necessity of searching for obscure posts on Internet or creating rules on the spot. Additionately, when something is clearly mentioned in the rulebook, it serves to avoid the potential conflict between DM and players, since the problem has been solved by an independed authority.

I would say "Yes, but...".

Personally, I think some rules can be improved by leaving more things up to the DM, not less. For instance, I'd like to see a Gate spell where it's up to the DM whether the intended subject comes through the gate and whether he/she/it is in a good mood. That turns it from a supercharged version of Summon Monster IX into something more interesting (IMO).

I'll agree with the OP - there is a big difference between 'A DM can just houserule it' and 'A DM should just houserule it'.

Most of the rules we've been talking about aren't things that a DM should have to houserule. They should be very clear. For example, the bonded item rule is, in my opinion, completely opaque. I could see it being interpreted as a wizard can have the bonded object cast any spell in his spellbook that he could have prepared that day, to cast any spell that he had prepared that day (whether he has already cast it or not) or to cast any spell that he currently has prepared (and therefore uncast).

Now, of course a DM can just houserule it. The DM can houserule anything. That statement is obvious to the point of being pointless to mention. As 'Rule 0' it is implied from the beginning. However, when DMs have no choice but to choose an interpretation that they think is best, there will be many different interpretations.

This is a problem when a player is playing in 'organized play', and it can be a problem when the Player and the DM disagree. The game is supposed to be fun, and while the DM is the 'authority', since he is likely playing with friends he probably doesn't want to appeal to his authority. "It's this way because I say it is" is hardly satisfying for the DM or the Player. How much better to say "This is the way it is because this was the way the rule was intended - here's how I came to that conclusion".

How much better to say "We're using the rule the way it is written. It clearly says that it is to be used in this way".

So, the OP is right. Everyone can think what they'd like. They can even say what they like. It is absolutely an open playtest. But to say 'The DM can just houserule it' is 1) obvious and 2) not helpful.

Since most of us on these boards are experienced DMs it is easy to fall into the trap of 'I'll just do it this way'. You're free to do that, but you're forgetting about the less experienced DMs or the less confident DMs that don't consider that to be an option. Finding out what you changed and why can lead to the designers to change it in line with your change (sort of a 'best practice') or to clarify their intent. In a playtest, that is what we should want to see.