Tired of all the "Well the GM Could" arguments


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 278 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Look, there's a lot of stuff that gets discussed and debated around here, and I'm seeing a lot of "Well the GM could" arguments floating around as a fallback when someone discusses something in the context of the game. This is a load of crap.

When discussing something, such as class balance, unless noted otherwise (such as in a specific type of campaign with specific types of modifications and house rules) we are discussing it based on the guidelines and rules as they are presented.

So when someone says "Well wizards might not get to use their scribe scroll feat, 'cause a lot of GMs are like that", that someone has just failed at their debate. When you have to bring GM fiat in, or expressly leave the rules and expectations of the system for your argument, you have lost. You are effectively declaring "I forfeit".

Wanna know why? Here's why. A GM can do pretty much anything, and can take a super dump on any class, race, character, magic item, or archtype he wants to. He could make sure you never find a magic item ever, or even be able to rest (an entire campaign with a fatigued / exhausted party, that rat-basslard). He could make sure every enemy you ever face is immune to your good spells - or all almost all of your spells (gotta lurv dem golems). The GM could make sure you never have time to craft items, buy items, find items, or do anything.

But, the fact is, there's a lot of really, realy, REALLY BAD GMs. When the crux of your argument relies on having a bad GM who robs players of their options, then your argument has already failed.

I'm just so sick and tired of these "not all GMs play by the rules" arguments, because if they're not playing using the rules then they have no business in a comparison or rules debate.

/rant


I agree that "A GM could..." is not a strong argument. But considering that this game doesn't work without the variable human element ignoring it is like designing a rocket ship in the perfect vacuum that physicists learn how to do their initial equations in and then being surprised when there are issues getting it through the atmosphere.

The GM is the final balancing factor in every game, and none of the rules work except without his interpretation. Most discussions assume a disinterested GM who is going to let the players run roughshod over the game, and that's just as bad as assuming the GM is going to start swinging the nerf bat and leave the players cowering before the might of the average farmer.

What should be assumed is a reasonable, intelligent GM, which falls into that (rare?) middle ground. One who is very giving, but isn't going to allow someone to abuse the system.

Discussing rule balance and assuming no GM involvement whatsoever is like trying to review how good a sandwich is before you add the bread.


GMs have to do too many things, they even have to fix the flaws in the game, something that should have been done by the game designers. But it was worse in previous editions.
Advice about what a GM can do is always helpful, using "the GM could" excuse in order to not discuss the rules isn't helping.

Dark Archive

Tobias wrote:

I agree that "A GM could..." is not a strong argument. But considering that this game doesn't work without the variable human element ignoring it is like designing a rocket ship in the perfect vacuum that physicists learn how to do their initial equations in and then being surprised when there are issues getting it through the atmosphere.

The GM is the final balancing factor in every game, and none of the rules work except without his interpretation. Most discussions assume a disinterested GM who is going to let the players run roughshod over the game, and that's just as bad as assuming the GM is going to start swinging the nerf bat and leave the players cowering before the might of the average farmer.

What should be assumed is a reasonable, intelligent GM, which falls into that (rare?) middle ground. One who is very giving, but isn't going to allow someone to abuse the system.

Discussing rule balance and assuming no GM involvement whatsoever is like trying to review how good a sandwich is before you add the bread.

Well said.

Dark Archive

I've agreed with this; but what can you do? Inevitably these start because of some "magic classes are broken, AC is irrelevant" argument made by a very vocal person who probably plays very little. They won't be dissuaded, and are used to arguing this to death, so eventually the thread degenerates into the "GM should fix things", when really there aren't even a fraction of the game balance issues that this board lists. So there are all kinds of issues with our arguments, but this is the Internet, so what do you expect? :).


It's in the Rules. GM balancing the game is as much a part of the rules-as-written as the class chapter of the rulebook.

I'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree more with your stance on this.

Sovereign Court

... Link ...

It seemed appropiate.


A GM have to play within the rules, that has something to do with "setting the expectations", but he should also bend these rules if needed. Bending the rules should always be the last resort!

Example for setting the expectations:
A 6 feet wide cleft and a player with no amor want to jump over it.
The player has a total of 9 in acrobatics, so he is expecting he will make it.
Bad GM: "Ok, roll DC is 25!" (because I don't want you to jump over it)
Good GM: knows one of his players is a "jumper" so he setting the cleft for 30 feet and the hallway is only 6 feet high, so no jump is possible, regardless of how many ranks he had in acrobatics.

Bending the rules, this is something very controversal, but I think as DM I have to do it, but there are two rules to it:
1. NEVER bend the rules to harm the players in any way, NEVER!
2. Only bend the rules to create some epic moment or something which is important for the storyline. In the last one, make sure the player didn't recognize it.

And again, a DM plays with the players not against them. If he's against them the game is over in a few minutes.
At least "Know your players and know yourself (the rules) and you will not have to bend the rules" (old DM wisdom)

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Well, it depends, Ashiel. Sometimes, "GMs exert reason" is a perfectly good argument.

I've seen people post some pretty preposterous premises on these boards. One example that sticks out is the claim that, because there must be the default 4 encounters per day, and 133.33 encounters must equal a level, characters must go from 1st to 20th level in about 63 game days. I've also seen claims that characters must have all the time they please for crafting, and if the adventure imposes a time constraint (as, for example, in "Red Hand of Doom", where you're in the path of an advancing army) then the GM is abusing the rules.

Pish posh. Part of the GM's job involves creating dramatic tension. If a player gets all the in-game time her character wants, to make any item she pleases, then a good deal of dramatic tension is lost. It's only my opinion, but I think a party should always feel a little uncertain about the chances, a little unsatisfied with the current power level, a little on edge going up against even known threats.

And, in the context of class balance, if a player is finding that she has a hard time contributing to a campaign, a GM can exert reason and give that PC a chance to shine. People are saying that, because it's true. And part of -- a large part of -- the GM's job is to make sure that everybody at the table is having a good time. If that means finding opportunities for the Monk to showcase his abilities, then that's what the GM should be doing.

Contrariwise, if the party's Paladin is running roughshod over all the encounters, then it's incumbent upon the GM to put some obstacles in her path, or to provide encounters where her advantages are not immediately the deciding factor.

I am baffled by your suggestion that this is "bad GMing". And I am encouraged by the posters before me, who've asserted that common sense is an essential part of the game.


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.


Welcome to pen an paper roll playing games.

These games are not run by a robot or computer. We all bring our different perspectives and biases to these games.

A LONG standing tenet has been that the rules provide a basis and guideline that each GM/DM can alter to their preference. House rules have been around as long as these games have. Granted vast variances from rules as written can lead to abuse. Then again these are the games/GMs that don't last long.

The sticking point in my opinion is society play and those demanding that all society games be close to exactly the same in regards to rules. This flies in the face of generations of gaming.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I think the point Ashiel is trying to make is, in a RAW discussion about RAW, determining balance among the classes from the book RAW wise, GM fiat doesnt enter into it.
The class' balance or lack thereof should rest on the merits of their rules, RAW, not dependent on interdiction by a DM.


Kryzbyn wrote:

I think the point Ashiel is trying to make is, in a RAW discussion about RAW, determining balance among the classes from the book RAW wise, GM fiat doesnt enter into it.

The class' balance or lack thereof should rest on the merits of their rules, RAW, not dependent on interdiction by a DM.

That's not how I'd play it at MY table... just sayin', ya know

:oP


the problem is there is no raw adventure/campaign/encounter. Many rules discussions (such as crafting rules) require the campaign/setting/pacing to come into play to determine balance. Those kinds of discussions HAVE to involve the dm because they make the campaign, design the encounters and set the pacing of the adventure.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:

I think the point Ashiel is trying to make is, in a RAW discussion about RAW, determining balance among the classes from the book RAW wise, GM fiat doesnt enter into it.

The class' balance or lack thereof should rest on the merits of their rules, RAW, not dependent on interdiction by a DM.

Given that a very large percentage of people playing Pathfinder are doing so through the Patfinder Society Network Campaign it's particular "GM" house rules ARE a significant factor that is worth bringing up in discussion. The Campaign Guidelines have house rules that significantly impact character and class options.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

When you're siting at a table reading the rules, with no DM to adjuticate it, do they work/are they balanced? Do they work/are they balanced without random or favorable interpretation? Do they stand on their own merit?
This should be how a discussion about the rules as written should be prefaced.
If one's whole argument or proof is "No because my DM is a cockmaster" then that's not really relevant.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
E-Eternal wrote:


The sticking point in my opinion is society play and those demanding that all society games be close to exactly the same in regards to rules. This flies in the face of generations of gaming.

The Campaign Guidelines make it fairly clear what you can monkey with as a GM and what is simply off the table in PFS tables.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

That's just the thing. Every table, every DM is different. It's impossible to have a reasonable discussion about the workings of the system unless everyone has a common standard they can refer to, and that, by definition, must be the Rules As Written, outside of any house rules or DM intervention. It's meaningless to compare (to use an extreme example) a fighter in a campaign where the fighter gets extra free magic items every level to a wizard who risks serious handicap or death with every spell--they're operating under two wholly different rules systems. Discussion and analysis has to start with the rules and assumptions built into the system.

That common ground having been established, it can be useful to discuss house rules--how and why the DM has made rules alterations, and how they have made a difference in the RAW issues that have been brought up. But saying the balance problem doesn't exist because a DM can make alterations is not a true statement.


Kryzbyn wrote:

I think the point Ashiel is trying to make is, in a RAW discussion about RAW, determining balance among the classes from the book RAW wise, GM fiat doesnt enter into it.

The class' balance or lack thereof should rest on the merits of their rules, RAW, not dependent on interdiction by a DM.

To which I say, emphatically, no.

The GM's role in these matters is clearly defined by the rules. Just as the player's role and rules are defined in the Classes, the GM's role as an agent of balance is defined in the rules. RThe game does not work without a GM. The GM has responsibilities to the system, and there is built-in variance as to how he resolves these responsibilities. Gold management is one such task, which has clear guidelines, but nevertheless the rules as printed express that there may be variation. Time management is another case, although the rules are far less clear on guidelines in this instance, it is no less important to the basic assumptions of game balance.

You cannot settle any argument without the GM and a campaign context. To attempt otherwise is to waste time bickering on the internet because you can't actually play the game at that moment (hypocrisy nod).

It is not my purpose to attack anyone personally. I will defend the notion that the GM and Campaign are inextricable from any serious analysis of the Pathfinder RPG. I hope you understand that I respect your opinion on the matter, but I could not disagree with it more.

Liberty's Edge

Kryzbyn wrote:

I think the point Ashiel is trying to make is, in a RAW discussion about RAW, determining balance among the classes from the book RAW wise, GM fiat doesnt enter into it.

The class' balance or lack thereof should rest on the merits of their rules, RAW, not dependent on interdiction by a DM.

+1


It's impossible to discuss complex issues such as game balance without taking the GM and players into account. If the DM and players favor larger encounters with lower CR creatures, the classes will perform very differently than a GM and players who prefer 1-2 opponents per encounter. A GM that favors traps and intrigue will have very different results than a DM who favors kicking in the door games. A GM who uses lots of non- or low-intelligence opponents should have a different style of game than a DM who uses lots of intelligent outsiders. None of these are wrong but they all produce different results.

I think that's one of the things that many people forget in these discussions. My group, still using RAW, will have different expectations and results than your group, still using RAW.


Evil Lincoln wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

I think the point Ashiel is trying to make is, in a RAW discussion about RAW, determining balance among the classes from the book RAW wise, GM fiat doesnt enter into it.

The class' balance or lack thereof should rest on the merits of their rules, RAW, not dependent on interdiction by a DM.

To which I say, emphatically, no.

The GM's role in these matters is clearly defined by the rules. Just as the player's role and rules are defined in the Classes, the GM's role as an agent of balance is defined in the rules. RThe game does not work without a GM. The GM has responsibilities to the system, and there is built-in variance as to how he resolves these responsibilities. Gold management is one such task, which has clear guidelines, but nevertheless the rules as printed express that there may be variation. Time management is another case, although the rules are far less clear on guidelines in this instance, it is no less important to the basic assumptions of game balance.

You cannot settle any argument without the GM and a campaign context. To attempt otherwise is to waste time bickering on the internet because you can't actually play the game at that moment (hypocrisy nod).

It is not my purpose to attack anyone personally. I will defend the notion that the GM and Campaign are inextricable from any serious analysis of the Pathfinder RPG. I hope you understand that I respect your opinion on the matter, but I could not disagree with it more.

I think both are valid tools. Just like it isnt useless to teach people physics without adding air resistance and coefficient of friction. There are practical reasons to look at the material in a vacuum. It gives you a simpler baseline of understanding of how something might work. Because if you start adding in all the variables at the beggining you'll never get an understanding of how something is supposed to work.

To go along with that is the real world application of those basics. So you know if the astronaught hits a golf ball on the moon it goes this far, that same astronaught hitting the golfball on earth, what happens? What about on jupiter? Mars?

That is what happens when you add in the DM who creates the environment and in some cases changes the rules. He or she sets the environment and controls the outside forces that impact the rules written in the books.

You really do need both to have a rational discussion on the impact/balance of a rule/option etc. But both are valid and important parts of the process.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

To use your example though...
In a discussion of "Can you use a golf club to hit a ball?" the wheres don't matter. The answer is yes. This is the core argument.
"You can't on Venus becasue the temperature is too hot and you'll die" doesn't help in the discussion.

Sovereign Court

Rules as Written are only as good as the DM's interpretation of them. This is a general rule I've come to live with. That being said, entering into argument a hypathetical only furthers frustration in alot of people. "What if"'s should never be used as a solid fact.

Pick an AP...ANY AP, and I'll guarantee you that though everything is spelled out and walked through, every GM running it will create a completely different experience. This is a fluid game, not a constant. The debates should take this into effect, but not use them as a crutch.

And thus I must submit my undeniably irrevocable trumping rule in all of roleplaying worlds. And no, it is not "The DM is always right." The only gospel I live by is this:

"Warm cookies and cold milk are good for you."

Pointing out who won and who lost is worse, in my mind, than those who enter seemingly baseless arguments into a debate. I think at some point we all can realize this is a game and spending any extended period of time fuming at rage-posters about it is fairly senseless. Lest we forget why we do this in the first place?

Bake some cookies

Spread the wealth

Have a day

b(^_^)d


Evil Lincoln wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

I think the point Ashiel is trying to make is, in a RAW discussion about RAW, determining balance among the classes from the book RAW wise, GM fiat doesnt enter into it.

The class' balance or lack thereof should rest on the merits of their rules, RAW, not dependent on interdiction by a DM.

To which I say, emphatically, no.

The GM's role in these matters is clearly defined by the rules. Just as the player's role and rules are defined in the Classes, the GM's role as an agent of balance is defined in the rules. RThe game does not work without a GM. The GM has responsibilities to the system, and there is built-in variance as to how he resolves these responsibilities. Gold management is one such task, which has clear guidelines, but nevertheless the rules as printed express that there may be variation. Time management is another case, although the rules are far less clear on guidelines in this instance, it is no less important to the basic assumptions of game balance.

You cannot settle any argument without the GM and a campaign context. To attempt otherwise is to waste time bickering on the internet because you can't actually play the game at that moment (hypocrisy nod).

It is not my purpose to attack anyone personally. I will defend the notion that the GM and Campaign are inextricable from any serious analysis of the Pathfinder RPG. I hope you understand that I respect your opinion on the matter, but I could not disagree with it more.

Anyone that have played this game since 3rd edition knows the campaign context that is behind the RAW, it used to be defined in previous DMGs.

I agree about the GM, I have never seen a game designer saying how important were skill challenges in the kind of game they had in mind, how many evil monsters they used, etc.. so there is always an unknown component in adventures that will alter the game balance even if you play what the books call a standard campaign.


Screw the GM, no really, I mean it.

I can read and so can everyone else at the table. If there's something that needs changing, it gets ratified before the house. Why do we do it that way, you ask? Because we're not egotistical children and we respect each other.

I like playing the game with adults, who talk to each other.


I actually do see where Ashiel is coming from. I feel the rules should be detailed enough where the GM is not having to make decisions constantly, or even sometimes, due to the RAW being too vague.

Yes, it will happen where the GM may not like certain rules and can make adjustments for his campaign, or he will need to make a decision how a rule works in his campaign as it is too vague out of the book. However, I feel the latter should be something that happens once in a blue moon, not something the GM should have to do somewhat often.

I know with my GM (and he is a very good one), he would prefer the rules cover all the mechanics of the game, where he doesn’t need to make a ruling. He spends enough time fleshing out the plot of our adventures, creating NPC’s and just creating our world in general. I don’t feel the GM should have to make rules decisions often, that is what the core rulebook is for, for the rules. I agree, it is part of the GM’s job to make those decisions, but ones for the rules should be needed very rarely.

So yes, I do see where Ashiel is coming from.


graywulfe wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

I think the point Ashiel is trying to make is, in a RAW discussion about RAW, determining balance among the classes from the book RAW wise, GM fiat doesnt enter into it.

The class' balance or lack thereof should rest on the merits of their rules, RAW, not dependent on interdiction by a DM.
+1

+1.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hobbun wrote:

I actually do see where Ashiel is coming from. I feel the rules should be detailed enough where the GM is not having to make decisions constantly, or even sometimes, due to the RAW being too vague.

Yes, it will happen where the GM may not like certain rules and can make adjustments for his campaign, or he will need to make a decision how a rule works in his campaign as it is too vague out of the book. However, I feel the latter should be something that happens once in a blue moon, not something the GM should have to do somewhat often.

I know with my GM (and he is a very good one), he would prefer the rules cover all the mechanics of the game, where he doesn’t need to make a ruling. He spends enough time fleshing out the plot of our adventures, creating NPC’s and just creating our world in general. I don’t feel the GM should have to make rules decisions often, that is what the core rulebook is for, for the rules. I agree, it is part of the GM’s job to make those decisions, but ones for the rules should be needed very rarely.

So yes, I do see where Ashiel is coming from.

When the Perfect Game that comes out which makes that possible, I'd like a lead in on it. It's not Pathfinder, it's not 4th Edition, nor D20, D6, or GURPS, or Rifts. There will never be a game which doesn't have text which can't be interpreted multiple ways, or have parts which are simply not clear, or rules that cover all possible permutations of all situations. That's why we need Human GM's instead of the punch card machines that were invented in the 19th century.

Sovereign Court

Kryzbyn wrote:

I think the point Ashiel is trying to make is, in a RAW discussion about RAW, determining balance among the classes from the book RAW wise, GM fiat doesnt enter into it.

The class' balance or lack thereof should rest on the merits of their rules, RAW, not dependent on interdiction by a DM.

Even on a purely statistical standpoint, what determines balance anyway? Matching numbers? There are far too many factors for everyone (and I'm referring to everyone, not majority) to agree upon what, per RAW, is balanced. The fluidity of it all has to be met with a common ground decision on the players' end. There are some things per RAW that appear by the numbers to be better, but when put into practice and used tactically will lose out unexpectedly.

RAW will only go so far. There is no possible way for RAW to completely reflect any and all situations prevelant in PnP roleplay. It just can't happen. They do a pretty darn good job at it, and my hat's off to 'em for that. But you cannot quantify the human imagination, and arguing that fact will only lead to headaches and sore ego's.


Ashiel wrote:
I'm just so sick and tired of these "not all GMs play by the rules" arguments, because if they're not playing using the rules then they have no business in a comparison or rules debate.

There are some cases of rules ambiguitites where I legitimately think that leaving it up to the GM to decide is just fine. (E.g. How does finding a familiar work? Do you have to find a mundane creature first and then infuse it with a spirit somehow, or does it appear from thin air?)

But I agree that some people use a particularly torturous line of reasoning: "There's no problem with rule X because a GM will see there's a problem with rule X and fix it." Say what?!


LazarX wrote:


When the Perfect Game that comes out which makes that possible, I'd like a lead in on it. It's not Pathfinder, it's not 4th Edition, nor D20, D6, or GURPS, or Rifts. There will never be a game which doesn't have text which can't be interpreted multiple ways, or have parts which are simply not clear, or rules that cover all possible permutations of all situations. That's why we need Human GM's instead of the punch card machines that were invented in the 19th century.

And that is why I said needed ‘rarely’ for the DM to make rules decisions, not ‘never’.

And if there are rules that are left vague accidently, and they are clarified in future errata, that is fine with me. I realize no one is perfect. But I know there is more than one set of rules where I have seen a developer indicate it was left vague on purpose. That is what I have an issue with.


Hobbun wrote:

And if there are rules that are left vague accidently, and they are clarified in future errata, that is fine with me. I realize no one is perfect. But I know there is more than one set of rules where I have seen a developer indicate it was left vague on purpose. That is what I have an issue with.

On the contrary, I think there are some rules that could benefit from more vagueness, not less! For instance, I think the Stealth skill would be much better if it just said something like:

"Use the Stealth skill whenever you try to do something sneaky, within reason. It's usually opposed by the Perception skill. Here's a table of possible modifiers; go nuts."


IkeDoe wrote:

Anyone that have played this game since 3rd edition knows the campaign context that is behind the RAW, it used to be defined in previous DMGs.

I agree about the GM, I have never seen a game designer saying how important were skill challenges in the kind of game they had in mind, how many evil monsters they used, etc.. so there is always an unknown component in adventures that will alter the game balance even if you play what the books call a standard campaign.

This is a load of bull. I have been playing since 2nd ed and converted early into 3rd. Nowhere have I seen any rules about how much downtime players should get to craft. There are some basic recommendations about the classes being designed for 4 encounters/day ranging from CR to CR+3, but even that is loose, vague, and not RAW. It is reccomendations and advice for the GM to do encounter design, not actual rules, just like wealth by level. It is entirely dependant on the GM, and, as such, when someone brings in the capabilities that rely on those factors, discussion of what GM expectations are need to be discussed.

If something is ballanced if you get 4 days of downtime between adventures but not if you get a year, that is part of the discussion of its ballance. If something is broken because the players get all the time in the world to shop at whatever metropolis they want, but fine when they don't get free access to magic items, that is something that needs to be discussed. If a class is broken because it can go nova for 1 combat/day, is it broken in the game where they spend 4, 8, or 16 encounters/day? The rules have guidelines for how to play, but, as the wealth by level thread shows, GMs ignore these guidelines all the time.

Sovereign Court

hogarth wrote:


"Use the Stealth skill whenever you try to do something sneaky, within reason. It's usually opposed by the Perception skill. Here's a table of possible modifiers; go nuts."

See, I've always liked things kind of freeform that way, but some would like it very well defined. Thus another indication of the fluidity of roleplay in general. People have different styles, preferences, and ways of thinking. What works perfectly well being vague to player A will infuriate player B and vice-versa.

Yet another reason why the DM shouldn't be taken out of the equation during a debate on RAW. Is it used too much as a "Get out of fight free card"? Sure, why not? But it does have it's moments of validity.

The Exchange

hogarth wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
I'm just so sick and tired of these "not all GMs play by the rules" arguments, because if they're not playing using the rules then they have no business in a comparison or rules debate.

There are some cases of rules ambiguitites where I legitimately think that leaving it up to the GM to decide is just fine. (E.g. How does finding a familiar work? Do you have to find a mundane creature first and then infuse it with a spirit somehow, or does it appear from thin air?)

But I agree that some people use a particularly torturous line of reasoning: "There's no problem with rule X because a GM will see there's a problem with rule X and fix it." Say what?!

+1

In fact, it is clear from the developers' responses that they feel that many of these gray areas and corner cases are up to the GM to decide... and I'm 100% behind that. There does not have to be a written rule for every single circumstance in the game, no matter how much some people want that. These are the same folks who post on the boards wanting "official" answers from the designers on the most trivial or obscure situations rather than putting the question to their GM.

That said, I'm not in anyway invalidating the idea that the rules can't be examined and/or questioned in regards to balance and such. The "GM will fix it" is not a good argument in a case where something is actually amiss.

Sovereign Court

I would also like to point out that there are many indications with the rulebooks where it is suggested that "Your DM should decide x".

So...RAW...DM fiat...It is written, and thus is done.


hogarth wrote:

On the contrary, I think there are some rules that could benefit from more vagueness, not less! For instance, I think the Stealth skill would be much better if it just said something like:

"Use the Stealth skill whenever you try to do something sneaky, within reason. It's usually opposed by the Perception skill. Here's a table of possible modifiers; go nuts."

See, I can’t agree. I would much rather have the rules be more detailed on what can be done and can’t be in ‘x’ situations. Where we can point at the rule and say “No look, it says here that you can …..”

And sorry, but Stealth would be the worst example you can bring up to leave vague, I have seen several FAQ type questions in the ‘Rules’ forum in regards to the Stealth skill.


.
..
...
....
.....

Your humble, all powerful leader has been on his soapbox about 'this' for the last few days..

..I'm even attempting to make a list for a class comparison thread:

your humble, all powerful leader wrote:

For the sake of attempting to help a reader of this post weigh up the pros and cons of two classes, let's make a list of what we believe to be advantages and disadvantages of each class when compared to each other.

We can keep it simple and neat then pick out the points we wish to discuss.

Where applicable we can warn of advantages/disadvantages that are:

- mechanically dependent
- character dependent
- DM/campaign dependent
- build dependent

Note: The idea is to make a list, add to the list, tweak the list and ultimately provide a reference that is 'clean'.

I'm a fan of 'clean' language in forum discussions.

If you are not aware of the concept of Clean Language, here is a brief summary:

Quote:
Clean Language. Clean Language questions are designed to reduce to a minimum any influence from the facilitator's 'map of the world' via his/her metaphors, interpretations or unwarranted assumptions.

..while personal bias is always a factor, we can practice an awareness of it and simply be sure others are aware when we are expressing an assertion/point that could be effected by it.

::

On the grey areas of the game - or "how we can do the same things differently":

Your humble, all powerful leader wrote:

It's perfectly possible to play by the rules while playing a totally different game to others.

This is why it is important to be aware of campaign/DM bias when presenting our experiences of a class/'The Game' in general.

While there are many rules, there are not rules to govern every facet of The Game nor how a game should be run.

This is why we have DMs.

What's more, there shouldn't *be* a rule for every facet of the game.

There is no standardised way of running a campaign.

This is the beauty of a pen and paper RPG - and it's overwhelming advantage over a computer game - we have 'grey' areas - areas of the game, typically that are subject to individual interpretation and style.

We have a rule set that defines *The Game*. How we adjudicate how these rules effect the campaing, how the 'grey areas' are interpreted and any other element requiring personal creativity help to make *The Game* into *Our Game*.

DM's and players alike, working together, are free to create their own 'flavour' of game - however they wish.

The problem is when people discuss aspects of the game while referencing only one flavour as a benchmark for their experiences.

Even then, it's not the end of the world - as long as we're sure to provide a context when stating our views so that others can judge for themselves if the context applies to them and their game.

Long story short: It's perfectly possible to play by the rules while playing a totally different game to others.

Blame the DMs, the players and human creativity!

::

I believe it is important, even when discussing RAW, to acknowledge how the RAW may be played in different campaigns.

Simply state your case and it's context - then let the reader decide if it applies to them and their game.

Now, who's up for a drink? First round's on me!

*shakes drunken fist*


Kryzbyn wrote:
I think the point Ashiel is trying to make is, in a RAW discussion about RAW, determining balance among the classes from the book RAW wise, GM fiat doesnt enter into it.

This is a very good point, as long as people realize that the usefulness of such debate and theorycraft is highly limited, being far removed from the actual reality of gameplay, and serves more as a venue for people to preen and argue.


Hobbun wrote:
And sorry, but Stealth would be the worst example you can bring up to leave vague, I have seen several FAQ type questions in the ‘Rules’ forum in regards to the Stealth skill.

Right, and all of those could be answered by "Ask your GM" if the rules were vague enough.

I don't have a problem with vague but functional rules (e.g. the rules for researching new spells) nearly as much as I do with specific but non-functional rules. YMMV, of course.


And that was the whole point of my posts. I feel the rules should be laid out in the book as much as possible, than having to always “Ask your GM”.


Doug OBrien wrote:


This is a very good point, as long as people realize that the usefulness of such debate and theorycraft is highly limited..

Exactly - the rules do not exist in a vacuum.

In fact, they exist in a wide variety of settings, each with it's own style and mannerisms.

::

Theorycrafting

Theorycrafting has a tendency to assume an idealised scenario that favours the particular theory being expressed.

::

All we need to do is simply state the context for our theories or bring to the attention of the reader any possible scenarios where our assertions may be different.

Then let them decide if applies to them and their game.

*shakes fist*


Caineach wrote:
IkeDoe wrote:

Anyone that have played this game since 3rd edition knows the campaign context that is behind the RAW, it used to be defined in previous DMGs.

I agree about the GM, I have never seen a game designer saying how important were skill challenges in the kind of game they had in mind, how many evil monsters they used, etc.. so there is always an unknown component in adventures that will alter the game balance even if you play what the books call a standard campaign.

This is a load of bull. I have been playing since 2nd ed and converted early into 3rd. Nowhere have I seen any rules about how much downtime players should get to craft. There are some basic recommendations about the classes being designed for 4 encounters/day ranging from CR to CR+3, but even that is loose, vague, and not RAW. It is reccomendations and advice for the GM to do encounter design, not actual rules, just like wealth by level. It is entirely dependant on the GM, and, as such, when someone brings in the capabilities that rely on those factors, discussion of what GM expectations are need to be discussed.

If something is ballanced if you get 4 days of downtime between adventures but not if you get a year, that is part of the discussion of its ballance. If something is broken because the players get all the time in the world to shop at whatever metropolis they want, but fine when they don't get free access to magic items, that is something that needs to be discussed. If a class is broken because it can go nova for 1 combat/day, is it broken in the game where they spend 4, 8, or 16 encounters/day? The rules have guidelines for how to play, but, as the wealth by level thread shows, GMs ignore these guidelines all the time.

You just used a lot of arguments that prove my point: the game has got a standard campaign background for many important game issues and the GM has to figure out everything else. Talk about loads of bull.

Liberty's Edge

Thalin wrote:
I've agreed with this; but what can you do? Inevitably these start because of some "magic classes are broken, AC is irrelevant" argument made by a very vocal person who probably plays very little. They won't be dissuaded, and are used to arguing this to death, so eventually the thread degenerates into the "GM should fix things", when really there aren't even a fraction of the game balance issues that this board lists. So there are all kinds of issues with our arguments, but this is the Internet, so what do you expect? :).

+1

Liberty's Edge

I think "the GM could" is a valid argument.

The argument is not that your GM will do something about your character. The argument is that the effectiveness of an ability is GM-dependent. Take the Ranger's Favored Enemy bonus, for example. How many play groups randomly roll for every monster encountered? Not very many. More likely, your GM makes encounters that you then play. The GM could decide not to include your Favored Enemy.

Does that mean it's worthless? Does that mean your GM is going to nerf you? No. It means that the effectiveness of a ranger's Favored Enemy is entirely up to the GM.

Sovereign Court

Lyrax wrote:

I think "the GM could" is a valid argument.

The argument is not that your GM will do something about your character. The argument is that the effectiveness of an ability is GM-dependent. Take the Ranger's Favored Enemy bonus, for example. How many play groups randomly roll for every monster encountered? Not very many. More likely, your GM makes encounters that you then play. The GM could decide not to include your Favored Enemy.

Does that mean it's worthless? Does that mean your GM is going to nerf you? No. It means that the effectiveness of a ranger's Favored Enemy is entirely up to the GM.

This is a good example.

+1


Hobbun wrote:

And that was the whole point of my posts. I feel the rules should be laid out in the book as much as possible, than having to always “Ask your GM”.

To be fair, the moment we let the rules dictate the game we've lost.

Pen and paper RPGs have the edge over computer games *because* we can 'Ask your DM'.

(I realise you don't mean 'I never want to have to ask the DM' - this post isn't aimed at you but rather inspired by your post. I come in peace. I bring beer. ^_^ )

The DM trusts us to play our characters - we trust the DM to entertain us.

They have tools to help them (the rule set) but should never feel bound by those rules.

As long as you have an entertaining sessions/campaign then.. all is well.

If we don't like a particular DM's method of entertaining us then we can always walk away/burn the DM/play a computer game.

::

I really like rules - they help create a frame work in which to work..

..but I think as soon as we forget that we are free to make the frame work *our* framework - modify/change/ignore/tweak/etc - in order to provide entertainment then... ..well, we've lost the most amazing thing pen and paper rpgs can offer: creative expression.

We can't quickly overhaul a game engine to suit our tastes but with a word we can decide that all goblins are good, 5' tall and like taffy.

This.. is awesome. Will working in action!

Are we not entertained?

Note: Yes this is barely on topic. ..but hey, I feel it needs to be said.:)

*shakes fist*


Oh, don’t get me wrong, I am not saying I would put a knife to my DM’s throat indicating that is what the rules say, so you must go by them. :)

I am just getting at it would be nice to have the vagueness scrubbed away as much as possible, so we can use the detailed rules if we want. It is still always the DM’s decision in the end. And if he wants to change something, that is certainly his prerogative.

But my DM goes by RAW as much as possible, and I know he appreciates when rules are clarified and more information is given. He really liked the Rules Compendium from 3.5.


"Well the GM could ..." is a weak argument unless the previous argument was, "Well a player could ...". GMs have to respond to players' actions, some of which stretch the rules to the improbable or approach unexplored areas of the rules. When there are no rules or the rules are being bent to the point of breaking, the rule is "Well, the GM could...".

1 to 50 of 278 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Tired of all the "Well the GM Could" arguments All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.