In reaction to this, I have decided to write a list of house rules that, from now on, are in effect for any Pathfinder game I GM. The players will be given this list before all games, and must agree to it for me to GM. Here they are:
.
.
.
.
The players will accept that Pathfinder is a collaborative game, and will not try to "beat" the GM. Likewise, the GM will accept the same, and will not try to "beat" the players. The GM and players will work together so that everybody may enjoy the game.
The players will not overturn GM decisions.
The GM and the players will not yell at each other, nor will players yell at other players.
If we cannot find a rule within 30 seconds, the GM makes one up and the rule is looked up after the game.
Barbarians, monks, and druids do not have alignment restrictions.
Paladins may be of any Good alignment. If a paladin chooses not the be Lawful Good, they will be given an alternate code of conduct and switch out a few spells. The GM will write this code of conduct and decide which spells to add and remove. The same applies to anti-paladins and Evil alignments.
A paladin or anti-paladin can switch from one Good/Evil alignment to another, but the GM considers this a major character change requiring the character to change deities. How this works is that the character loses class abilities as if she had fallen, and then most choose a new deity and follow the code of conduct of a paladin/anti-paladin of that deity until leveling up, at which point she regains her class abilities and is now a paladin/anti-paladin of that deity.
There is no atonement spell. Things that would normally require it are handled via RP instead.
The GM is the final arbiter of all alignment issues.
When gaining a level, a character may roll HP or simply choose to take the average HP for their hit die instead.
XP are not used. The GM decides when the party levels up.
The GM has the authority to disallow unreasonable character builds, but will use this authority only when the build is severely unbalancing or does not fit the campaign setting. The GM will make an effort to allow player choice.
The GM will roll all bluff, diplomacy, disguise, perception, sleight of hand, sense motive, and stealth checks behind the screen so as to conceal the result from the players. The GM may also choose to do the same with other skill checks or saving throws if the GM has a reason to wish to conceal the result. The GM will not abuse this power, and will only conceal those rolls when she has a specific reason to do so.
If you wish to argue about something the GM did, do so outside of the game or do not do so at all.
Taking actions back is only allowed if the GM makes a mistake or is unclear about something.
If the players get into an argument over party treasure, the GM may decide who gets what. Otherwise, the players split the treasure, not the GM.
If a player wishes to use homebrew or third party content, the GM will review it to see if it is balanced and fits the campaign. The GM is the final arbiter as to whether or not such materiel is acceptable.
The GM may disallow core content if it is unbalancing or does not fit the campaign setting, but will use this power only when necessary.
If the GM wishes to use campaign specific house rules, she will provide a list to the players at the beginning of the campaign.
Does this seem reasonable?
Yes it is also for non lawful pallies the 3.x book Unearthed Arcana has the varients for CG LE if you need help with those codes of conduct.
|
There are only minor (trivial) differences between that list and the rules I use.
The only notable thing I add is: If it's in the interest of making a cool character concept work, abilities can be re-flavored and feats can be invented to fill gaps. (EDIT: But only if it is necessary to make the character fit with the normal power level of a character. Or exist at all, in the case of really odd concepts.)
Most of the "keep the players in line" rules I don't really use because my players keep themselves in line. Having a good group is nice like that.
I added one more rule.
If a player wishes to use homebrew or third party content, the GM will review it to see if it is balanced and fits the campaign. The GM is the final arbiter as to whether or not such materiel is acceptable.
The GM should probably be reviewing any content to see if it is balanced and fits the campaign :P (in my experience the core publishers have a terrible tendency to put out a lot of 'slightly underpowered' stuff and just a little bit of overpowered stuff.
Good point. The point of that specific rule is to allow PCs to bring homebrew and third party stuff to the table (which is something I do wish to allow) without unbalancing things.
Another new rule:
The GM may disallow core content if it is unbalancing or does not fit the campaign setting, but will use this power only when necessary.
|
I added one more rule.
If a player wishes to use homebrew or third party content, the GM will review it to see if it is balanced and fits the campaign. The GM is the final arbiter as to whether or not such materiel is acceptable.
You should extend this to any and all content. If someone wants to play an Inquisitor, Gunslinger or Magus it's just as important for the GM to be familiar with that class' abilities, in order to make fair rulings and to pre-empt player mistakes.
The rule about Lawful and Chaotic alignments was actually supposed to be less restrictive by removing issues of tradition and community from Lawful characters. It's also supposed to define things clearly to prevent alignment arguments from breaking out.
You should extend this to any and all content. If someone wants to play an Inquisitor, Gunslinger or Magus it's just as important for the GM to be familiar with that class' abilities, in order to make fair rulings and to pre-empt player mistakes.I added one more rule.
If a player wishes to use homebrew or third party content, the GM will review it to see if it is balanced and fits the campaign. The GM is the final arbiter as to whether or not such materiel is acceptable.
I just added another rule to cover that, and rewrote the first rule.
There's nothing wrong with the rule Kelsey, it's just now how I tend to view alignment (for example I currently have a Lawful Evil mercenary type who has very little respect for the laws of the land but has a very lawful state of mind and way of life in regards to people around him.)
Eh. I'm thinking about rewriting it, anyway. How about:
The GM is the final arbiter of all alignment issues.
That allows flexibility while preventing alignment arguments, which are a massive problem in the games I've played. I'm willing to listen to and talk with the players about things, but I'm thinking alignment is one place where I should be able to say "This is how it is. Period.".
Fantastic!
I use most of these myself. (I do agree that the alignment restriction is particularly strict, but it's your game and I would be willing to adhere to it, were I a player)
I don't know your players, but I'd be careful with the Paladin restriction. It may lead to some players trying to "scoot" across alignments with their characters. But if the "ex-paladin" code is the same, and you penalize players for breaking their edicts it should be fine. (I assume you were, in any case I was clarifying for myself xD)
Your rules are good.
Fantastic!
I use most of these myself. (I do agree that the alignment restriction is particularly strict, but it's your game and I would be willing to adhere to it, were I a player)I don't know your players, but I'd be careful with the Paladin restriction. It may lead to some players trying to "scoot" across alignments with their characters. But if the "ex-paladin" code is the same, and you penalize players for breaking their edicts it should be fine. (I assume you were, in any case I was clarifying for myself xD)
A paladin could switch from one Good alignment to another, but I consider it a major character change requiring the paladin to change deities. How this works is that the paladin loses class abilities as if she had fallen, and then most choose a new deity and follow the code of conduct of a paladin of that deity until leveling up, at which point she regains her paladin powers and is now a paladin of that deity.
I agree that I wrote the alignment restriction a little strict. I changed it to:
The GM is the final arbiter of all alignment issues.
Personally, I don't think I would enjoy playing in your game.
First, you are overly controlling about what players do and don't. Some of what you describe as an abritrary decision is really none of your business. Any table top game is a colaborative effort. Second, if you don't use xp and just decide when someone levels, there is no common way to equate xp across multiple characters.
I added two more rules:
A paladin or anti-paladin can switch from one Good/Evil alignment to another, but the GM considers this a major character change requiring the character to change deities. How this works is that the character loses class abilities as if she had fallen, and then most choose a new deity and follow the code of conduct of a paladin/anti-paladin of that deity until leveling up, at which point she regains her class abilities and is now a paladin/anti-paladin of that deity.
There is no atonement spell. Things that would normally require it are handled via RP instead.
(I dislike the atonement spell. It's always felt sort of like selling indulgences to me. I'd rather replicate it's effects via RP.)
In reaction to this, I have decided to write a list of house rules that, from now on, are in effect for any Pathfinder game I GM. The players will be given this list before all games, and must agree to it for me to GM. Here they are:
.
.
.
.** spoiler omitted **...
Now that's the way to GM. Love your rules they seem to be open minded, fast paced, support roleplay, and help mechanically balance the game. You're doing nothing wrong.
Personally, I don't think I would enjoy playing in your game.
First, you are overly controlling about what players do and don't.
Which things are too controlling?
Some of what you describe as an abritrary decision is really none of your business.
No such thing. I've been accepting that argument from my players, and I wish I hadn't.
Any table top game is a colaborative effort.
Rule 2 covers that.
Second, if you don't use xp and just decide when someone levels, there is no common way to equate xp across multiple characters.
I'm fine with that. I prefer leveling every 8-11 fights and keeping all the characters equal.
A paladin could switch from one Good alignment to another, but I consider it a major character change requiring the paladin to change deities. How this works is that the paladin loses class abilities as if she had fallen, and then most choose a new deity and follow the code of conduct of a paladin of that deity until leveling up, at which point she regains her paladin powers and is now a paladin of that deity.
I agree that I wrote the alignment restriction a little strict. I changed it to:
The GM is the final arbiter of all alignment issues.
Ooooh, that's nice. I'll have to use that as well! Thank you, good luck with your game :D.
The GM is the final arbiter of all alignment issues.
All you need is "The GM will make sure its vision of Alignment is clear from the get go" and there won't be any issues ;)
But otherwise, the GM is the final arbiter on rule resolution by definition. That includes alignment issues as yet another part of the rulebook.
As for the rest, most of it is simply proper gaming etiquette rather than houserules per say.
XP are not used. The GM decides when the party levels up.
Make sure everyone is OK with this one. For some this means liberation from the XP system, for others it means being caught in a GM's tyranny.
The GM will roll all bluff, diplomacy, disguise, perception, sleight of hand, sense motive, and stealth checks behind the screen so as to conceal the result from the players. The GM may also choose to do the same with other skill checks or saving throws if the GM has a reason to wish to conceal the result. The GM will not abuse this power, and will only conceal those rolls when she has a specific reason to do so.
Players like to roll their dice and frankly, I can't blame them for that. Make yourself a cross-referenced chart (or two, or three) ranging from 1 to 20, distributed randomly. Have the player roll, cross reference the player's result on your chart (his 15 is a 3 on your chart, or her 7 is actually a 19) and get the best of both worlds: players get to roll their destiny and yet ignore the (real) result of their roll.
'findel
I read through your previous thread. I have a few suggestions.
I recently GM'd for an 8 player party and had no disruptive behavior.
Here are a few of my rules for not being overwhelmed as a GM:
1) Consequences for disruptive behavior (behavior is disruptive if it actively detracts from fun at the table for players and/or GM) as well as PvP oriented behavior (insults or actions that would constitute grounds for a duel in character as well as harmful actions taken against fellow players.) are as follows:
- 1st warning: Your character is threatened by something that is going to hurt you. (I would suggest an advanced template x2 gaintx3 gryph, which makes them pregnant, causing sickness, followed by giving birth several (1d4) minutes later. Or look at whatever their worst save is and find a monster or spell trap that would make them go 'oh s8&%!' but not kill them.)
- 2nd warning: You must roll up and complete a new character before continuing the session. This does not mean I am killing your character, see third warning.
- 3rd warning: I kill your character in a horrible and arbitrary way (as is my right as the GM, arbitor of the game) and you MUST play the character you rolled up during your second warning.
- 4th warning: leave the table, you are not welcome here. This rule must be agreed to before you are allowed to play at my table.
2) (super important if you haven't read all the rules) For every feat and class ability, you must provide a book and page number reference. The first time you use this ability, you must opent he book and read aloud wheat it does and allow the DM to look it over for exceptions and conditions of use. This will usually stop most 'broken' things from happening in your game, as the developers are more clever than munchkins give them credit for. It also promotes creative problem solving because now everyone at the table knows how an ability a party member has works, and can make creative suggestions during play.
3) All content in (the books I have read within pathfinder) (which for me is all of them, but it might just be the core for you, which is okay.) is allowed. Classes, spells, archetypes and feats from other sources must be approved by Me on a point by point basis, subject to my discretion due to your particular build.
Note: I have said strait up that I am not going to allow certain feats because I don't want to have to think about them when running my game and designing encounters, and for no other reason, not even for balance considerations. If a player argues or calls names, they can either receive a warning (congrats, its a boy) or leave my table.
4) The GM is the final arbitor of the game, by definition. As such, every one of my decisions is going to be arbitrary, both for and against you. I am here to tell a story and provide challenges to overcome. I want to see you triumph at the end of the day, but I am not here to make it easy for you, and neither, by intentional design, are the rules. So no whining. If a rule is uninteresting to myself, the players, and the story I am telling, I am going to ignore it. (for me, tracking rations and non-magical projectile weapon ammunition sounds like a chore) I am here to craft a story about heroic adventurers. It is your job as a player to figure out why you would work with the other player characters, and why they are a heroic adventurer, you can do both of these things, or you can leave my table.
5) Stat generation will be handled by rolling 3d6 12 times and keeping the highest 6 results.
(This method creates characters that are halfway between average joe the dirt farmer and hercules the demigod. Heroic but relatable characters. Make them roll in plain view of yourself and other players if you do not know them well.)
------------------------------------
I GM'd my first session for a party of 8 player characters last tuesday. I laid down the law in the weeks preceding the adventure, repeating myself ad nauseum. It worked. Everyone was excellent to each other and to me. 9 of us sat at the same table and all of us had fun. The only issue with 8 people was OOC chatter, but I plan on bringing a "focus ball" next session. A squishy ball that means it is the holder's turn to talk and everyone else has to be quiet and pay attention, but thats more of a brainstorming session technique and less of a house rules type deal. I would also recommend starting players off at level 1, so that they earn every level and thus, every spell, feat and ability.
It doesn't matter if you use XP or not. There is nothing in Pathfinder that penalizes XP, no is XP required for item crafting anymore. Its sole use is to level up.
And the GM has always decided when your character levels up. Either just by saying when to do it, or by controlling how much XP your characters got through encounter design. The only real reason to retain XP is so your players have a gauge to go by - they can see just how close they are to leveling up again. They won't have to ask "When can we level up again?"
(Personally, I prefer XP. But then again, I have no problems giving out bonus XP to individuals, nor do I have a problem with players being different levels.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I don't think I would enjoy playing in your game.
First, you are overly controlling about what players do and don't. Some of what you describe as an abritrary decision is really none of your business. Any table top game is a colaborative effort. Second, if you don't use xp and just decide when someone levels, there is no common way to equate xp across multiple characters.
You haven't seen the DM's players. They need a firm hand, and I really hope this works out.
The GM is called the Game Master for a reason. It is because she is the master of the game, and makes the decisions. The players may express opinions or advice about these decisions, and the GM will listen so long as the game is not being unduly interrupted, but the GM has the final word. The players will accept this.
This is a given to me.
The players will accept that Pathfinder is a collaborative game, and will not try to "beat" the GM. Likewise, the GM will accept the same, and will not try to "beat" the players. The GM and players will work together so that everybody may enjoy the game.
In essence, this is what you're trying to do each time you play. The GM sets up the world and the characters, hopefully, knock it down.
If we cannot find a rule within 30 seconds, the GM makes one up and the rule is looked up after the game.
This is actually good. I hate it when it's taken an hour for a single round to go by.
XP are not used. The GM decides when the party levels up.
The character level/challenge rating system is a good one, I think. To accomplish this and it not feel broken, I would see it increasing your work load dramatically. Otherwise, it'll be a bit late for the group to TPK-ed only to realize they *should* have been 2 or 3 levels higher than they were.
The GM has the authority to disallow unreasonable character builds, but will use this authority only when the build is severely unbalancing or does not fit the campaign setting. The GM will make an effort to allow player choice.
Fine, if it doesn't fit the campaign setting but as far as I've seen no build is "unreasonable" as long as RAW is followed.
The GM will roll all bluff, diplomacy, disguise, perception, sleight of hand, sense motive, and stealth checks behind the screen so as to conceal the result from the players. The GM may also choose to do the same with other skill checks or saving throws if the GM has a reason to wish to conceal the result. The GM will not abuse this power, and will only conceal those rolls when she has a specific reason to do so.
Unless you're completely ditching the ability to take 10/20 or are only rolling for combat or in dire/dramatic situations I don't see this really working. Remember each player should have their character pre-loaded in their head. What one character would take exceptional notice to might bore another. How are you going to keep those differences straight in your head? Not to mention the various buffs/debuffs that a character can receive to skills is huge and varying based on class, race, etc and can often change based on the context. For example, are you going to just roll a blanket spellcraft, I know, not one you listed but as an example I'm familiar with, check and ask for their spellcraft check number when really they're identifying an item and therefore get a bonus to said specific use of spellcraft? If not, you're going to be shortchanging your play group. It sounds to me that you're going to be micromanaging everyone's player sheets and just giving them the chance to roll attacks. You'd have an easier job prebuilding all the characters, including doing level ups yourself, and just hand out sheets when the group plays and assign characters to their players. That'd be much less hassle, actually.
The GM may disallow core content if it is unbalancing or does not fit the campaign setting, but will use this power only when necessary.
Again, as long as it doesn't fit the campaign I'd be fine playing with this rule but otherwise it's only be "unbalancing" if the mod itself was also equally imbalanced.
Anything I didn't comment on I either agreed with or was more "meh" about and don't particularly care one way or the other. Overall good job just think about the ramifications. Cheers.
|
My biggest problem with your rule is Is your interpretation of Game Master. Do not confuse Game Master to mean god. You would be better to think of Game Master in the form of a Master Craftsperson, and ideally a Master Bard.
I have been playing RPGs for over 30 years and use many of the same house rules you listed. The tone of your rules has You coming off as a Lawful Evil GM and your players will grow tired of this very quickly.
A GM should never impose his or her will on a party decision such as who should get a certain Magic item. This is the same thing as a referee in football telling the quarterback who he can pass to. A good GM stays out of the parties way whenever possible.
My biggest problem with your rule is Is your interpretation of Game Master. Do not confuse Game Master to mean god. You would be better to think of Game Master in the form of a Master Craftsperson, and ideally a Master Bard.
I have been playing RPGs for over 30 years and use many of the same house rules you listed. The biggest problem I see is the tone of your rules. You come off as a Lawful Evil GM and your players will grow tired of this very quickly.
A GM should never impose his or her will on a party decision such as who should get a certain Magic item. This is the same thing as a referee in football telling the quarterback who he can pass to. A good GM stays out of the parties way whenever possible.
The issue is that the PCs have been overruling my decisions and beating me in almost every rule argument, even when I am right, and this has to stop. That's why I'm saying that the Game Master's rulings are final. I'm tired of the PCs overruling me. For example, I refused to allow the APG playtest because I hadn't read it. They overruled me and made me allow it. That needs to stop. I told them that a monk-dipped sorcerer cannot use flurry of blows with spells. I got overruled. I want to work with the players, but there need to be clearly defined rules. I've tried playing without them, and it isn't working. I don't want to be Lawful Evil GM, but I'm tired of getting walked all over.
As for the magic item thing, according to my rules the party splits the treasure, not the GM, unless there is a fight over something, in which case the GM can intervene and decide who gets what is being fought over. This is because we have a lot of very nasty fights over treasure.
If you're dead set on continuing to play with the... 'players'... you spoke of in your previous thread, I have my doubts about their ability to stick to the first few house rules in your list, especially the ones about shouting. Having said that, though, I'd refuse to continue play without them all agreeing and sticking to the entire list, or at least the ones about conduct at the table.
For the most part, they are quite reasonable - pretty much all of the non-mechanical rules there are usually taken for given at my tables, with maybe a bit of leniency on the 'rules lookup timer'. The only rule that makes me even a little bit titchy is getting the DM involved in the distribution of treasure; the only way I'd get involved in that as a DM is if I had an NPC there when they were divvying it out.
The only other house rule we use to keep the game going is a timer on how long your turn at combat goes. If a player's stalling on what to do with their round, I start whistling the 'final jeopardy' theme, and if they haven't given me something by then, their character delays until they figure out something to do.
To clarify a point for you Kelsey, since you presented it in a way with multiple potential interpretations, please allow me to rephrase. (if you're referencing yet another character rather than the one I believe please correct me)
I told them that an Arcane Archer can't use the Imbue Arrow ability to cast a spell for every attack in a full attack action. I got overruled.
What was worst about that incident was that the monk/sorcerer/arcane archer wanted to use imbue arrow and flurry of blows at the same time.
XP are not used. The GM decides when the party levels up.The character level/challenge rating system is a good one, I think. To accomplish this and it not feel broken, I would see it increasing your work load dramatically. Otherwise, it'll be a bit late for the group to TPK-ed only to realize they *should* have been 2 or 3 levels higher than they were.
The thing is, XP has absolutely no bearing on that whatsoever. Level/CR is completely independent of XP. You choose a CR based on the level of the party and the effects you want while taking into consideration how the enemy's capabilities dissect with the party. Boom, done.
XP has nothing to do with choosing opposition.
It does actually. XP = level, average level = CL, CL/CR balance is crucial. She is going to have a hell of a time keeping this in balance as CR often determines xp and loot. I can easily see a situation where the party is getting their butts wooped because they're fighting an ecounter where the GM "forgot" to announce a level up or two previously. XP provides a pretty fair way to mark for the party when it's time to level up. All the GM has to worry about is how much XP is awarded. It should be the job of the player to track when their character levels up and to perform those changes when it's time. A consistent group should always be the same level, assuming they each go through every encounter together and get XP for it. That said, awarding XP is also a nice way to reward players for exceptional roleplay. I've always felt good at the end of the night being told to add an additional couple hundred XP for how I handled myself in a previous situation. That's a very good way to actually enforce good behavior.
Kyrt, I can see what you're saying and it would be very unlikely in a planned module where there is a pre-established difficulty curve and preplanned encounters. However, I've also rolled characters for ad-hoc style play where the GM flips through the beastiaries and chooses the enemies pretty much then and there just a few minutes before the session. I'm just saying that if the mental perception of the GM has the party at one place and they forget, because, hey, we're also micromanaging loot and skill checks among everything else a GM already does and can easily forget because they're only human, to announce a level up then the party is being gimped. Is it intentional? Not saying it is.
As I ended my post, my entire goal was simply stating "be careful." The rules she has will increase her workload, of that I have no doubt. With the overall intent being to have a good play experience, IF this scenario were to happen it would run exactly counter to that goal. The rulebooks are there with the intent of providing a game setting where rules and balance have already been established. So, with any broad-strokes changes there are always going to be unforseen consequences. I believe Kelsey wants to have a good play experience. As I said and all I am saying is: be careful.
There is a lot of stuff in here at the beginning that isn't really a house rule... It is how the game works both by RAW and RAI. This is also packed with house rules that pretty much everyone uses and are generally widely accepted, like the rule about making something up if the real rule can't be quickly located, the HP rule, and rolls in secret as examples.
I love the alignment changes.
If the players get into an argument over party treasure, the GM may decide who gets what. Otherwise, the players split the treasure, not the GM.
This is the only place you seem to be overstepping your position. It would be better if you simply encourage them to come up with a way to decide if they can't... like a die toss for example.
If a player wishes to use homebrew or third party content, the GM will review it to see if it is balanced and fits the campaign. The GM is the final arbiter as to whether or not such materiel is acceptable.
I would advise a probational period for any 3rd party material you end up accepting. Trust me, it is real easy not to see what makes something broken until your players are using it. You can then ban it after use if it proves unbalancing. I would allow a limited character rebuild for anyone using such a 3rd party rule that later gets banned.
In reaction to this, I have decided to write a list of house rules that, from now on, are in effect for any Pathfinder game I GM. The players will be given this list before all games, and must agree to it for me to GM. Here they are:.
.
.
.** spoiler omitted **...
I remember your previous thread... made me shudder. Also made me thankful for my players. Your houserules seem very reasonable to me (and pretty familiar as well). I do use xp, but other than that it's pretty much how / what I do (and I've been DMing since 1975). You may lose a player or two and if you do, it's probably for the best. You and the remaining players are better off. Good luck.
some rules
All in all, your rules are fine. Most of them, I consider to be inherent to human decency. Your rules read like a write up of proper table courtesy.
I disagree mildly with the alignment interpretation, but as a GM, its ultimately your call.
|
|
In reaction to this, I have decided to write a list of house rules that, from now on, are in effect for any Pathfinder game I GM. The players will be given this list before all games, and must agree to it for me to GM. Here they are:
You do know that most of your "houserules" are actually pretty much already written in the book, and that all mentions about the GM having the power to do X are both The Most and the N°1 Rules of Pathfinder (or any other game involving players and a game master) ?
Please never present the "GM has X power" rules as "houserules" to new players, really. They will either see this as a weakness if they are dicks, or a lack of authority and knowledge of the system if they aren't. Any "GM has the authority to/the last word when/may do X" rules are not houserules, they are the oldest and toughest RAW you can find in you d12 x3 Core Rulebook. Please remember what the guide I wrote said.
-> Running campaigns without XP is great. It spares time for everyone and makes the game more than a grindmeat.
-> I'm not too much for Paladins with different alignements. I'm for the paladin players to play their alignements with a bit less sticks in the ass. But like you said, not so much of an issue.
So, your rules are way more than reasonable since they barely change how the game should be played.
I suppose I need to explain some things. The obey me part is there because the players keep overturning me every time I make a decision. For example, I ruled the monk/sorcerer/arcane archer cannot use flurry of blows and imbue arrows at the same time to cast a flurry of spells through a bow. They overruled me and did it anyway. They have done things like this multiple times. It needs to stop.
The rule timer is there because we spend more time looking stuff up then playing, then the players just ignore the rule they looked up.
The yelling needs to be specified, as my players scream at me every time I do something they don't like or they get a bad dice roll.
The paladin rules are there to prevent paladins from changing alignments in a carefree manner. Ever notice that the paladin code of conduce is much more than just LG? It's the same with NG and CG. Paladins don't just have alignments, they are exemplars of that alignment, and changing it should be seen as a very major thing.
XP is just a matter of preference.
Rolling rolls for them is done because those specific rolls are for things the players should not know the result of. For example, when a perception check is necessary, I don't want the player to know if they see nothing because they failed or because nothing was there. Same with sense motive and everything else on that list.
No arguments at the table. It's all we ever do, and it's incredibly disruptive.
I put the rule about GM being able to intervene in treasure fights because that is another big issue we have. The PCs do not want to share with each other and keep coming up with arguments about why they should have most or all of the treasure, and I need to be able to step in and break it up.
I don't have issues with unbalancing core stuff, either. That rule is in there just in case something comes up later on.
In reaction to this, I have decided to write a list of house rules that, from now on, are in effect for any Pathfinder game I GM. The players will be given this list before all games, and must agree to it for me to GM. Here they are:You do know that most of your "houserules" are actually pretty much already written in the book, and that all mentions about the GM having the power to do X are both The Most and the N°1 Rules of Pathfinder (or any other game involving players and a game master) ?
Please never present the "GM has X power" rules as "houserules" to new players, really. They will either see this as a weakness if they are dicks, or a lack of authority and knowledge of the system if they aren't. Any "GM has the authority to/the last word when/may do X" rules are not houserules, they are the oldest and toughest RAW you can find in you d12 x3 Core Rulebook. Please remember what the guide I wrote said.
True, but I keep getting told that I don't have the power to do X and that if the GM is outvoted she must do what the PCs want, and I want to make it clear from the get go that I've had it with that. It should be common knowledge, but it doesn't seem to be with my players.
|
|
Hence the guide for any GM and Player that should be read before any game ; but you are right on willing to insist on your intentions so they don't fall into deaf ears. Better said clearly and definitely several times than once. You should just separate GM rules from campaign and mechanics changes for clarity then.