|
There seems to be a rash of questions here on the boards questioning not only the various Pathfinder rules (e.g., skill ranks don't make sense), but the quality of the content (with subtle threats to stop purchasing Paizo products), interpretation of minor rules (can one see eyeballs glowing), or even the flavor of their games (e.g., paladins and using non-deities as the source of their power).
Now, I can understand wanting an answer for organized play ala the Pathfinder Society. But many of these questions seem to pertain to home games. Maybe it's my age and/or gaming experience, but a lot of those questions were resolved by a GM ruling.
Does today's generation of GMs not comfortable in making such rulings? Or is it "standard" now to contact the publishing company for interpretation of the most minor of rules?
|
Does today's generation of GMs not comfortable in making such rulings? Or is it "standard" now to contact the publishing company for interpretation of the most minor of rules?
On rule Questions, for me that has been standard for ever, Since at least the late 80's when I first started playing RPGs regularly, If we could not get the answer then we made our judgment call.
How long has Sage Advice been around?
Edit: When I played Vampire Regularly all through out the 90s I used to email the developers at White Wolf regularly, back then they where more willing to talk to their fans and gladly answer these kind of questions of clarifications. Regularly is an over statement, maybe 1 email every few months.
Edit Edit, Emailing White Wolf did not really come about really until the late 90s come to think of it, There really was not much of an internet for most of the 90's ;)
Pathfinder is an ongoing game, both in the rules department and for the setting.
In the "old days," often times a reference was a reference and never was it to be revisited. Even to the point of similar rules systems not referencing each other and reinventing the wheel.
Now, if rule X is suppose to mean Y, in the future, if something builds on rule X, it can be nice to know if Y is the direction the new rules would be moving towards.
Similarly, if some world material mentions that so and so never does X, and someone wonders if X also includes Y, sometimes people want to know if Y is going to be mentioned later on in game products.
I think that a lot of the GMs here are still going to make the call at the table, but may come here afterwards to seek second opinions or validation of the decision they made. Sometimes it's fun just to kick around rules interpretations, even if you already know how you'd rule it in your own home game.
That said, I'm sure many of us have played under GMs who lacked in confidence, and as a result, the game would shudder to a halt as the GM looked through book after book, trying to find an answer that would get them out of making a judgement call. Maybe this has translated to a tendency to go to the developers, as the surest and highest source available to backstop an uncertain GM.
|
|
Now, if rule X is suppose to mean Y, in the future, if something builds on rule X, it can be nice to know if Y is the direction the new rules would be moving towards.
Similarly, if some world material mentions that so and so never does X, and someone wonders if X also includes Y, sometimes people want to know if Y is going to be mentioned later on in game products.
Understood. But let's say the GM, for their particular campaign, already makes a ruling on said X and Y. Then that ruling invalidating for that particular campaign?
Understood. But let's say the GM, for their particular campaign, already makes a ruling on said X and Y. Then that ruling invalidating for that particular campaign?
Now, if rule X is suppose to mean Y, in the future, if something builds on rule X, it can be nice to know if Y is the direction the new rules would be moving towards.
Similarly, if some world material mentions that so and so never does X, and someone wonders if X also includes Y, sometimes people want to know if Y is going to be mentioned later on in game products.
Knowing what is likely coming, in that case, would let the GM know that when X of Golarion comes out, its probably not going to be as useful because its going a different way than he ruled. Sometimes its nice to know ahead of time when a product might not be fully compatible with the campaign.
|
|
We used Pony Express, sonny ^_^
EEK!!!, Over rule Skip!! NEVER!!!! I think my GM had his phone on direct dial to Skip... Wait was there Direct Dialing back then? ;)
yeah, like I said.. I remember emailing White Wolf all the time... And I played the game since it came out in 91, so I assumed I was emailing them since then... then I remembered there wasn't really a World Wide Web in 91, and not much emailing either ;)
All over the forums, huh? Sounds like a bunch of PF hating concern trolls to me.
I still overrule some of the answers by this publisher to rules, which is just my game design instincts kicking in.
I trust my judgment just fine. But if there's something genuinely ambiguous in the rules, I honestly don't think there's any harm in asking the the author "What did YOU intend when you wrote the rule?"
Having an interest in the design process is not a character flaw.
|
It's been discussed before, the difference between pre D20 and post D20 DM :: Player rules interpretations.
It was in one of the late issues of Dungeon where (I think) James Sutter wrote the editorial about Rules Lawyers. After Mona had given him the task of becoming an expert on the new rules system, Sutter (I think) corrected a ruling one session, Player to DM. Mona gave him "a look" indicating he had done his job "too well."
Ultimately, with the advent of the d20 system, rules for character advancement became "greater" than rules for combat, etc. And Players had as much knowledge of the rules system as the DMs had. Sure, in the 2E days we all knew the rules and Players could and would correct a DM from time to time (different groups differently) but now, most of the rules have to do with PCs.
----------------------------------------
As DM in the best game system ever, the D20, of course I have the final call for a ruling. But I am certainly gonna check with The Sage -- easier now that The Sage has gone from Skip to the Paizo Messageboards (With poor ole Andy stuck in the middle nothingness). Additionally, I'm gonna listen to what my Players have to say.
My responsibilities of Rules Arbitrating:
1) Make sure the game stays fun for everyone.
2) Make sure the individual PCs are a balanced as possible.
3) Stay as close to RAW as possible so that:
A> The Players can research and use as much stuff as they have time for
B> I can use The Sage (Messageboards) for advice (the further away from RAW my own stuff is the less help I can get from here)
C> When Players join one of my games they can rely on the rules they know and when I join with a new group as Player or DM, I can fit in smoothly.
3) Stay as close to RAW as possible so that:
A> The Players can research and use as much stuff as they have time for
B> I can use The Sage (Messageboards) for advice (the further away from RAW my own stuff is the less help I can get from here)
C> When Players join one of my games they can rely on the rules they know and when I join with a new group as Player or DM, I can fit in smoothly.
An excellent point!
I have no problem with making house rules, but players should know what the house rules are beforehand. Making stuff up as you go along is disorienting for the players; it's like saying that the laws of the universe are subject to change at any moment, so you might as well burn your physics textbook. :-)
|
|
I have no problem with making house rules, but players should know what the house rules are beforehand.
Yeah, certainly, but there is nothing more lame than going to game with some new people and the first thing the DM does is give you a list of all his Houserules. It's like those games where it can be better to learn as you go rather than have someone try to teach them beforehand.
When Players join a group of mine I usually just let 'em know I've got a couple minor houserules but won't really get into it unless they really want to. At the start I tell 'em that when something unusual or anti-RAW comes up in a session I'll make a ruling and let everyone know that, if it turns out the ruling is bad, I'll change it. Also, I let everyone know that if their PC is too strong or too weak compared to the other PCs, we'll change something. That's pretty much it for an intro unless they really want to know my ittie bittie Houserules up front. When looking at their PC sheets, we'll talk about houserules.
Mine are pretty low-key: All 20s are confirmed crits, Threat Ranges are NERFED . . . . Turn Undead is much stronger . . . . When we use a grid each square is 2 feet instead of five but for Reach you only get 1 square (2 w/ Reach weapon, duh) . . . . Some spells are slightly different -- Assay Spell Resistance is EITHER a Swift Action, 1 round duration OR a Standard Action 5 round (not10) spell.
Making stuff up as you go along is disorienting for the players
In my experience this depends more on the DM and his "game" than the Player. A good, fair and consistent DM who "makes stuff up" isn't gonna disorient his Players. Of course, if the DM is inconsistent or appears to be unfair or, maybe the biggest, doesn't project a certain comfort-level of DM-Player trust, yeah, Players will be disoriented at least when a DM needs to make something up on the fly.
Hmmmm, if you're talking about DMs who randomly make stuff up to get the PCs on his Railroad or to make Standard Action "A" different than the last Standard Action "A", well, that's inconsistency and bad DMing, so yeah, I agree wholeheartedly.
Yeah, certainly, but there is nothing more lame than going to game with some new people and the first thing the DM does is give you a list of all his Houserules. It's like those games where it can be better to learn as you go rather than have someone try to teach them beforehand.
When Players join a group of mine I usually just let 'em know I've got a couple minor houserules but won't really get into it unless they really want to. At the start I tell 'em that when something unusual or anti-RAW comes up in a session I'll make a ruling and let everyone know that, if it turns out the ruling is bad, I'll change it. Also, I let everyone know that if their PC is too strong or too weak compared to the other PCs, we'll change something. That's pretty much it for an intro unless they really want to know my ittie bittie Houserules up front. When looking at their PC sheets, we'll talk about houserules.
Mine are pretty low-key: All 20s are confirmed crits, Threat Ranges are NERFED . . . . Turn Undead is much stronger . . . . When we use a grid each square is 2 feet instead of five but for Reach you only get 1 square (2 w/ Reach weapon, duh) . . . . Some spells are slightly different -- Assay Spell Resistance is EITHER a Swift Action, 1 round duration OR a Standard Action 5 round (not10) spell.
I would respectfully disagree with this. As a DM, I prefer my players to know well in advance what rules I am changing, what the changes are, and why the changes are being made. As a player, there is nothing more disconcerting that playing along and then the DM slaps you with a houserule on something that you would have never attempted or even considered, had you known the houserule in advance. In my mind, this type of situation where the DM springs new houserules and makes the party "learn as they go" during an ongoing campaign only breed discontent and frustration amongst the players.
I would also argue that automatically confirming all natural 20s as critical hits, threat ranges NERFED (not my emphasis), and so forth are not at all low-key houserules, but ones that should be considered by the players before they come up with a character concept and begin level advancement. For example, why play a fighter built around increased threat ranges and their associated feats when one could play a cleric with a MUCH stronger turn undead?
I'm not arguing that your houserules do not make sense or that they are unablanced (without specifics, it's impossible to determine this), but that the players should be aware of them well in advance of beginning a campaign.
Admittedly, I'm very much a "put in writing" person who prefers not to have any surprises as a DM or a player and their associated arguments so other people may obviously have different results.
-Brooks
|
To the Original Poster, I don't think it's entirely about the GM trusting in their abilities. There's a lot more information available now than when I first started playing, and Pathfinder in particular has a huge community built around the game. The double-edge of this particular advantage(and the source, at least for me, of a need for authority and clarify beyond my own rulings as a GM), is that the players can absorb as much information as the GM at a greater speed than the GM(they only have a character to ready for each game, after all). Pathfinder in particular is a ruleset that GM and Player learned simultaneously, which means that the Player often feels more confident in their interpretations.
And thus, every player becomes a potential rules lawyer through no real malice and leaves a GM wishing to avoid debate and argument at the table with only one resource: his fellow GMs. I can say I'm right, but if I want to avoid raising the GM club and whacking people over the head with it, using Developers and community consensus lends authority to interpretation while sharing/deflecting the blame for rulings the players don't like or agree with.
To sum up a long, rambling answer: it's not the GMs having less confidence in themselves, it's the players having MORE confidence.
|
|
I trust my judgment just fine. But if there's something genuinely ambiguous in the rules, I honestly don't think there's any harm in asking the the author "What did YOU intend when you wrote the rule?"
And, it seems pretty clear from the discussions that follow, that finding out the designer's intent doesn't stop many GMs from just tossing 'canon' and going for what bests fits their games (or sensibilities).
Wanting to know the design intent certainly hasn't stopped many of us from using (and enthusiastically supporting) our own judgement anyway. :)
Does today's generation of GMs not comfortable in making such rulings? Or is it "standard" now to contact the publishing company for interpretation of the most minor of rules?
Here's what I've seen around here...and granted I've been away for a while (partly due to issues like these, and other reasons).
I think a lot of it went back to the beta testing of the Pathfinder rules. Back in the day the d20 system had limitations and everyone just kinda' knew it. Some folks went really RAW, some folks went really narrative, but everyone did the best they could adjudicating things however they wanted.
Once the beta testing started something weird happened. Folks got really uptight with the rules. There was more of a sense of ownership over them so when something wrankled or seemed "broken" to someone they began to come unglued and go off on tirades of hyperbole. There were simultaneously a lot more attempts to deconstruct and nitpick the rules, as well as a lot more hostility to folks from a much more casual, freeform, less gamist form of play. It got to be a lot.
So yeah, folks are a lot more involved with the rules since in some part they helped make them. The minutiae has become so much more interesting to people and the little differences seem to make worlds more difference.
That said, haven't been on for a while, so maybe a lot of this has passed and something different is going on--but that's my best diagnosis.
Is it time for another GM FIAT thread?
EDIT: Whoa, Joel A. Didn't recognize you there for a minute. Congrats on the avatar.
|
|
I would respectfully disagree with (what Ray says).
Well, don't feel too bad about that; no one's perfect ;)
. . . . After thinking about what I posted, I realize I did say it a bit inaccurately. In my first post -- addressed to the OP's question/ concern -- I posited that most of the rules post D20 are about the mechanics of the PC, not the game (combat, etc.). When a Player joins a game I'm running the first thing is designing a PC sheet. This is where I go over my Houserules -- during PC-Gen, and it's really only the stuff applicable to that PC.
It's Houserules that really don't have to do with the mechanics of a PC that I really don't get into.
(When) the DM springs new houserules and makes the party "learn as they go" during an ongoing campaign, (it) only breeds discontent and frustration amongst the players.
Yeah, it would seem so but, honestly -- I've NEVER had this happen and I've DMed with many, many experienced Players over the last several years (I keep moving to a new city and starting new games).
There's two examples from my games I want to bring up:
1) About 4 years ago an experienced Player, new to my game, made a Bard (I hate Bards) and a few sessions in we had a fight against Grimlocks.
Now, I'm known to revamp monsters, stats and such, so that old monsters can be fresh for jaded gamers and so that Knowledge skills can be used and metagaming knowledge doesn't work.
In my game, for example, Grimlocks are not blind.
The Bard won initiative and immediately cast Silence proclaming Ha, now the Grimlocks are "blind" -- you know, cuz Grimlocks are supposed to completely depend on sound, Blindsight.
As DM, I immediately allowed the Silence to "blind" the Grimlocks because A) Bards suck so bad, Silence was about the only spell he had and I'm not gonna hurt the PC like that, and B) The Player got excited, was having fun, and felt he had just hit a homerun in combat.
And the PCs slaughtered what would have been a challenging fight. No biggie for me to accept.
HOWEVER, as soon as the fight was over I talked to the Player and let him know that that wouldn't work again. I'd give him a Free Action for a Knowledge check on his Init, of course, but the reason I do change up monsters is to defeat metagaming -- which he had done in that instance. He accepted it as fair.
2) About 2 years ago a very experienced Player joined one of my games and, because of schedules, we couldn't go over his PC sheet before his first session -- I just e-mailed him point buy, gold, accepted books -- those kind of PC-Gen things.
When he showed up with his Swasbuckler with Luck Feats and ridiculous Threat Ranged weapons, I knew I "oopsed." His character concept was really cool, though, so he just played his PC differently than the others.
A nat 20 was a Threat for his PC instead of an auto-Crit like the others but at least he Threatened 16-20. It was okay.
Is it time for another GM FIAT thread?
EDIT: Whoa, Joel A. Didn't recognize you there for a minute. Congrats on the avatar.
Hi, Mairkurion! ^_^
There was already a first GM FIAT thread?
Re: avatar. Yeah. Finally decided I was lookin' too mortal so I though to lighten up a bit. Watcha think?
Well, I think it was actually titled, "DM Fiat." And it went supernova, if I recall.
You look positively incandescent!
Seems that a lot of people have this weird idea that back in the good old days, there where no rules lawyers, and no min/maxing or munchkins and everyone never argued with the GM, in my experience there was never a good old days.
This. Usually when I think about things that problem players might do or quarrel with, it's based on things that happened long before I ever looked at a gamer message board.
As to the OPs question: all I can say is that while I have confidence in myself and my group to come up with reasonable rulings and consistently abide by them, it is NICE to be able to get an "official ruling" from the designers if they are willing to take the time to share.
Sometimes there are rules that, as written, are really confusing (For example, Pathfinder's Uncanny Dodge rule which seems to confuse the "Flat Footed" condition for losing your Dex bonus to AC, which are two different situations, the latter of which occurs as part of the former but also occurs during other situations as well). Sure, you can make a ruling, but IF you are able to ask the writer what they meant by that, why not do it? I see nothing wrong with wanting more information in a place where such information is relatively easily available.
At the same time, I'm not going to sit around and wait for James Jacobs or Jason Buhlman to write me back personally if I'm confused about something--I'll make a ruling and stick to it. The OP seems to confuse convenience with necessity.
Also, ANOTHER reason why getting official rulings is nice: so you play with one group, and a GM rules a confusing rules issue one way. You switch gaming groups, and a GM rules it completely opposite. Being used to doing it a certain way, you struggle with adjusting to the new ruling. Is it a big deal? No. Will you adapt? Probably. Nonetheless, having a place where rules clarifications are provided helps eliminate some of this confusion -- and it is often easier to switch gears when you understand you're dealing with a clear cut house rule rather than just a vague interpretation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How long has Sage Advice been around?
A lo-o-o-ong time. Here's a Sage Advice question from Dragon #37 (May 1980), for example.
Question: How long does the paralysis caused by a carrion
crawler, ghast or ghoul last?Answer: I have always assumed it to be 24 hours. However, since
the duration of the paralysis is not clearly defined in any of the
books, I suggest that each DM decide the duration in his particular
campaign.
And that particular column ended with a note:
Note: Because of the great volume of mail which is being received
for Sage Advice, individual questions can no longer be answered
through the mail. Because of this, it is no longer necessary or
advisable for questioners to include a self-addressed, stamped envelope
in their letters. The only way Sage Advice questions can be
answered is in the pages of The Dragon, and for that purpose only
the most appropriate or most frequently asked questions will be
answered. Readers are once again reminded that Sage Advice is
designed to settle specific questions concerning rule definitions or
interpretations. General questions about procedure in an adventure
or a campaign should be handled by the DM of that campaign
whenever possible.
So people have been asking "great volume[s]" of questions about the rules for over 30 years. It's not like it just started with 3E.
Does today's generation of GMs not comfortable in making such rulings? Or is it "standard" now to contact the publishing company for interpretation of the most minor of rules?
Or it might just be that this newfangled internet thingy (have you heard of it? :) ) allows discussion of such 'minor' topics with like-minded people and even (gasp) sometimes the developers who wrote them.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
From my perspective, it's been the rise of Organized Play (TSR's / WOTC's "Living City", Paizo's "Pathfinder Society"). I can screw around with the rules system for my home game, or even for one-off convention games, to my heart's content. But when I run OP tables, I try to run with all the rules-as-written, with all the environment's approved bells and whistles turned on.
Or it might just be that this newfangled internet thingy (have you heard of it? :) ) allows discussion of such 'minor' topics with like-minded people and even (gasp) sometimes the developers who wrote them.
As I pointed out above, there has been a high volume of rules questions dating back thirty years, at least. It was just through the mail then, instead of on internet forums.
Or it might just be that this newfangled internet thingy (have you heard of it? :) ) allows discussion of such 'minor' topics with like-minded people and even (gasp) sometimes the developers who wrote them.As I pointed out above, there has been a high volume of rules questions dating back thirty years, at least. It was just through the mail then, instead of on internet forums.
Indeed. Quite amazing, considering people actually had to pay for the advice back then, even if only for stamps ;)
Seems that a lot of people have this weird idea that back in the good old days, there where no rules lawyers, and no min/maxing or munchkins and everyone never argued with the GM, in my experience there was never a good old days.
Nah. It's just that we thought we'd thought we'd killed them all off long ago. We underestimated the ranges of certain kinds of wandering monsters and their reproductive rates. Or maybe the old theories of spontaneous generation were true?
I trust my judgment just fine. But if there's something genuinely ambiguous in the rules, I honestly don't think there's any harm in asking the the author "What did YOU intend when you wrote the rule?"
Having an interest in the design process is not a character flaw.
+1
I'm a bit of a rules lawyer, i love a well optimised character with an orsm roleplaying concept. character optimisation + character development is the ultimate for me, personally.
I always 'wing it' when DMing, you have to, it's just a part of DMing. And i definitely trust my judgment. But i don't just make stuff up because it takes my fancy.
If i make a houserule, it's because i've researched it extensively and decided that it's deficient for whatever reasons - keeping in mind game balance.
In short, there's absolutely nothing wrong with perfecting your knowledge of the rules, especially in a seat of responsibility and trust.
I do not really see how the 'rash' of questions is any indication GMs do not feel comfortable in making rulings. Also, the 'rash' of posting is just the tip of the iceberg of people playing who do not feel the need to post on a message board.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I trust my judgment just fine. But if there's something genuinely ambiguous in the rules, I honestly don't think there's any harm in asking the the author "What did YOU intend when you wrote the rule?"
Having an interest in the design process is not a character flaw.
I think it also helps to know the intent when designing our own houserules/content.
Plus, what's the harm of getting more input? If I think rule A means X, and one of my players thinks it means Y and can't convince me with his argument then it means X. Doesn't mean I'm not going to get online later and ask "Is rule A to mean X?" If I find out that it means Y, or even Z, then next game I say "Ok, I checked and it means Z, so if everyone's ok, going forward we'll use it as Z."