Tarren Dei, thank you. Those quotations were what I was after, but too lazy to look up.
GM discretion is written into the rules, and those rules represent variables that can quite quickly change the balance of any campaign, and are therefore relevant to any discussion of game balance, class architecture, or prospective rule changes. This is not a subjective statement.
The most constructive thing this thread might do now is discuss how to quantify the GM variable in such discussions, which would (hopefully) redress the OP's grievances, however poorly articulated I might feel them to be personally.
Assuming Tarren Dei's list of GM Discretion rules is exhaustive (which it is not, but for the sake for progress let us pretend) — how would you go about creating a baseline for each of these rulings that would be suitable for argument if not for play? Something as simple as "Low, Med, High" versions of each discretionary ruling could form the basis for a mutual scenario in which to argue.
If you are frustrated by the role of the GM in your ruleswonking discussions, you must strive to control for it or eliminate it effectively from the theory. Bickering about how people are jerks, or the tone of eachother's post, or how bad GMs exist — none of these things bring you any closer to holding a conversation without being vexed by the rules themselves which specify GM discretion.
Now, I fundamentally disagree with the premise of this thread, but in this post, I have taken that premise as a given. If you want to do something other than whine about it, you have to look at the rules and figure out a common language for minimizing GM discretion in rules arguments. Discussion of campaign houserules is most unhelpful in that endeavor.
yes
Soo... DM fiat is RAW?
Yes.
But that's not my point. There are sections of the rulebook other than the article on GM fiat (which does exist), where GM discretion (not fiat) is referred to directly. So the rule is: the GM decides. Just like other sections refer you to the roll of a die to determine the outcome.
Rather than bickering about it, though, Tarren has given us a great list of instances of GM discretion rulings. You could take that list, create some basic variables with it, and have a basis to nullify this discussion. There would be no more gray area for arguments like these to rage indefinitely within. You could simply define your GM variables for the sake of argument, and then have meaningful discussion.
DMs are Brokezorz!
The rules don't want them involved!
Or maybe they do...
Soo... DM fiat is RAW?
Houserules are what is not RAW.
The idea that a new situation, requiring a unique rule, should come up in the game, and the GM then says "we're gonna do it this way" (the very definition of fiat!) — yes, that has been in the Rules As Written for every edition of the game.
Fiat has acquired a pejorative connotation among dissatisfied players, and no I don't think "The GM can always be a dick if he wants" is in the RAW. But the game rules recognize a need for arbitration, and occasionally, fiat.
fiat
noun
a formal authorization or proposition; a decree : adopting a legislative review program, rather than trying to regulate by fiat.
Evil Lincoln said:
The most constructive thing this thread might do now is discuss how to quantify the GM variable in such discussions, which would (hopefully) redress the OP's grievances,
on this note i would offer that , as mentioned before by dire mongoose, that house rules like what books are deemed legal for a game are legitimate house rules, and apart from that the only other i use is basic procedure for when a rule issue arises during a game, ie
if a rule issue is raised during play it is GM's responsibility to make a ruling that will not negatively impact characters directly of kill the mood of the game(in order to move forward ), then as a group, discuss the problem after the game and reach a consensus as to how it will be dealt with in future.,
you dont really need any other house rules i find
|
Part of the problem - again, is that there is no "standardized" game. Some things are hard fixed rules (rage ability, save values) but part of what is RAW has a default "GM could" built in, which destroys part of the argument the OP has presented.
To go back to crafting - in some cases this is a built in class feature, in others it involves picking feats from the core book. Standard and hard ruled subjects -correct? Well the issue is that these class abilities are filled with "GM could" since they involve a measure the PC has no direct control over - and that is time. In the original argument of wizards vs. sorcerer the issue would be how much the wizard could craft, thus giving him an advantage over the Sorcerer.
The problem is that the CORE RULES, AKA RAW do not have a required downtime allotted to craft. So here we have a case of a hard and defined class ability which is directly tied into "GM Could".
Once the OP - who claims to run a "standard" game - allowed the wizards in his/her campaign to craft X amount of items in Y amount of time they deviated from the "standard" game. The "standard" game has no fixed formula to decide how much crafting down time the PC wizard has (nor does it cover the extra cost detailed in a lower level wizard needing a lab, while not actually paying for the cost), this was all the GMs decision and invention.
There are a few places where "GM could" are directly tied to RAW, people need to get over this fact.
fair nuf
what i was trying to alude to is im all for upping the excitement when needed,but if a rule issue could likely end in the death of a character a little give doesnt hurt, though if the player is simply trying to worm out of a self inflicted situation using, loopholes say, fiat is there to ensure consequences :)
Once the OP - who claims to run a "standard" game - allowed the wizards in his/her campaign to craft X amount of items in Y amount of time they deviated from the "standard" game. The "standard" game has no fixed formula to decide how much crafting down time the PC wizard has (nor does it cover the extra cost detailed in a lower level wizard needing a lab, while not actually paying for the cost), this was all the GMs decision and invention.
So, would it be possible for people to agree on maybe how much crafting time was "a lot" or "a little" per level? My Runelords Campaign has gone on 7 months, and the PCs are 10th level*. Without GM intervention, the campaign would be in it's 4th month, with the PCs a 12th level. This means that the "Default" crafting time for that AP would have been something like 1.3 weeks/level — that's a number that you could use in further discussions so that we needn't bicker about the GM variables. Add in the "generous-to-crafters" GM like myself and now the discussion takes place with 2.8 weeks/level.
One of the cases being made is that crafting items somehow affects the Wizard vs Sorcerer balance argument. (for the record, I think that whole discussion is BS) In this case, now we have an amount of crafting time you could expect in a campaign on average. That means we can take the GM out of the equation, even though he's in it by RAW. That seems like it should appeal to the OP, and it sure beats merely whining about it. Can other problems with GM variables be addressed this way?
* to those of you who sense inequity here, I refer you to the power gap between PF and 3.5, and also that the additional crafting time has increased the group's power significantly, but was necessary to let one of the PCs (Artificer) use his class abilities.
if a rule issue is raised during play it is GM's responsibility to make a ruling that will not negatively impact characters directly [or] kill the mood of the game (in order to move forward), then as a group, discuss the problem after the game and reach a consensus as to how it will be dealt with in future.,
you dont really need any other house rules i find
I quite agree here. A protracted rules discussion, during game play, is crappy. Having said that, when Kwava killed *Eshrin (who's unconscious body was being used as a hu-mon shield at the time), because he missed his attack roll, it was less than satisfying.
Again, and this is topical, discussing and understanding the RAW, free of any "My DM Says" arguments, is crucial to having a good time at the gaming table. It's nice to know the hows and whys of the rules.
*Note: Eshrin was not my character, so I think I'm impartial per the example.
Again, and this is topical, discussing and understanding the RAW, free of any "My DM Says" arguments, is crucial to having a good time at the gaming table. It's nice to know the hows and whys of the rules.
I am quite keen to discuss that, loaba, and for that matter I don't seen anyone making the case of "my DM Says" besides those of us pointing to the abstract instances of GM discretion in the rules. And we're not defending dickish GM behavior, merely the fact that you can't (presently) discuss the rules without a GM variable.
Even if those arguments exist, I urge you to ignore them and take up the discussion of how to isolate the GM variable. It will make such opposition irrelevant. Both those of us who believe the GM is inseparable from the rules, and those of you who seem to think a true RAW discussion must somehow exclude the GM, can find common ground in isolating the GM variables systematically, so that discussions may rage on fruitlessly in some manner other than this.
Evil Lincoln - the OP is talking about game mechanics (ie. spells per day, item crafting times, every 4 level stat boosts etc.), not how many traps do you use in a dungeon, or how often does your Ranger actually adventure in a natural setting.
From a strictly game mechanics point of view, the DM isn't necessary.
We started talking about DM fiat... Oh, how I hate the abuse of said function.
|
|
One of the cases being made is that crafting items somehow affects the Wizard vs Sorcerer balance argument. (for the record, I think that whole discussion is BS) In this case, now we have an amount of crafting time you could expect in a campaign on average. That means we can take the GM out of the equation, even though he's in it by RAW. That seems like it should appeal to the OP, and it sure beats merely whining about it. Can other problems with GM variables be addressed this way?
Well yes and no Mr. President. I think the expectation of a minimum of 2 hours output for a 4 hour daily commitment is a hard rule, even for the adventuring wizard he can still get an 8 hour requirement (min crafting requirement) every 4 days. The only problem is that the days, the actual total time which passes as the game unfolds is paced by the GM (and player descions based on the situations they are facing -presented again, by the GM).
If there are no pressing issues in between adventures, then yeah - the PC can control the pace and quality of the time they put in (better ration when not adventuring, lab, etc) but I don't think there should be a rule where this time is an expectation. In other words, I don't think the PC should control the time/pace. Maybe for PFS games, or tourney series play, but for individual campaigns I don't think there should be hard time value since that ties the GMs hands.
If you are making characters at a higher starting level for a one-shot, or just starting a series beyond level one then a formula/rule for level=crafting time would actually be a pretty good idea, but only out the gate. Once the campaign or series of mods go live the pace is set up by the DM. He can "allow" plenty of downtime or he may move things so fast that the best the crafter will get is his 2 hours - I don't think the DM should get hit with a pacing rule due to a character ability or feat.
I hope I was clear on conveying my point.
Most DM’s go by RAW.Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games.Paizo's opinion and yours seem to differ, Hobbun. I'd wager they have a slightly broader database from which to derive their take.
Just from what I have seen from this thread, most have indicated they stay as close to RAW as much as possible. So I'd have to disagree with you.
Besides, we are getting off the point of my original post, you are focused on DM's will have house rules sometimes, not arguing that, but my what I was saying originally was countering an earlier post that "most of time" DM's need to make their own ruling, which I disagree. In my experience, and what I have seen mentioned on this thread, DM's use RAW most of the time and have 'houserules' much less sparingly.
Auxmaulous said:
Once the OP - who claims to run a "standard" game - allowed the wizards in his/her campaign to craft X amount of items in Y amount of time they deviated from the "standard" game. The "standard" game has no fixed formula to decide how much crafting down time the PC wizard has (nor does it cover the extra cost detailed in a lower level wizard needing a lab, while not actually paying for the cost), this was all the GMs decision and invention.
things of note:(pp548-553 core rules)
1)to create magic armor or weapons the creator needs the following-
-a heat source
-iron, wood or leatherworking tools
-materials-obviously the Masterwork item to enchant
-additional magic supplies = half the base cost of the item(subsumed into the creation cost)but none the less needed on hand still
-the creators caster level must be minimum 3x the "+"value of the item
-must have memorized(or know , for spontaneous casters)the spells required, and have the material components for the spells
-the act of crafting triggers those spell-slots and makes them unavailable for the day(just as if had been cast,and consumes components)
note:potions require FRESH and UNUSED materials, so cannot carry"enough gear to make 20 pots eg", same as scrolls
all creation feats require a comfortable ,quite, well lit area to use(p549 core rulebook),
if a character wants to fulfill all these requirements and try to squeeze a bit of crafting in (needing 4 hours minimum at a time -only garnishing 2hrs worth of imput to item mind you) during an adventure
good luck
you cant just say, heres the 5000gp, and i know the spells, it will take me 2 days to make...i'll put it on my character sheet
so it is technically RAW to craft on the go, but the rules make it extremely impractical and improbable.
Again, and this is topical, discussing and understanding the RAW, free of any "My DM Says" arguments, is crucial to having a good time at the gaming table. It's nice to know the hows and whys of the rules.
I am quite keen to discuss that, loaba, and for that matter I don't seen anyone making the case of "my DM Says" besides those of us pointing to the abstract instances of GM discretion in the rules. And we're not defending dickish GM behavior, merely the fact that you can't (presently) discuss the rules without a GM variable.
Even if those arguments exist, I urge you to ignore them and take up the discussion of how to isolate the GM variable. It will make such opposition irrelevant. Both those of us who believe the GM is inseparable from the rules, and those of you who seem to think a true RAW discussion must somehow exclude the GM, can find common ground in isolating the GM variables systematically, so that discussions may rage on fruitlessly in some manner other than this.
You sir, I respect. We do not agree, but in the spirit of discussion and honorable discourse, you keep coming back at different angles, making me think. Hooray for intelligent discourse :)
<fist bump>I feel the understood baseline of DM involvement is implied in RAW, as very little. Most of the caveats (I loathe to call them rules) to the ruels Tarren brought up heavily imply "This is how it should work, all thigns being even, however, as always the DM reserves the right to rule differently."
So that being said, using the crafting rules example, they say it takes x amount of time to craft x item(s). That is the required downtime.
As per the caveat, the DM has the ability to amend or extend that time, or if the story dictates it, not allow it at all (ie. some kind of in-game story driven deadline). Fruitful discussion of this rule (I personaly think it's rediculous that it can take 9 months to craft a suit of plate mail) can still take place without a DM or a list of specific houserules from any given DM.
so it is technically RAW to craft on the go, but the rules make it extremely impractical and improbable.
Right, just like a Ranger character should know that he may not be out in the wilds as often as he'd like. Still, should the time present itself for crafting, think about all the cool things you could make.
See, no DM stuff anywhere, just two players talking about classes and abilities.
If by this you mean that most DMs adhere for the most part to RAW, and have but a few house rules, I understand.[I think, however, that you mean "more sparingly."]
Ah yes, good catch. :)
I feel we both have the same viewpoint in the end, there was just some miscommunication earlier on in quoting one another. I do agree, DM's will houserule, even our DM has done so.
Just my original point was in my experience most DM's do not need to making their own ruling for every rule, or even most rules, they are going to use what is RAW unless it is too vague.
Fruitful discussion of this rule (I personaly think it's rediculous that it can take 9 months to craft a suit of plate mail) can still take place without a DM or a...
About that crafting time... While it may be ridiculous for a player to think they might have that much down-time, it's certainly useful for them to know about it. That way, when the DM fiats a 12 month creation period, they can say "uh, why don't we just use the crafting rules..." Of course, when the DM says it'll be about 6 weeks, they can keep quiet about rules and whatnot.
Ah, crap, I went there...
i must ask
what do you class as a house rule?
eg.
as mentioned above, stating that your players can only use certain books for the campaign=house rule
GM saying that Barbarians in his campaign cant wear armor, but gain natural armour +1/3 lvls, to me isnt a house rule, but a homebrew campaign mod(to me)
both arent RAW, though to be technical the core rules are self inclusive and dont consider 3rd party or campaign specific rules in thier balance either, so what is RAW if we are discussing it?
Just my original point was in my experience most DM's do not need to making their own ruling for every rule, or even most rules, they are going to use what is RAW unless it is too vague.RAW is certainly to be respected, unless a clarification is required or the DM/players simply do not like its implications for that particular campaign. Then a house rule is not only reasonable, it's imperative.
This, of course, means that some campaigns will have only a house rule or two, while others have a stack of 'em. Neither is a better game. One, however, is more orthodox than the other.
I think, if they've read the CRB, that's all any player really wants, is for the RAW to be respected as much as possible.
While it may be ridiculous for a player to think they might have that much down-time, it's certainly useful for them to know about it. That way, when the DM fiats a 12 month creation period, they can say "uh, why don't we just use the crafting rules..." Of course, when the DM says it'll be about 6 weeks, they can keep quiet about rules and whatnot.That's rather dishonorable, there, Rules Boy. ;)
Well, yeah! Okay, cuts both ways, you tell the DM about the 9 month thing.
You sir, I respect. We do not agree, but in the spirit of discussion and honorable discourse, you keep coming back at different angles, making me think. Hooray for intelligent discourse :)
<fist bump>I feel the understood baseline of DM involvement is implied in RAW, as very little. Most of the caveats (I loathe to call them rules) to the ruels Tarren brought up heavily imply "This is how it should work, all thigns being even, however, as always the DM reserves the right to rule differently."
So that being said, using the crafting rules example, they say it takes x amount of time to craft x item(s). That is the required downtime.
As per the caveat, the DM has the ability to amend or extend that time, or if the story dictates it, not allow it at all (ie. some kind of in-game story driven deadline). Fruitful discussion of this rule (I personaly think it's rediculous that it can take 9 months to craft a suit of plate mail) can still take place without a DM or a list of specific houserules from any given DM.
I agree with most of what you say. The problem I have is when you start to try to quantify the bennefit of such an ability and measure it against annother ability (which happens all of the time in these types of discussions). Then the style of play influences how useful and powerful an ability is, and since there is no standard style of play for most things in the game the group needs to come to some kind of consensus in order to have any meaningful discussion. For instance, how much downtime will the players be expected to see and how frequently will it be given. This is not a house rule, but a style. You say 9 months is rediculous to craft a suit of armor, but I look at that time and think it is realistic for a single person making it himself (I have looked into it many times, and it could take well over a month for a team of up to 30). 9 months is a problem to me though from a game ballance perspective because players will rarely see 9 months of downtime at relevant levels in a typical campaign from any of my GMs. In my Kingmaker campaign though, 9 months is not that out of line for it.
GM house rules should not be brought into the discussion until people think that it is broken and are looking for alternate solutions. Alternatively, they be used to argue about ballance if the reason for the change is also explained. For instance: "I rule that the upgraded TWF feats are not good design because I feel they do not increase damage output enough for a feat of their level and I want my players to have more feats available for non-combat abilities. Therefore I allow off hands to get itterative attacks regardless of having the TWF feat." In this case, I am introducing my house rule as a solution to a problem I see with TWF, and saying something like this is not out of line in a discussion on the ballance issues of TWF.
Likewise, going back to your crafting example: "Because of the long crafting time on many complex items, I allow for multiple people to make crafting checks to decrease time significantly. This allows a craftsman to take on apprentices and craft a suit of armor in 1 month instead of 9. Realisticly, each one is able to work on a different part of the suit at the same time, so this fixes the flaw I see in the rules and brings it in line with what I expect." It is discussing what is wrong with the rules, why I feel it is wrong, and proposing a solution to fix it.
Even those comments are not appropriate for all discussions, but they are not condicending and can add something fruitful to the discussion. Saying there is not a problem because the GM can just house rule it away, or not giving context to why a particular house rule is made is wrong.
GM said, always comes into it
to bring crafting in line with RAW discussion, Player sais," i wish to craft a helm of brilliance my most wise GM, i knoweth the spells etc, it costs 67,500gp to craft", fine answers wise GM" said helm of brilliance is described as having 10 diamonds, 20 rubies,30 fire opals and 40 opals set within, once you collect these gemstones you will be able to craft the item"
is it RAW for GM to specify material components needed? it states on p553 that the character needs a supply of materials,the most obvious being the item itself(a helm with the gems inset,)or the pieces to be assembled(the cost is subsumed but you need the items still, and they could be hard to find....)
now the GM can make the aquisition of the components part of the quests etc and its RAW is it not?
so it will take time to collect stuff(say 3 months for this example)
and then commence creation which will take 125days(or 500days if crafting on the trot)for a total of possibly 2+years to craft the item
and thats still RAW with GM influence
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
[Tarren Dei, you posted] caveats and disclaimers that are actually just common sense. These are not core mechanics in and of themselves.
With respect, Kryzbyn, the GM's discretion extends to such matters as what "level" of character attributes the game uses. I think that's a major mechanical factor in a campaign.
I will certainly agree with you, though, that rules for most combat actions, and many non-combat activities, are pretty thoroughly spelled out in the Pathfinder core book.
--+--
Tarren, I wanted to point out to you that when you posted ...
Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
... it would be fair to read the following sentences, as well.
--+--
These kinds of discussions were popular last year. (Oh, Viletta, where are you?) My position then, as now, is that people willing to run a campaign -- be it a well-defined railroad-y Adventure Path; or a sandbox-y environment based in Absalom and using a combination of original adventures, Pathfinder Society scenarios, and logical follow-up plotlines; or a "shared world" campaign where the players contribute substantial setting-building ideas -- are all putting their table on the marketplace.
And there's more to the offering than just those aspects. Every GM has gifts at the table: a talent to enthrall, an ability to wrap intrigue into a pedestrian storyline, a wacky way to mix strange future-tech into a fantasy campaign, a gift for pacing. None of which has anything to do with the game system at all, except where "encyclopedic knowledge of the rule books" might qualify.
And all the campaigns out there are competing with one another for players.
Players are customers, willing to invest their time and contributions. And any discussion about "house rules" or "table rules" or "GM style" or "whether there's downtime" or "how many rules from 1st Edition AD&D get ported in" or whatever, are all part of that product the GM is marketing. Customers might haggle ("You say that you're using core rules only, but I'd like to play a Witch / Davirat"). But in the end, they either sit down and "buy into" a campaign, or they look for a better product.
deadreckoner - I'm too lazy to open a book, but I believe that gems can be of any value, no? Is it not reasonable that a few large gems, of X variety, could be purchased and subsequently broken into smaller pieces?
Now, to your point, I do realize that we're talking about RAW and GM rulings, together in the same discussion.
I agree with most of what you say. The problem I have is when you start to try to quantify the bennefit of such an ability and measure it against annother ability (which happens all of the time in these types of discussions). Then the style of play influences how useful and powerful an ability is, and since there is no standard style of play for most things in the game the group needs to come to some kind of consensus in order to have any meaningful discussion. For instance, how much downtime will the players be expected to see and how frequently will it be given. This is not a house rule, but a style. You say 9 months is rediculous to craft a suit of armor, but I look at that time and think it is realistic for a single person making it himself (I have looked into it many times, and it could take well over a month for a team of up to 30). 9 months is a problem to me though from a game ballance perspective because players will rarely see 9 months of downtime at relevant...
You sir, I respect. We do not agree, but in the spirit of discussion and honorable discourse, you keep coming back at different angles, making me think. Hooray for intelligent discourse :)
<fist bump>I feel the understood baseline of DM involvement is implied in RAW, as very little. Most of the caveats (I loathe to call them rules) to the ruels Tarren brought up heavily imply "This is how it should work, all thigns being even, however, as always the DM reserves the right to rule differently."
So that being said, using the crafting rules example, they say it takes x amount of time to craft x item(s). That is the required downtime.
As per the caveat, the DM has the ability to amend or extend that time, or if the story dictates it, not allow it at all (ie. some kind of in-game story driven deadline). Fruitful discussion of this rule (I personaly think it's rediculous that it can take 9 months to craft a suit of plate mail) can still take place without a DM or a list of specific houserules from any given DM.
I agree with you on every point you made, Caineach.
My angle is simply when not in a specific gaming scenario, ie. here on the boards in a thread not about a specific game, "Well the GM.." shouldn't enter into it or certainly not be used as an answer to shore up a RAW argument.
I agree with you on every point you made, Caineach.
My angle is simply when not in a specific gaming scenario, ie. here on the boards in a thread not about a specific game, "Well the GM.." shouldn't enter into it or certainly not be used as an answer to shore up a RAW argument.
I think we have been arguing circles arround eachother. In those types of discussions, a "this style of Gm needs to Foo while this other style needs to Bar" is not inappropriate, but bringing up house rules will often do nothing but detract, unless they are supported with reasoning. Using rule 0 to fix a problem does not mean that a problem does not exist in the core rules (though the problem may be near irrelevant, or so obviously fall under rule 0 that it is the solution, like the commoner chain gun)
yes loaba,
the example i offered above was a GM ruling, but was it a house rule? or a fiat?, what if fire opals are rare etc?, aspects of the game such as availability of any given "thing" are entirely up to the GM, part of his role to populate the realm with beasties, goodies etc, the fact that creation of items etc requires materials firmly makes the GM part of the process, no houserules at all, unless everything in the game is always at the players fingertips or close by. players may be hundreds of miles away from markets offering such goods etc.
house-rule wise, i used a recipe system in one campaign that was warmly recieved(and enjoyed) by players, where crafters basically expended gold in downtime etc(assumed to have matts somewhere)to create item, but needed recipe to make(for permanent items), casters gained 2 recipes/level advanced total(if multiple craft feats)of thier choice-had to meet crafting requirements to choose though, and found recipe scrolls occasionally, and could de-construct items to learn how to make that item itself if they chose, it worked very well
on the whole GM ruling thing...is it even possible to GM a game without making some kind of ruling at some point, its a fundamental part of GMing
Another point, is that, despite what some folks have posted, I also think that the terms "normal game" and "standard game" are virtually devoid of meaning. Such creatures, if they exist at all, must represent a tiny fraction of the total gaming populationI don't know, I have a sneaky suspicion that you and I, to a large extent, play very similar games. Same goes for the OP and Kryzbyn and Hobbun too.
If you try to keep within RAW and limit House Ruling, I think you're pretty normal. If you're sporting a multi-page .pdf of additional/altered rules, I don't think you're the norm.
Even within our group, the different campaigns we have run have very different flavors, and different setups. Currently I'm running Kingmaker, but have had to alter it significantly to account for a seven character party with pretty strong (rolled) stats. Kingmaker is also pretty unique in that there is a pretty low encounter density, but the possibility of encounters way above CR, and there is a lot of downtime between adventures, if the PCs desire it.
Before that, my buddy ran Red Hand of Doom, but adapted it to his own campaign world, in which arcane casters are rare, sinister beings who can only learn spells through making a pact with usually unsavory outsiders, and continued contact with those outsiders had a cumulative chance of driving the caster insane or permanently feebleminding him.
Before that, the third DM ran a campaign set entirely in the Underdark, which has its own environmental limitations and quirks.
And before that I ran Age of Wyrms in 3.5, which moves at breakneck pace for much of it, with little chance to even see if there are any magic items for sale, much less craft them.
Four different campaigns, run for the same group by 3 different DMs who try to be as consistent with each other as possible, but all 4 had a very different flavor and the mechanics and rules played out very differently in each.
I think we have been arguing circles arround eachother. In those types of discussions, a "this style of Gm needs to Foo while this other style needs to Bar" is not inappropriate, but bringing up house rules will often do nothing but detract, unless they are supported with reasoning. Using rule 0 to fix a problem does not mean that a problem does not exist in the core rules (though the problem may be near irrelevant, or so obviously fall under rule 0 that it is the solution, like the commoner chain gun)I agree with you on every point you made, Caineach.
My angle is simply when not in a specific gaming scenario, ie. here on the boards in a thread not about a specific game, "Well the GM.." shouldn't enter into it or certainly not be used as an answer to shore up a RAW argument.
And I would like to add to this, to clarify the point I made earlier that some rules do actually require discussion of type of GM, that there are a few. Namely, Alignment and Diplomacy rules, and to a limmitted ammount Stealth, because these were left intentionally up to the DM or are slightly vague.
I think we have been arguing circles arround eachother. In those types of discussions, a "this style of Gm needs to Foo while this other style needs to Bar" is not inappropriate, but bringing up house rules will often do nothing but detract, unless they are supported with reasoning. Using rule 0 to fix a problem does not mean that a problem does not exist in the core rules (though the problem may be near irrelevant, or so obviously fall under rule 0 that it is the solution, like the commoner chain gun)I agree with you on every point you made, Caineach.
My angle is simply when not in a specific gaming scenario, ie. here on the boards in a thread not about a specific game, "Well the GM.." shouldn't enter into it or certainly not be used as an answer to shore up a RAW argument.
Hence my frustration with most of the responses I've gotten.
Perhaps I wasn't explaining my position well enough, but I'm glad we've finally come to an understanding :)
lol, i had to go check what the first post was again after that, and we really are of the track
as far as the original point goes i can only agree, when comparing classes, builds etc, what different GM's rule in thier own games really has nothing to do with it, purely for the sake of comparison you really have to RAW it
its 3.30am here and my head is falling out of my eyes :P i must go sleep now
good chatting
Gotta disagree here. Without actual gameplay to apply them to, the rules have no meaning. It's the difference between having a theoretical discussion and a practical one. The first bores me to tears and has little relevance to me, although I can understand why people might like to have them.The rules do not exist in a vacuum.Actually, they do. It's called the core rulebook.
They can stand on their own. They are campaign neutral.
They can be read, understood, and discussed with others with out needing a DM. You can look at the rules for one class vs. the rules for another or combat rules or magic rules or crafting rules and have an intelligent conversation about them, without a DM.
Hmmm...
I kinda see your point, but it seems apples and oranges to me.
A barbarian can rage x times per day at x level and gets x benefit.
A fighter's weapon training gives x benefit dependant on x level.
Having a discussion about these abilities as presented in the book regarding apparent balance is not theoretical.
They don't in theory have these abilities, the book is pretty cut and dry about them. A DM doesn't grant them these abilities, the core rules do. Opinion on the part of the people discussing this enters into such a discussion, but they don't require a DM, unless that discussion also revolves around how those mechanics work in said DM's game. But then, it's no longer a RAW discussion, and it then becomes theoretical.
I understand what you're saying, but to me it is the RAW discussion that is theoretical. It is the sterile laboratory environment in which theories can be developed, but to be proved you need to apply them to actual games and see if you can reproduce the same results. And when you do that, lots more variables enter play, as each campaign has its own set of assumptions, houserules, playstyle, etc. than can impact the theory in different ways. This to me creates a lively discussion, in which you can play with the variables and see how changing one thing can impact something else. I learn a lot from these discussions and get lots of ideas, frankly more than I do from the RAW discussions. Of course, I'm also far less interested in "winning" arguments or proviing my points than I am in sharing my own thoughts in the hope someone finds them useful, and learning from their thoughts in turn.
And I would like to add to this, to clarify the point I made earlier that some rules do actually require discussion of type of GM, that there are a few. Namely, Alignment and Diplomacy rules, and to a limmitted ammount Stealth, because these were left intentionally up to the DM or are slightly vague.I think we have been arguing circles arround eachother. In those types of discussions, a "this style of Gm needs to Foo while this other style needs to Bar" is not inappropriate, but bringing up house rules will often do nothing but detract, unless they are supported with reasoning. Using rule 0 to fix a problem does not mean that a problem does not exist in the core rules (though the problem may be near irrelevant, or so obviously fall under rule 0 that it is the solution, like the commoner chain gun)I agree with you on every point you made, Caineach.
My angle is simply when not in a specific gaming scenario, ie. here on the boards in a thread not about a specific game, "Well the GM.." shouldn't enter into it or certainly not be used as an answer to shore up a RAW argument.
I could argue but I'm not going to.
All I'll say is...Alignment. This depends on interpretation from all parties. The DM and Player MUST agree on what it means to be LG before a player in his game attempts to RP a Paladin, for example.
Diplomacy. The GM decides the baseline for the NPC to be swayed. No way around this.
Stealth. Is pretty cut n dry after you read the rules regarding levels of light, darkvision, cover, etc. But I see what you mean.
lol, i had to go check what the first post was again after that, and we really are of the track
as far as the original point goes i can only agree, when comparing classes, builds etc, what different GM's rule in thier own games really has nothing to do with it, purely for the sake of comparison you really have to RAW it
its 3.30am here and my head is falling out of my eyes :P i must go sleep now
good chatting
Rest well, and awake.
lol, i had to go check what the first post was again after that, and we really are of the track
as far as the original point goes i can only agree, when comparing classes, builds etc, what different GM's rule in thier own games really has nothing to do with it, purely for the sake of comparison you really have to RAW it
Actually, we are not that far off. The counterpoint is that style of campaign is controlled by the GM, and the style can influence the evaluation of the comparison greatly. Some of these things have guidelines, like encounter length and number, but others do not, like downtime. All of these can affect the relative ballance, so unless you at least address them then you are doing a poor annalysis of any comparison you make. And comparing things and not expecting an analysis is dumb.
I understand what you're saying, but to me it is the RAW discussion that is theoretical. It is the sterile laboratory environment in which theories can be developed, but to be proved you need to apply them to actual games and see if you can reproduce the same results. And when you do that, lots more variables enter play, as each campaign has its own set of assumptions, houserules, playstyle, etc. than can impact the theory in different ways. This to me creates a...Gotta disagree here. Without actual gameplay to apply them to, the rules have no meaning. It's the difference between having a theoretical discussion and a practical one. The first bores me to tears and has little relevance to me, although I can understand why people might like to have them.The rules do not exist in a vacuum.Actually, they do. It's called the core rulebook.
They can stand on their own. They are campaign neutral.
They can be read, understood, and discussed with others with out needing a DM. You can look at the rules for one class vs. the rules for another or combat rules or magic rules or crafting rules and have an intelligent conversation about them, without a DM.
Hmmm...
I kinda see your point, but it seems apples and oranges to me.
A barbarian can rage x times per day at x level and gets x benefit.
A fighter's weapon training gives x benefit dependant on x level.
Having a discussion about these abilities as presented in the book regarding apparent balance is not theoretical.
They don't in theory have these abilities, the book is pretty cut and dry about them. A DM doesn't grant them these abilities, the core rules do. Opinion on the part of the people discussing this enters into such a discussion, but they don't require a DM, unless that discussion also revolves around how those mechanics work in said DM's game. But then, it's no longer a RAW discussion, and it then becomes theoretical.
I see.
I enjoy those kind of discussions too, and I often have them with my gaming group. The advantage there is we all game with each other and use the same set of houserules and pretty much agree on how certain things will play out, using current or past charcters as examples of how they'd play out and such.On the boards however, the only understood baseline is the rules themselves, and it is frustrating trying to get someone to agree with you on a point about a RAW mechanic, to find out 5 or 6 posts later they were arguing from a "Well, DM says.." point of view.
This is all I meant.
I could argue but I'm not going to.
All I'll say is...
Alignment. This depends on interpretation from all parties. The DM and Player MUST agree on what it means to be LG before a player in his game attempts to RP a Paladin, for example.
Diplomacy. The GM decides the baseline for the NPC to be swayed. No way around this.
Stealth. Is pretty cut n dry after you read the rules regarding levels of light, darkvision, cover, etc. But I see what you mean.
Diplomacy is more "what does friendly mean," which will vary greatly from 1 GM to annother. In one campaign, the GM may let you roll diplomacy checks to destroy everything and control everyone. In annother, more standard one, it is a nice to have, and in annother it will be next to useless.
Stealth, I will just point to the 60+ faq requests on the consolidated stealth thread. I know exactly how I run it, and make sure others agree at my table, but I don't expect it to be the exact same if I move over to annother table, or even half as powerful as I make it. The part about distraction is the big one that causes arguements, as it is very vauge.
When trying to assess the value or the rules themselves, there is much up to interpretation and no 2 GMs will be alike. I think at least bringing up different known interpretations is important when discussing these rules or giving advice on them.
I see.
I enjoy those kind of discussions too, and I often have them with my gaming group. The advantage there is we all game with each other and use the same set of houserules and pretty much agree on how certain things will play out, using current or past charcters as examples of how they'd play out and such.
On the boards however, the only understood baseline is the rules themselves, and it is frustrating trying to get someone to agree with you on a point about a RAW mechanic, to find out 5 or 6 posts later they were arguing from a "Well, DM says.." point of view.
This is all I meant.
I can totally agree with this. Its very important to know how your own biases affect what you say and what advice you give before arguing with someone. We forget that too often here.
I can totally agree with this. Its very important to know how your own biases affect what you say and what advice you give before arguing with someone. We forget that too often here.I see.
I enjoy those kind of discussions too, and I often have them with my gaming group. The advantage there is we all game with each other and use the same set of houserules and pretty much agree on how certain things will play out, using current or past charcters as examples of how they'd play out and such.
On the boards however, the only understood baseline is the rules themselves, and it is frustrating trying to get someone to agree with you on a point about a RAW mechanic, to find out 5 or 6 posts later they were arguing from a "Well, DM says.." point of view.
This is all I meant.
Yep. I have no problem with someone bringing up examples from their own campaigns, or houseerules they have created to deal with certain problems or perceived imbalances, or DM rulings on specific topics and how it impacted their games, so long as they are well-explained and noted as exactly what they are. As I said, I learn a lot from these sometimes.
I have more problem with when people do the same thing without apparently being aware of the biases they themselves are bringing to the discussion, usually by either naively assuming that the way they play is the way most people play, or arrogantly assuming that the way they play is the best and/or only way to play.
I have more problem with when people do the same thing without apparently being aware of the biases they themselves are bringing to the discussion, usually by either naively assuming that the way they play is the way most people play, or arrogantly assuming that the way they play is the best and/or only way to play.
This right here has caused the death of many a good thread on these boards AND almost derailed an entire open playtest recently.
I agree with your take on this 100%.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
--+--Tarren, I wanted to point out to you that when you posted ...
Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.... it would be fair to read the following sentences, as well.
--+--
Yep. I've read those sentences too.
Whenever someone opens a thread pretty much saying, "If you use the following argument against me in any subsequent thread, you lose" it seems to me they are trying to shape all future debates in a very particular way. I just find it annoying.
I remember a few of those debates last year where someone was arguing about, I can't quite remember, chain binding efreeti for free wishes. When people discussed ways that a GM could respond to this, the response was along the lines of "Invoking GM fiat is FAIL. YOU LOSE".
That's crap. Any argument beginning with "The player could" deserves "The GM could" as a response. If the player takes an in-game action allowed by the rules, the GM can take in-game actions allowed by the rules. It's a GM's responsibility to do this.
However, changing the rules arbitrarily without consulting players will piss them off.
Yes, discussions of mechanics as mechanics do not get advanced by "The GM could" responses. Discussions of mechanics as realized in the game do. Obvious Broken is still Obvious (Planar Binding FTW) deserve "The GM could" response.
This is why I disagree with the OPs sweeping dismissal of discussions of the role of the GM.
I think the OP was talking about a specific argument regarding Sorcerers v.s Wizards, mechanics wise.
That may have gotten lost in the /rant.