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.
I expect this thread has pretty well run it's course. I think it's time to up the ante and focus squarely on GM fiat. That ought to be good for raising blood pressure.
Ok* LOL I'm up for this.
*This means "GM could.." answers are acceptable.
:P
Okay - learned something new today. Some folks think that a Wizard's Spellbook ought to count towards his equipment GP value. That really took me by surprise, I always thought his Spells were an intangible part of the class, like a Fighter's Feats, and thus had no quantifiable value.
Now, it occurs me that a stolen or lost Spellbook would cost lots of money to replace. I'm guessing that's because you can't research everything, you will have to by scrolls at some point and scribe 'em into your new book.
Now, am I guilty of not knowing the rules, does the RAW address this? Or is just a case of DM fiat?
Okay - learned something new today. Some folks think that a Wizard's Spellbook ought to count towards his equipment GP value. That really took me by surprise, I always thought his Spells were an intangible part of the class, like a Fighter's Feats, and thus had no quantifiable value.
Now, it occurs me that a stolen or lost Spellbook would cost lots of money to replace. I'm guessing that's because you can't research everything, you will have to by scrolls at some point and scribe 'em into your new book.
Now, am I guilty of not knowing the rules, does the RAW address this? Or is just a case of DM fiat?
Thieves have to buy their tools.
Fighters have to buy their weapons and armor.Wizards have to buy their spellbooks.
Err...
A wizard begins play with a spellbook containing all 0-level wizard spells (except those from his prohibited schools, if any; see Arcane Schools) plus three 1st-level spells of his choice.
Wizards shouldhave to buy their spellbooks.
Okay - learned something new today. Some folks think that a Wizard's Spellbook ought to count towards his equipment GP value. That really took me by surprise, I always thought his Spells were an intangible part of the class, like a Fighter's Feats, and thus had no quantifiable value.
Now, it occurs me that a stolen or lost Spellbook would cost lots of money to replace. I'm guessing that's because you can't research everything, you will have to by scrolls at some point and scribe 'em into your new book.
Now, am I guilty of not knowing the rules, does the RAW address this? Or is just a case of DM fiat?
Thieves have to buy their tools.
Fighters have to buy their weapons and armor.
Wizards have to buy their spellbooks.Err...
A wizard begins play with a spellbook containing all 0-level wizard spells (except those from his prohibited schools, if any; see Arcane Schools) plus three 1st-level spells of his choice.Wizards shouldhave to buy their spellbooks.
Well, does he need to pay gold to learn new spells? Who is he paying? Oh, I know, I could rule that he doesn't get his new spells until he can RP out how he gets 'em!
Well, does he need to pay gold to learn new spells? Who is he paying? Oh, I know, I could rule that he doesn't get his new spells until he can RP out how he gets 'em!Okay - learned something new today. Some folks think that a Wizard's Spellbook ought to count towards his equipment GP value. That really took me by surprise, I always thought his Spells were an intangible part of the class, like a Fighter's Feats, and thus had no quantifiable value.
Now, it occurs me that a stolen or lost Spellbook would cost lots of money to replace. I'm guessing that's because you can't research everything, you will have to by scrolls at some point and scribe 'em into your new book.
Now, am I guilty of not knowing the rules, does the RAW address this? Or is just a case of DM fiat?
Thieves have to buy their tools.
Fighters have to buy their weapons and armor.
Wizards have to buy their spellbooks.Err...
A wizard begins play with a spellbook containing all 0-level wizard spells (except those from his prohibited schools, if any; see Arcane Schools) plus three 1st-level spells of his choice.Wizards shouldhave to buy their spellbooks.
Well, one interpretation would be "A wizard begins play with a spellbook containing all 0-level wizard spells (except those from his prohibited schools, if any; see Arcane Schools) plus three 1st-level spells of his choice for free" but the last 2 words aren't in there...
FIAT!!
Well, does he need to pay gold to learn new spells? Who is he paying? Oh, I know, I could rule that he doesn't get his new spells until he can RP out how he gets 'em!Okay - learned something new today. Some folks think that a Wizard's Spellbook ought to count towards his equipment GP value. That really took me by surprise, I always thought his Spells were an intangible part of the class, like a Fighter's Feats, and thus had no quantifiable value.
Now, it occurs me that a stolen or lost Spellbook would cost lots of money to replace. I'm guessing that's because you can't research everything, you will have to by scrolls at some point and scribe 'em into your new book.
Now, am I guilty of not knowing the rules, does the RAW address this? Or is just a case of DM fiat?
Thieves have to buy their tools.
Fighters have to buy their weapons and armor.
Wizards have to buy their spellbooks.Err...
A wizard begins play with a spellbook containing all 0-level wizard spells (except those from his prohibited schools, if any; see Arcane Schools) plus three 1st-level spells of his choice.Wizards shouldhave to buy their spellbooks.Well, one interpretation would be "A wizard begins play with a spellbook containing all 0-level wizard spells (except those from his prohibited schools, if any; see Arcane Schools) plus three 1st-level spells of his choice for free" but the last 2 words aren't in there...
FIAT!!
It says you begin play with. It doesn't say you must buy it, it says you get one for being a wizard. It's free unless stated otherwise.
You can buy more spellbooks though (and there are reasons to do so). Many adventurers will keep spare spellbooks, often for adventuring, since it's arguably the safest method. Likewise, scrollbooks have a certain number of pages, so wizards without secret-page (possibly one of the most convenient spells for a wizard) will need to buy additional spellbooks.
Heh, sorry.
just trying my hand at the Cockmaster DM fiat.
Heh, sorry.
just trying my hand at the Cockmaster DM fiat.
Hahahah. Fair enough. ^_^
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.
You can't play the game without a DM. The DM is 100% necessary. Someone has to create the campaign. Someone has to set the tone. Someone has to decide who the opponents are and how often you encounter them. Someone has to decide how much downtime there is. Someone has to determine what the enemies do in combat. The game cannot be played without a DM and therefore the DM is an integral part of how the Rules as Written are implemented.
Straight forward mechanics are one thing. No one can argue that a fighter has a base attack bonus equal to his level. It can be argued how useful disarming is based on campaign style and most common opponents. In a game that sees a lot of aberrations, disarm will probably not be a good option and therefore be mechanically inferior to other combat options such as bull rush. In games where there are a ton of humanoids, disarm can be a very effective maneuver. In a game where the DM doesn't give a lot of research time nor a lot of casting opponents, wizards may find themselves with very few spells available. In a game with a ton of aberrations, the wizard may find that his list of spells is smaller than in a game with a lot of humanoids.
The mechanics do not exist and cannot exist in a vacuum.
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.
You can't play the game without a DM. The DM is 100% necessary. Someone has to create the campaign. Someone has to set the tone. Someone has to decide who the opponents are and how often you encounter them. Someone has to decide how much downtime there is. Someone has to determine what the enemies do in combat. The game cannot be played without a DM and therefore the DM is an integral part of how the Rules as Written are implemented.
Straight forward mechanics are one thing. No one can argue that a fighter has a base attack bonus equal to his level. It can be argued how useful disarming is based on campaign style and most common opponents. In a game that sees a lot of aberrations, disarm will probably not be a good option and therefore be mechanically inferior to other combat options such as bull rush. In games where there are a ton of humanoids, disarm can be a very effective maneuver. In a game where the DM doesn't give a lot of research time nor a lot of casting opponents, wizards may find themselves with very few spells available. In a game with a ton of aberrations, the wizard may find that his list of spells is smaller than in a game with a lot of humanoids.
The mechanics do not exist and cannot exist in a vacuum.
Actually, they can. I say this from experience. There's a number of different methods for handling the game without a GM, including random generation of enemies, dungeons, and so forth. I used to run a set of 4 PCs through random dungeons and adventures I put together to get a better grasp of the mechanics, player options, and GM options.
It takes a little adaptation, but the mechanical portion of the game can indeed exist without GM intervention. I know this from experience. As the primary GM of my groups for the past 10 years, I can say with certainty, GMs are important to a good game - not good mechanics. Even with discussing things like favored enemy, people could discuss its merits based on standard enemies over a range of CRs, or see that unless your GM is specifically using a lot of a particular type of humanoid that "Humanoids (Orc)" is probably a poorer choice than "Aberration", "Magical Beast", or "Undead".
|
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.
You can't play the game without a DM. The DM is 100% necessary. Someone has to create the campaign. Someone has to set the tone. Someone has to decide who the opponents are and how often you encounter them. Someone has to decide how much downtime there is. Someone has to determine what the enemies do in combat. The game cannot be played without a DM and therefore the DM is an integral part of how the Rules as Written are implemented.
Straight forward mechanics are one thing. No one can argue that a fighter has a base attack bonus equal to his level. It can be argued how useful disarming is based on campaign style and most common opponents. In a game that sees a lot of aberrations, disarm will probably not be a good option and therefore be mechanically inferior to other combat options such as bull rush. In games where there are a ton of humanoids, disarm can be a very effective maneuver. In a game where the DM doesn't give a lot of research time nor a lot of casting opponents, wizards may find themselves with very few spells available. In a game with a ton of aberrations, the wizard may find that his list of spells is smaller than in a game with a lot of humanoids.
The mechanics do not exist and cannot exist in a vacuum.
Actually, they can. I say this from experience. There's a number of different methods for handling the game without a GM, including random generation of enemies, dungeons, and so forth. I used to run a set of 4 PCs through random dungeons and adventures I put together to get a better grasp of the mechanics, player options, and GM options.
...
You are right... it is possible to do so without a DM but not RAW. Which is your argument :)
Actually, they can. I say this from experience. There's a number of different methods for handling the game without a GM, including random generation of enemies, dungeons, and so forth. I used to run a set of 4 PCs through random dungeons and adventures I put together to get a better grasp of the mechanics, player options, and GM options.
...
Those are house rules.
You are not playing the RAW. Does your non-GM'd game include rules for then the players can decide to rest in response to the timers that happen in the adventure? Unforeseen turns in the plot? Vengeful NPCs attacking the players on their own turf?
It sounds like what you are doing is interesting*, and has its own merits, but you are claiming that your house rules which obviate the need for a GM will produce reliable results in analysis of the RAW. Because the GM is in the RAW, this is not possible.
If I go forth believing your GM-less analysis, the GM will invalidate that analysis the first time he decides to, say, have something completely unexpected occur. How would you handle traps in such a system? I'm sure you have something elegant and workable, but I am also sure that it is NOT how 95% of players use the system, and that casts doubt on the validity of your analysis.
* no seriously, it seems like a valid game experience — all I'm saying is that the RAW has a specified GM who decides what happens next, and removing him is a house rule. I cannot stress this enough: I think it is a neat idea, only the analysis is suspect.
EDIT: Okay, while I was thinking about how it would be possible to actually run a total-GMless game for oneself, I realized that maybe if you had a bisected corpus collosum, one half of your brain could GM for the other, and that would circumvent the perception issues with traps and plot and such. But technically, that would still be like having a GM, and therefore, the RAW.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
EDIT: Okay, while I was thinking about how it would be possible to actually run a total-GMless game for oneself, I realized that maybe if you had a bisected corpus collosum, one half of your brain could GM for the other, and that would circumvent the perception issues with traps and plot and such. But technically, that would still be like having a GM, and therefore, the RAW.
Are you looking for volunteers, Mr. Evil President?
Actually, they can. I say this from experience. There's a number of different methods for handling the game without a GM, including random generation of enemies, dungeons, and so forth. I used to run a set of 4 PCs through random dungeons and adventures I put together to get a better grasp of the mechanics, player options, and GM options.
...
Who selected how the random tables are set up? Who selected which opponents are on the tables? Who is deciding what the opponents are doing? Who decided what the random dungeon is going to be like? Who decided the overall terrain? Who decided what the theme would be? Who decided how long between encounters? Who decided what the treasure available would be?
The game cannot be run without some sort of DM. It is impossible.
For the record, I have done the random dungeon thing many times (1st edition had a bunch or tables for this purpose and there are several 3rd edition random dungeon generators). I enjoyed it but I also know that someone had to be the one behind the scenes acting as DM. If I was running it for myself, then I was both DM and player.
Who selected how the random tables are set up? Who selected which opponents are on the tables? Who is deciding what the opponents are doing? Who decided what the random dungeon is going to be like? Who decided the overall terrain? Who decided what the theme would be? Who decided how long between encounters? Who decided what the treasure available would be?
What's more, this is all exacerbated by the lack of certain key tables in the Core Rule Book. There is no wandering monster frequency in the book. There is no basic gear-type generation (go ahead and TRY to find that table), which is essential for random treasure generation in a GM-less system. The official rule in both these cases (and I have sought official rulings in both cases) is: the GM decides when monsters attack and what kind of weapons, armor, and items are found.
Now, it's strange, because while I am adamantly opposed to removing the GM from RAW discussion, I do think the game would be "better" if these baseline issues were covered in the core rules. Certainly, in the example of the tables mentioned above, and I was surprised by their absence.
Both of these things are addressed in some capacity in the GMG, but the GMG is not the core rules. The game cannot be played RAW without a GM.
The game cannot be run without some sort of DM. It is impossible.
Almost, bob. You can create house-rules to play GMless, I'm sure of that, and it sounds like it could be fun! But you can't use the RAW to play without a GM. You couldn't in 3.5 either, although it would have required fewer changes than in PF (because of the aforementioned tables).
What's more, this is all exacerbated by the lack of certain key tables in the Core Rule Book. There is no wandering monster frequency in the book. There is no basic gear-type generation (go ahead and TRY to find that table), which is essential for random treasure generation in a GM-less system. The official rule in both these cases (and I have sought official rulings in both cases) is: the GM decides when monsters attack and what kind of weapons, armor, and items are found.
I don't think they should be in the Core Rules only because each campaign is going to be different but I would like to see this in campaign specific books. In my game some creatures may be rarer than others. This would certainly help with adjudicating the DCs for knowledge checks.
Now, it's strange, because while I am adamantly opposed to removing the GM from RAW discussion, I do think the game would be "better" if these baseline issues were covered in the core rules. Certainly, in the example of the tables mentioned above, and I was surprised by their absence.
Both of these things are addressed in some capacity in the GMG, but the GMG is not the core rules. The game cannot be played RAW without a GM.
I do think that the game would certainly be improved with some more details. I do like the fact that many of the details (like rarity of monsters) are left entirely up to the DM/Campaign Setting.
Almost, bob. You can create house-rules to play GMless, I'm sure of that, and it sounds like it could be fun! But you can't use the RAW to play without a GM. You couldn't in 3.5 either, although it would have required fewer changes than in PF (because of the aforementioned tables).
I don't think it can be completely DM free but I do think it can be DM light. Someone still needs to play the side of the opposition. Someone needs to decide whether the dragon breathes fire this round or casts a spell. Someone needs to decide if the NPC fighter uses Sunder or Disarm. Someone needs to decide when the NPC cleric heals his buddies. Someone needs to decide what happens when the NPC wizard casts Suggestion on the player(s).
There is just too much to go completely DM free. I do think that DM-light game is entirely possible and can be fun. I've done it myself and had a lot of fun.
To clarify, this was a 3E game, but it's no less do-able in Pathfinder. Pathfinder may lack the random generation rules but the 3.0 and 3.5 DMG included rules for randomly generating a dungeon room to room with encounters, and also includes encounter charts based on environment, so generating different dungeons, environments, and similar could all be done without the influence of GM intervention. While Pathfinder lacks the random encounter charts for the dungeons (it does include encounter charts), the lesson is universal.
The lesson is, there are certain aspects of the game that can run and or function more or less without specific GM intervention. The GM does not need to enter into every argument that has nothing to do with the GM. The GM could be mentioned as a caveat (such as "Sorcerers pull ahead of wizards if GM prevents the wizard from getting downtime - but only in this case") but not as though it were fact or relevant to the quality of an ability (any ability - no matter how basic, a GM can screw up for you, including a fighter's +X static bonuses with his weapons).
Now, one thing to consider is that while mechanically these GM-less games worked fine and helped me to gain a better understanding for the mechanics (sometimes running a party of adventurers like test dummies through a scenario or random environment), I am in no way saying or even suggesting that the game should be played without a GM. While GM-less play can be great for kick in the door - roll dice - types of play, deeper games require a GM to tell a story and to give NPC interaction ('cause sitting and roleplaying with yourself is questionable at best).
The point is, unless you keep the GM out of arguments unless it is warranted and noted, then there can be no conversation, because GM > All. No mechanic, class, item, spell, or anything else can be evaluated if you bring "well the GM can" into the argument. It just comes down to a battle of ifs, and what ifs.
|
The point is, unless you keep the GM out of arguments unless it is warranted and noted, then there can be no conversation, because GM > All. No mechanic, class, item, spell, or anything else can be evaluated if you bring "well the GM can" into the argument. It just comes down to a battle of ifs, and what ifs.
You have it backwards.
Trying to have discussions about balance, mechanics, in an environment with no DM means there is no GAME.The rules are not meant to stand on their own, and trying to suggest that discussion that relies on this assumption is a fallacy.
GM? Mr. Fishy eats GMs and burps adventures. The GM is a dancing monkey. Dance, monkey, dance. If Mr. Fishy needs a spell he has it, even if he's a fighter. If Mr. Fishy says jump the GM better ask "What's the DC."
The GM could bite Mr. Fishy, disrupt Mr. Fishy's game with his foolishness.
The RAW says...wait, damn...Ummmm.
This is my favorite post.
The point is, unless you keep the GM out of arguments unless it is warranted and noted, then there can be no conversation, because GM > All. No mechanic, class, item, spell, or anything else can be evaluated if you bring "well the GM can" into the argument. It just comes down to a battle of ifs, and what ifs.You have it backwards.
Trying to have discussions about balance, mechanics, in an environment with no DM means there is no GAME.The rules are not meant to stand on their own, and trying to suggest that discussion that relies on this assumption is a fallacy.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
The lesson is, there are certain aspects of the game that can run and or function more or less without specific GM intervention. The GM does not need to enter into every argument that has nothing to do with the GM. The GM could be mentioned as a caveat (such as "Sorcerers pull ahead of wizards if GM prevents the wizard from getting downtime - but only in this case") but not as though it were fact or relevant to the quality of an ability (any ability - no matter how basic, a GM can screw up for you, including a fighter's +X static bonuses with his weapons).
This is sort of what I take issue with. Let's take the "wizard needs time" example from your quote above. I don't see this problem, I see it's inverse: as a GM, following the pace of any series of encounters results in no time for crafting at all. I'm not trying to eliminate crafting, it just so happens that most action-packed adventure scenarios preclude its use in my experience. The intervention that has been required was to add craftng time.
Now, does this lead to the opposite formulation: "Wizards pull ahead of sorcerers if GM gives the wizard extra downtime - but only in this case" ?
That's what I'm getting at here. You can replace the GM with an automaton, it's an interesting exercise, but that automaton still GMs within your parameters. You're GMing the game through an automaton proxy. There are so many factors of an adventure that are undefined in the rules, and that have a very basic effect on play. Things as simple as: some GMs always try to ambush the party in their sleep, and so people know the sleeping/donning armor rules cold. Some parties never deal with this at all!
I feel like we're still having two separate conversations. You're decrying the evils of bad GMing, and lumping the very existence of GMs in with that undesirable group. But GM analysis is important! Really, really important. I can't count the number of times I have seen GMs on this board who neeed advice on these "undocumented" GM discretion issues, like Treasure distibution or encounter balance.
I think that creating a common ground where the GM variable is well defined for certain kinds of rule discussions is a noble aim. But this weird world you describe where there are all sorts of pathfinder players playing GMless, and where the GM can be ignored in discussions where a GM ruling makes or breaks certain character types... I just don't get it.
This is my favorite post.GM? Mr. Fishy eats GMs and burps adventures. The GM is a dancing monkey. Dance, monkey, dance. If Mr. Fishy needs a spell he has it, even if he's a fighter. If Mr. Fishy says jump the GM better ask "What's the DC."
The GM could bite Mr. Fishy, disrupt Mr. Fishy's game with his foolishness.
The RAW says...wait, damn...Ummmm.
Thank you. Mr. Fishy does his best to entertain you ingrate air breathers.
Sometimes posters forget that this is a game we're talking about not the what to get on a pizza. Sometimes a joke can lightly a mood and prevent a troll flaming...or Mr. Fishy is a shameless attention whore.
Mr. Fishy Fan Club, just saying...>bubble< shameless.
Sometimes posters forget that this is a game we're talking about not the what to get on a pizza. Sometimes a joke can lightly a mood and prevent a troll flaming...or Mr. Fishy is a shameless attention whore.Mr. Fishy Fan Club, just saying...>bubble< shameless.
..how much for our logo branded on your belly?
Nothing too intrusive, a simple ''BE HAPPY - BE GOOD - BEHAVE'' and then a full colour image of your humble, all-powerful ruler doing a
THE PEOPLE DEMAND HIGH PROFILE EXPOSURE
This is sort of what I take issue with. Let's take the "wizard needs time" example from your quote above. I don't see this problem, I see it's inverse: as a GM, following the pace of any series of encounters results in no time for crafting at all. I'm not trying to eliminate crafting, it just so happens that most action-packed adventure scenarios preclude its use in my experience. The intervention that has been required was to add craftng time.
I've found this to be blatantly false, as are most sweeping statements (for the record). Exactly how do you come to the conclusion that "following the pace of any series of encounters results in no time for crafting at all"? That's an amazingly broad statement.
I've found just the opposite in my experiences. Throughout the years, I've found that in most ongoing campaigns that the players will have options for down-time unless forced not to. For example, in one of my tabletop group's campaign, the campaign itself spanned a few years in-game. In that campaign, the party had plenty of time to craft items (including a flying ship which the sorcerer's followers piloted).
Even in the Red Hand of Doom, which specifically says there's not much time for breaks for crafting - because the entire campaign is built around going from levels 5 to 15 in the span of about a month - the party still found time to craft a few scrolls now and then.
So like I said, repeatedly, if the GM wants then the abilities will be worth less than if he wasn't preventing you to use them. In the same way that certain sorcerer bloodlines are worth less if the GM wants (it doesn't even have to be intentional, maybe the GM just really likes using fire elementals). Alternatively, the GM might have a crazy love for ice elementals and white dragons, so the sorcerer's fire will be worth more than expected.
Taking breaks between adventures is hardly unreasonable. I mean, unless your characters spend every day in a constant series of fights against goblins to dragons in an incredibly short adventure that results in godlike characters in a month. Something like "It's been three months since you drove back the hobgoblin advancements, and now you have received word that the daughter of the hobgoblin king is leading another push into the borderlands personally. Time is of the essence if you are to intercept them and evacuate the bordertowns" is no less reasonable and grants plenty of time to craft skills, deal with in-game relations, or other projects.
Now, does this lead to the opposite formulation: "Wizards pull ahead of sorcerers if GM gives the wizard extra downtime - but only in this case"?
Personally, I think it's out of the scope of this thread. I've only been using the sorcerer & wizard thread to give examples. As someone who has GMed for, and played, both classes, I would say that they both have their strengths and weaknesses and adapt to different play-styles differently and have seen both played extremely well. Some people like playing sorcerers, and some like playing wizards. I have both camps in my tabletop and online games, and they both contribute heavily. 3.5 sorcerers did require house ruled bloodlines in our games, but the Pathfinder sorcerer holds her own; and I've found them pretty balanced.
That's what I'm getting at here. You can replace the GM with an automaton, it's an interesting exercise, but that automaton still GMs within your parameters. You're GMing the game through an automaton proxy. There are so many factors of an adventure that are undefined in the rules, and that have a very basic effect on play. Things as simple as: some GMs always try to ambush the party in their sleep, and so people know the sleeping/donning armor rules cold. Some parties never deal with this at all!
Exactly. Some people will never deal with that, some people will. The GM can decide whether or not that they do. Just like the GM can decide if you can even get armor if he wants to, or the GM could decide you never have a chance to sleep at all (woo exhaustion 24/7). The GM is a wild-card that cannot be used to argue the value of class abilities, because the values assume you will get to use them. In such cases, you are only arguing the benefit of that ability in a specific scenario, and it solves nothing in the short or long term.
I feel like we're still having two separate conversations. You're decrying the evils of bad GMing, and lumping the very existence of GMs in with that undesirable group. But GM analysis is important! Really, really important. I can't count the number of times I have seen GMs on this board who neeed advice on these "undocumented" GM discretion issues, like Treasure distibution or encounter balance.
Do not misrepresent me or tell me what I am decrying, because it's obvious you are clueless. I've not once during any of my posts said anything about bad GMing. Feel free to go find a quote from me where I lament the cons of bad GMs. In the meantime, I will say again, I have been talking about the fact "the GM can" is an illegitimate argument because it's like a wild card. No one can or cannot say what the GM will do in any given campaign and it changes from campaign to campaign, and GM to GM.
I think that creating a common ground where the GM variable is well defined for certain kinds of rule discussions is a noble aim. But this weird world you describe where there are all sorts of pathfinder players playing GMless, and where the GM can be ignored in discussions where a GM ruling makes or breaks certain character types... I just don't get it.
Because the GM makes or breaks ALL character types. Thus, when you bring the GM into it, everything else becomes irrelevant.
I myself am a huge proponent of GM Adjudication, if there is no GM Adjudication, then I should stop talking about a Tabletop game and pick up a video game.