@dkonen
Where it is a problem is declaring it is how the rule was intended, because implicit in that statement is that if you don't allow it in your game, you are being unfair to your players.
I have an issue with this word "implicit". It means someone implied something.
Did they? How do you know? Are you just assuming it's implied?
Implicit should *never* be used as a debate. it's saying "well I felt like they were saying..."
That's fine. State as much. "I take offense to that statement, since you seem to be calling me....."
All fixed. No more need for bad feelings.
Besides the internet is a terrible place to be trying to read implications. Did you know 70% of our communication relies on non verbal cues?
Seems like text only is a horrible place for misunderstandings to occur.
"Some" things are clear.
Do you believe that a dead character can continue to take actions?
Yet another thread lost to implication/inference divide and the semantics of intention...
>sigh<
After rereading the discussion on the prayer beads and gating a solar, I think this goes back to the disparity. Obviously there are a few different ways that people are reading this and, in this case, no one is actually wrong because the rules do not explicitly state how this scenario should work out.
That's the issue with magic. It's mostly temporary and there is a lot of it. This means that spells can often interact with abilities and items in unforeseen ways. So as one game master would rule one way, another would rule another.
Martial characters tend to have fewer problems in this regard (there are some, like pounce and mounted combat). It's often more cut and dried with their abilities. This leaves less wiggle room and fewer interpretations on how their abilities interact.
Because we all run our games differently and it is impossible to be 100% RAW, each group must interpret the rules to the best of their abilities for their group. What works for one group won't work for another. And that's perfectly ok. That's what makes role playing games so much fun.
Nitpicking.
An implication is what the speaker/writer/originator of a sentence may be doing.
An inference is what the hearer/reader/receiver of a sentence may be doing.
They aren't the same thing.
/end nitpick
|
After rereading the discussion on the prayer beads and gating a solar, I think this goes back to the disparity. Obviously there are a few different ways that people are reading this and, in this case, no one is actually wrong because the rules do not explicitly state how this scenario should work out.
That's the issue with magic. It's mostly temporary and there is a lot of it. This means that spells can often interact with abilities and items in unforeseen ways. So as one game master would rule one way, another would rule another.
Martial characters tend to have fewer problems in this regard (there are some, like pounce and mounted combat). It's often more cut and dried with their abilities. This leaves less wiggle room and fewer interpretations on how their abilities interact.
Because we all run our games differently and it is impossible to be 100% RAW, each group must interpret the rules to the best of their abilities for their group. What works for one group won't work for another. And that's perfectly ok. That's what makes role playing games so much fun.
As I've said over several threads now, if you honestly believe that the Devs intended for you to be able to gate and control a creature that is +6 CR over the party as a standard action for 10,000 gold pieces, It is hard to argue the rules don't technically allow it. If you truly believe that if the Devs were GMing the game, they would go "Yup, just as I envisioned it! You found the loophole! Good Job!", well although I personally think that believing that was the Devs intent absolutely preposterous, but if that is what you believe, feel free.
But that better be your argument, because if you don't believe that the Devs would allow it if they were running your game, you are trying to exploit a loophole.
And if you are, admit it and go over to house rules and home brew.
I don't think the devs can be said to have such a view on what power level is ok without a hard limit. All they do is clarify individual rules for the most part. They don't clarify what power levels are ok. That is the GM's job.
As an example nobody is stacking class features and items in my games to get +10 to their caster level even if the rules do allow it.
|
|
I don't think the devs can be said to have such a view on what power level is ok without a hard limit. All they do is clarify individual rules for the most part. They don't clarify what power levels are ok. That is the GM's job.
As an example nobody is stacking class features and items in my games to get +10 to their caster level even if the rules do allow it.
I think the Devs walk the line of not trying to say you can't do something in your home game, while also trying to keep power somewhat balanced if you follow the rules.
They use CR levels for a reason, and they have all sorts of charts to indicate WBL, average hit points AC and saves at various CR levels, etc...
It is more art than science, particularly at higher levels. But as I've said in other threads, people who try to break the game force the Devs to not be able to give more "open" rules.
Simulacrum and Gate are awesome spells conceptually and story wise. They also are the most open to abuse. To make them not open to abuse, you would have to lose half of what makes them fun.
A lot of the issues I have with 4E is how rigid it is, for the sake of balance.
On the other hand, I can see why some wanted to go that way when you see what happens when you aren't rigid. Like I said, I don't even try to go to anything at my FLGS at this point because of all the rules lawyers...
I hate the way Simulacrum is written. I wish it could have been fixed during the beta testing, but Paizo was only a blip on my radar at the time.
Simulacrum and Gate are awesome spells conceptually and story wise. They also are the most open to abuse. To make them not open to abuse, you would have to lose half of what makes them fun.
A lot of the issues I have with 4E is how rigid it is, for the sake of balance.
That is a gross generalization. Exactly how do you justify arguing that this sort of thing is an abuse, and that removing this "abuse" would remove half of the fun of these spells? Exactly what kind of logic is that? Do you want them to be open to abuse but then chastise anyone who abuses them? What kind of reasoning is that?
Also, how do you know that cleaning up the rule text, making it clearer, more precise, and removing some of these issues that you have a problem with would somehow mean you can't have nice, fun things? Exactly how do you make the stretch to say "If we have cleaner less abuse-able rules, we have 4E"?
On the other hand, I can see why some wanted to go that way when you see what happens when you aren't rigid. Like I said, I don't even try to go to anything at my FLGS at this point because of all the rules lawyers...
Yeah, how dare anyone know the rules an expect them to be followed.
========================================================================
I hate the way Simulacrum is written. I wish it could have been fixed during the beta testing, but Paizo was only a blip on my radar at the time.
Would this be more to your liking, dear friend?
School illusion (shadow); Level sorcerer/wizard 7
Casting Time 12 hours
Components V, S, M (sculpture of the target plus powdered rubies worth 500 gp per HD of the simulacrum)
Range 0 ft.
Effect one duplicate creature
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance noSimulacrum creates an illusory duplicate of any creature. The duplicate creature is partially real and formed from clay, ice, mud, sand, snow, or stone. It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, BAB, saving throws, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD). You can't create a simulacrum of a creature whose HD or levels exceed twice your caster level. A creature familiar with the original might detect the ruse with a successful Perception or Sense Motive check (DC 10 + caster level of the simulacrum spell).
If a creature casts spells as a class (such as a dragon casting spells as a sorcerer), then the duplicate casts spells at half that level (so a duplicate of a creature with 12 HD who casts spells as an 8th level sorcerer would have 6 HD and cast as a 4th level sorcerer). If the creature has spell-like abilities, the duplicate's caster level with those abilities is halved. In addition, the duplicate cannot use any spell-like abilities that mimic spells that wouldn't be available to a spellcaster with caster level equal to the duplicate's HD x 1.5 (so a duplicate with 10 HD loses access to any spell-like ability that mimics a spell requiring a 16th or higher level caster). If the original creature possessed Spell Resistance, the duplicate's spell resistance is reduced for each HD fewer than the original (so a 10 HD duplicate of a creature with 20 HD would have spell resistance equal to the original creature -10).
The duplicate creature retains gross physical characteristics of the original creature, including natural attacks, natural armor, size, ability scores, and traits based on its type (such as construct or undead traits). If the original creature possessed any of the following special abilities or attacks, the duplicate does too: Ability Damage or Drain, Amphibious, Bleed, Blindsense, Blightsight, Breath Weapon (halve any damage dice, to a minimum of 1 die; i.e. 6d6 becomes 3d6), Burn, Change Shape, Channel Resistance, Constrict, Curse, Damage Reduction, Disease, Distraction, Energy Drain, Fast Healing (equal to original's fast healing or 1/2 the duplicate's HD, whichever is less), Fear, Flight, Frightful Presence, Gaze, Immunity, Light Blindness, Light Sensitivity, Paralysis, Plant Traits, Poison, Pounce, Powerful Charge, Pull, Push, Rake, Regeneration (a duplicate instead gains Fast Healing as noted above), Rend, Resistance, Rock Catching, Rock Throwing, Scent, Spell-like abilities, Spell Resistance, Stench, Summon, Swallow Whole, Telepathy, Trample, Tremorsense, Trip, Vulnerabilities, Web, and Whirlwind.
At all times, the simulacrum remains under your absolute command. No special telepathic link exists, so command must be exercised in some other manner (but a simulacrum will not harm you). A simulacrum has no ability to become more powerful. It cannot increase its level or abilities. If reduced to 0 hit points or otherwise destroyed, it reverts to clay, ice, mud, sand, snow, or stone and melts instantly into nothingness. A complex process requiring at least 24 hours, 10 gp per hit point, and a fully equipped magical laboratory can repair damage to a simulacrum. Spells that heal damage are only half as effective on a simulacrum. A limited wish spell may be used to heal the simulacrum of 10 hit points per caster level.
|
|
I hate the way Simulacrum is written. I wish it could have been fixed during the beta testing, but Paizo was only a blip on my radar at the time.
When I posted about it the response as I remember it was that you can't fix the abuse issues without making the spell as intended impossible or making it take up half of the spell section, so if you want to keep the spell (which most people do for any number of reasons, not the least of which being story hooks) at a certain point to have to trust GMs to not let players do ridiculous things like create simulacrums can cast wish for them.
Wouldn't you have to be 34th level to generate a simulacrum capable of casting wish?
Or are you thinking of some critter with wish as a SLA?
|
|
Do you want them to be open to abuse but then chastise anyone who abuses them? What kind of reasoning is that?
I like stores to be open, so that they can sell goods and services.
I don't like stores to be robbed, but if a store is open, someone may rob that store.
I would "chastise" someone who robs the store. I actually do it professionally as a matter of fact.
I view spells like gate, simulacrum, demiplane,etc, as well as feats like leadership as the Devs looking at a concept they want in the game and realizing that they can't possibly adjudicate every scenario of it's use by the nature of what it is.
Most of these are things the that happen outside of game, as in you would be talking to your GM about your cohort or simulacrum out of game for use in game. So the hope is that a reasonable GM will hold the player to reasonable standards.
What bothers both of us toward each other is that each of us have a definition of reasonable that the other finds absolutely ludicrous.
My stance is that spells of the same level are intended to be comparable in power, so if one can be bent to make it far more powerful than a comparable spell, clearly that is an exploit or loophole.
Your stance seems to be it is a feature.
I personally think you, in particular, look for every possible loophole in the game, and then at the same time claim the game is unbalanced...which if you allow the players to exploit every loophole, you are 100% correct it is.
And then at the same time, the same people blame the designers for the game being out of what, when the fault lies not in the Devs, but in themselves.
So the Devs have to come in and say "No you can't take 10 when your brain may be melted, because yes that is dangerous" because people keep trying to find loopholes and exploits to make a genie simulacrum to allow them to cast wish at 13th level, swearing that is exactly what the Devs intended when they wrote it, and how dare I be cruel and say no.
I am not only completely unimpressed when someone posts a broken scheme or build, I am depressed. The exception being if they do it as a way of asking to get a ruling to remove such options so that the game will work better for everyone, rather than them personally winning their table.
|
|
A solar has wish but I'm not sure if a 11-HD Solar has it.Wouldn't you have to be 34th level to generate a simulacrum capable of casting wish?
Or are you thinking of some critter with wish as a SLA?
The hack has always been Efreeti in my experience, with people say "They are completely under my control so I can make them grant me wishes!"
To which a good GM grabs a nearby book and...
|
A solar has wish but I'm not sure if a 11-HD Solar has it.Wouldn't you have to be 34th level to generate a simulacrum capable of casting wish?
Or are you thinking of some critter with wish as a SLA?
The hack has always been Efreeti in my experience, with people say "They are completely under my control so I can make them grant me wishes!"
To which a good GM grabs a nearby book and...
The main argument is that word "control". The spell isn't a compulsion effect so it's not clear just how much control the caster has. I think they left it that way in order for the DM to step in if need be.
Hence why I started the XP costs thread. I want the game to be better for everyone but I can see the resistance and it doesn't take a genius to see what kinds of games they play in.
Yeah... games that aren't hamstrung by useless increase in bookkeeping and ridiculous XP taxes on an otherwise interesting part of the game. This isn't the XP/item crafting thread you started, but it doesn't sound any better here. The only thing requiring XP expenditures for item creation in the rules does is give uppity players yet ANOTHER 'rule' to say 'but I can TOO make it, I just need to spend (x) XP' when the DM is thwarting their unreasonable magic item.
A solar has wish but I'm not sure if a 11-HD Solar has it.Wouldn't you have to be 34th level to generate a simulacrum capable of casting wish?
Or are you thinking of some critter with wish as a SLA?
The hack has always been Efreeti in my experience, with people say "They are completely under my control so I can make them grant me wishes!"
To which a good GM grabs a nearby book and...
Do you allow players who control cohorts or animal companions to commit suicidal actions if it will help the party? Do cohorts sell out their homes to provide for the PCs' magical gear? Do the animal companions cook themselves on the fire to feed hungry PCs?
In the end it's up to the GM to not allow the PCs to abuse the meaning of "control".
After rereading the discussion on the prayer beads and gating a solar, I think this goes back to the disparity. Obviously there are a few different ways that people are reading this and, in this case, no one is actually wrong because the rules do not explicitly state how this scenario should work out.
That's the issue with magic. It's mostly temporary and there is a lot of it. This means that spells can often interact with abilities and items in unforeseen ways. So as one game master would rule one way, another would rule another.
Martial characters tend to have fewer problems in this regard (there are some, like pounce and mounted combat). It's often more cut and dried with their abilities. This leaves less wiggle room and fewer interpretations on how their abilities interact.
Because we all run our games differently and it is impossible to be 100% RAW, each group must interpret the rules to the best of their abilities for their group. What works for one group won't work for another. And that's perfectly ok. That's what makes role playing games so much fun.
As I've said over several threads now, if you honestly believe that the Devs intended for you to be able to gate and control a creature that is +6 CR over the party as a standard action for 10,000 gold pieces, It is hard to argue the rules don't technically allow it. If you truly believe that if the Devs were GMing the game, they would go "Yup, just as I envisioned it! You found the loophole! Good Job!", well although I personally think that believing that was the Devs intent absolutely preposterous, but if that is what you believe, feel free.
But that better be your argument, because if you don't believe that the Devs would allow it if they were running your game, you are trying to exploit a loophole.
And if you are, admit it and go over to house rules and home brew.
I can't run my game based on assumptions of what some strangers might have planned for the game. There are some areas of the rules that are gray areas and I, just like everyone else who plays Pathfinder, needs to figure out what works best for their games.
I doubt that they intentionally put in loopholes. I do know that there is no way to write a game that encourages imagination and free form role playing with a set of rules to keep things as balanced as possible and be perfect. We can't even get laws written (by lawyers and ruled on by judges) without unintentional loopholes. I don't think we should expect game designers to do a better job than them.
CR is not supposed to be a perfect measure of how a creature fares against a party. It is meant to give the GM an idea of how powerful something is and to calculate XP. For a party of clerics, vampires may be weaker than for a party of enchanters or monks.
Gate requires the GM to put on his thinking hat and make sure that the spell isn't abused. I am not under the impression that it is being abused if someone who is already able to true resurrect, prevent resurrection, or even just call upon their god for a miracle. Having an outer planar being help you out for 10 minutes doesn't seem like that big of a deal.
There are also plenty of stories out there where someone has figured out a temporary way to boost their abilities. Sometimes that comes with dire consequences, sometimes it pays off. I don't see why this should be any different.
|
|
I can't run my game based on assumptions of what some strangers might have planned for the game. There are some areas...After rereading the discussion on the prayer beads and gating a solar, I think this goes back to the disparity. Obviously there are a few different ways that people are reading this and, in this case, no one is actually wrong because the rules do not explicitly state how this scenario should work out.
That's the issue with magic. It's mostly temporary and there is a lot of it. This means that spells can often interact with abilities and items in unforeseen ways. So as one game master would rule one way, another would rule another.
Martial characters tend to have fewer problems in this regard (there are some, like pounce and mounted combat). It's often more cut and dried with their abilities. This leaves less wiggle room and fewer interpretations on how their abilities interact.
Because we all run our games differently and it is impossible to be 100% RAW, each group must interpret the rules to the best of their abilities for their group. What works for one group won't work for another. And that's perfectly ok. That's what makes role playing games so much fun.
As I've said over several threads now, if you honestly believe that the Devs intended for you to be able to gate and control a creature that is +6 CR over the party as a standard action for 10,000 gold pieces, It is hard to argue the rules don't technically allow it. If you truly believe that if the Devs were GMing the game, they would go "Yup, just as I envisioned it! You found the loophole! Good Job!", well although I personally think that believing that was the Devs intent absolutely preposterous, but if that is what you believe, feel free.
But that better be your argument, because if you don't believe that the Devs would allow it if they were running your game, you are trying to exploit a loophole.
And if you are, admit it and go over to house rules and home brew.
Nobody ever said that all loopholes can be shut down with rules but there are some instances that can be shut down with rules clarification and still keep the game "free and open" to the various playstyles. Saying something needs to be broken in order for it to fit all playstyles is a poor excuse in my long time opinion.
Nobody ever said that all loopholes can be shut down with rules but there are some instances that can be shut down with rules clarification and still keep the game "free and open" to the various playstyles. Saying something needs to be broken in order for it to fit all playstyles is a poor excuse in my long time opinion.
I don't believe that most of the problems that people bring up are actually broken. Often a rereading of the rules finds that the problem isn't nearly as problematic as once thought. Sure, there are a few issues, but they are generally easily dealt with as well.
What is broken for one group is not for another. Broken also does not mean overpowered. Broken just means that it doesn't work. It could be underpowered as well. It could be perfectly balanced but not playable for whatever reason.
The developers can't spend all their time trying to make sure our own games are perfect. There are some things, like open ended spells, that the GM will either have to deal with or ban. I'm a fan of dealing with them. There are rules and guidelines to help us out. For example, if someone thinks that they are going to call an efreet for a wish, they will get their wish. However, it will be interpreted the way an evil creature that was torn from his home interprets things.
There was a 2nd edition Dragon Magazine article that was all about wishes. The picture accompanying the article had an efreet looking at the guy who had just summoned him and the efreet was asking, "So you want me to raze all your abilities?"
When you play with fire, you're going to get burned. The GM should run the creatures called as if they are creatures with goals of their own. The players need to understand that they aren't necessarily going to get the most cooperative creature, even if it is of the same alignment with the same goals. Diplomacy checks and bribes may still be needed.
Thanks again!Dude, Bob, awesome story! I now will always love that story too. ^-^You can find some copies here. I highly recommend it and the companion anthologies as soon as I can find them. I'm going to track down their ISBNs and see what I can find. I want them all again.
It's been so long since I've read it, I had forgotten some interesting stories on how to deal with wishes. The current topic led me to remember some of them. Hopefully your evil mind won't hurt your players too much with the glut of ideas.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, how do you "hack" a tabletop? If a GM isn't up to the task of saying no to when a player intends to break the game, then the GM is failing the other players.
Let's get into more detail about this, about "breaking" the game. At what point does the game "break"? For me, it's when the players can no longer enjoy the game. If that comes because the GM can no longer provide challenges, check if it's the lack of innovation from the GM or if the player's have an "I win" button that they use for every scenario. Sometimes it is one player that has all winning tools, in which case you have to spread those tools to the other players. The game breaks when people are not having fun.
In no case does the "developer's intentions" matter... For all I know, the developers could have intended for the Solars to take divine retribution for being called down to grant someone's petty wish.
"The rules say..." and "I'm just playing my character" are no excuse for someone to allow themself to be abused.
I like stores to be open, so that they can sell goods and services.I don't like stores to be robbed, but if a store is open, someone may rob that store.
I would "chastise" someone who robs the store. I actually do it professionally as a matter of fact.
The problem is that you have not proven that they are robbing the store. Using a coupon/member's card is not the same as underpaying. Taking a free sample is not stealing. You are trying to assert your opinion over how you think the game should be played and chastise those who don't. Not cool.
If there is a problem within the rules, our hypothetical store may have marked an item lower during the sale than wholesale, and you end up with a bug in the system. So next sale, you don't do that. In game terms, you patch it, either with house-rules or errata. Stores do errata all the time. I worked at a grocery store for a few years, and sometimes there was a mistake and we had to correct it on site.
I view spells like gate, simulacrum, demiplane,etc, as well as feats like leadership as the Devs looking at a concept they want in the game and realizing that they can't possibly adjudicate every scenario of it's use by the nature of what it is.
Most of these are things the that happen outside of game, as in you would be talking to your GM about your cohort or simulacrum out of game for use in game. So the hope is that a reasonable GM will hold the player to reasonable standards.
Having good mechanics helps to reduce the amount of adjudication required by the GM. For example, the leadership feat has specific rules for the leadership; including number of followers, their levels, and so forth. Assuming the other rules of the game are being followed, it should work out as intended. The only problem with leadership is that it's just a really powerful feat ('cause it's a feat that gives minions with class features and such) which is entirely fine if you're comfortable with that level of power. Many GMs ban leadership just because they feel it is not suitable for their games. That is fair. Some GMs may feel that it's unreasonable for a PC to get a PC-lite for a feat.
What bothers both of us toward each other is that each of us have a definition of reasonable that the other finds absolutely ludicrous.
Actually, what bothers me about you has nothing to do with what you consider ludicrous. It's your attitude, and the fact you keep trying to pick fights with me over disagreements we had over a year ago. I've had plenty of disagreements with other people on the boards, and don't see eye to eye on gaming style conventions with many people.
I could list quite a few. Bob Loblaw and I have had disagreements that have even gotten pretty heated, but we've had good friendly ones too. Bob has never acted like a jerk to me, or vice versa, and he doesn't try to start fights or make blanket insults towards everyone that doesn't adhere to his gaming style or beliefs.
My stance is that spells of the same level are intended to be comparable in power, so if one can be bent to make it far more powerful than a comparable spell, clearly that is an exploit or loophole.
Because obviously detect magic and ray of frost are equivalent in power and usefulness, right? Or the fact that the other 9th level summoning spell can summon 3-5 slightly weaker creatures and doesn't cost 10,000 gp worth of material components and is literally expendable (called creatures are not "expendable").
Your stance seems to be it is a feature.
I personally think you, in particular, look for every possible loophole in the game, and then at the same time claim the game is unbalanced...which if you allow the players to exploit every loophole, you are 100% correct it is.
I actually don't find the game to be horribly unbalanced. That's my point. I actually find my games run pretty well because I'm not actively trying to squash the hopes and dreams of martial characters, and I do acknowledge when something has problems compared to their peers, and so forth.
I think you know diddly about me. I'll leave my personal feelings out of this.
And then at the same time, the same people blame the designers for the game being out of what, when the fault lies not in the Devs, but in themselves.
I design rules. I take great pride in stuff I write working well within the system. I dislike gross imbalances. Rules exist to determine the limits and standards to which the game is played. They exist so that GMs and players alike are on a good footing with each other, and don't have to keep playing "mother may I" with stuff. If something doesn't work for them, then they can discuss as a group what their solutions will be. I don't blame devs for people trying to powergame the system; but I do expect those who write rules (myself included) to answer for mistakes that we make.
What you call not letting us have nice things, I call handing us the pieces and telling us to figure it out. I could hand a hunter a gun, and say "Here, feed your family on deer" or I could hand him an iron tube, some wood, some gunpowdered, and a picture of a gun, and tell him the same thing. Either way I'm giving him a means to an ends, but the former I'm presenting my gift in a more usable fashion. Especially important if he paid me to give him a gun.
|
|
"The rules say..." and "I'm just playing my character" are no excuse for someone to allow themself to be abused.
Try playing with people outside of your home group who have a sense of entitlement.
My group is fine. But go to your FLGS or convention to meet and greet new people and you will find when you dare say "I don't think that is allowed" a lot of experts appear who claim their character is not only completely legal, but that everyone plays Assimar/Drow Noble mixes without level adjustment...
|
|
Rules as Intended means you need to know what was "intended" which would mean you need to know the "intent" of the devs when they wrote the rules.
I disagree. 'Rules as Intended', if what we were looking for was the 'intent' of the developers, would then fall into more questions, such as "which developer did you mean?" and "which developer's word has precedence over which other developer?" since the rules (having gone through such a long lineage from Original D&D to Pathfinder are sort of a committee product (plus, you'd need a medium to talk to Gygax and Arneson, these days-- and maybe some other developers as well).
One can try to understand 'intent' by careful reading and then figuring out how the rules are supposed to work (reasonable interpretation), based on all the other evidence (and based on plain-old "what works"), and whether or not the "rules as written" mesh together with everything else (especially including the 'fluff text', IMO) and actually do what they're apparently supposed to do.
It's semantics, but then again, all rules discussions are. I don't mind as long as folks are polite about it (no need to get nasty), but RAW is substantially more valid than RAI, since at least we have evidence of RAW, RAI is largely guesswork, and most can admit RAW usually needs a hefty dose of mutable manipulation to make it functional.
Since (presumably) we're using a common language, it's not just semantics. RAI is more than just guess-work, unless you're just guessing what it means every time you read a sentence in English-- but multiple different interpretations are possible. I don't think RAW is more valid than RAI-- my reasoning, as explained in other threads-- is that the 'fluff' does a pretty good job (unless the problem is that the fluff is poorly written, which often happens) in explaining what the intent of the rules is-- and if what the RAW (the mechanics) does doesn't match, IMO there's a problem. Doesn't require 'telepathy' to find those sorts of issues.
However, for the most part, I think RAI and RAW are both important and usually mesh well together. Your point about RAW needing a lot of manipulation to be functional, I'd phrase as RAW is subject to interpretation, and some interpretations of how RAW functions don't work, while some interpretations (manipulations if you will) do work-- coming to an understanding of RAI at your table, generally gives you a good idea of which interpretation/manipulation of RAW is the one you ought to be using in game-play. That's how I read it and usually consider what needs to be sorted out in interpreting both RAW and RAI.
As far as I know, the rule that supersedes all other rules is to have fun.
Yep, this is the prime rule-- and while you've called it the penultimate RAI, I'd just call it the Ultimate RAI-- the prime directive, the real intent of most people's games-- if you're not having fun, you've definitely failed in achieving the intent of recreational gaming.... :D
|
|
@ Ashiel
Citing things that you have personally written isn't picking a fight, it's bringing context.
You don't have a few things you do differently in isolation. You have a history of looking for loopholes and exploits that I cite because it is relevant, much in the same way if someone is taking to RD, they should probably realize his position history is...colorful.
For example, Bob allowed gate to be used to summon a solar in a very specific situation that made perfect story sense. Bob historically is very by the book, for him it is the exception not the rule, and not something he would always allow.
Up thread you said in reference to what controlling a gated creature means "Last I checked, control includes command and/or direction. For example, can a vampire not command its spawn? Can a shadow not direct its lesser shadows? Are you suggesting that "control" should be read as merely "it can't attack me"? That seems bizarre to me. If I have control of something, it means I can use it. Being able to control an RC car doesn't mean that I can merely prevent it from running, but can direct its movements. Controlling my cursor on the screen does not mean I merely keep it from clicking, it means I can direct its selections."
Even the people who agree you can gate a solar didn't take this position.
What appears like an personal attack to you is me giving context of what kinds of things you allow in your game, regularly, so that people can understand that when you say "I don't have a problem with X" you also don't seem to have much of a problem letting your players do much of anything.
We all have a post history and a reputation. I am the abrasive curmudgeon who says the game is fine if you follow the rules and use common sense.
In my opinion, you are the permissive parent who gives the kids the car keys as soon as they can reach the pedals, because to hold them back would be cruel.
|
|
People really need to be careful how they use the fun rule. As long as "I" am having fun is not where you want to stop, it needs to be "we". Some people's idea of fun can and has ruined games.
Exactly.
Many people have closed groups not because they don't want to meet other gamers, but because they have...
"The rules say..." and "I'm just playing my character" are no excuse for someone to allow themself to be abused.Try playing with people outside of your home group who have a sense of entitlement.
My group is fine. But go to your FLGS or convention to meet and greet new people and you will find when you dare say "I don't think that is allowed" a lot of experts appear who claim their character is not only completely legal, but that everyone plays Assimar/Drow Noble mixes without level adjustment...
In situations like that it is extremely important for the GM to act his or her part as the referee. It's the GM who has to run and manage the game. If people can't be adults and adjust their behavior to be respectful of those around them, then they shouldn't be trying to play a social game, they might as well be playing video games where the rules are set in stone. Any game where there is a particular player hijacking the control of the game is likely to be crap regardless of the rules.
If you can't say no, if you can't handle people, you shouldn't try to run a game in public. That's why I prefer private games, the players are more apt to be respectful (not always, but usually they're more respectful to each other).
Yes. Speaking as someone who was involved in a huge organization involving gaming at one point. A thousand times yes.
I do not have time or patience for some of the foolishness that sneaks into the ranks. I would much rather be able to censor who comes to my table so I don't end up running for a bunch of people whose idea of fun is to make me have a psychotic break.
SO this.
(You sound like someone traumatized by the Camarilla. Speaking as onesuch.)
|
|
People really need to be careful how they use the fun rule. As long as "I" am having fun is not where you want to stop, it needs to be "we". Some people's idea of fun can and has ruined games.Exactly.
Many people have closed groups not because they don't want to meet other gamers, but because they have...
I missed this.
Yes. Speaking as someone who was involved in a huge organization involving gaming at one point. A thousand times yes.
I do not have time or patience for some of the foolishness that sneaks into the ranks. I would much rather be able to censor who comes to my table so I don't end up running for a bunch of people whose idea of fun is to make me have a psychotic break.
Responding both to Ragnarok and this post, my position is this is the public forum for discussing the rules of "the" game, not of "your" game.
And much like you shouldn't have patience for foolishness when it sneaks into a large group, lest a few bad eggs spoil the bunch, I have little patience on here where people regularly push an agenda of permissive play.
It's one thing if it is the exception to bend the rules for a cool idea or two that fits into a story arc or setting, it is a whole other thing when your entire game becomes exceptions, and then you come to the general rules forum and argue your exceptions aren't exceptional, but RAI.
Again, Bob cited one corner case that most of us are fine with, and that it being turned into remote control Solars are my Developer give right.
(You sound like someone traumatized by the Camarilla. Speaking as onesuch.)
Can I speak of you as kindred spirit or is that word still giving you flashbacks too?
*shudders*
some great folks, don't get me wrong, but the bad ones....yeah
Never ever again. Not even for a six figure salary.
And that was EXACTLY the problem: any jerk with 20 bucks a year and too much time on his/her hands could walk into the game AND YOU HAVE TO LET THEM PLAY. And god forbid you tell them 'Uh, no, you can't use that here.'
I loved the old World of Darkness games... I even liked the live-action stuff, back when it was rock/paper/scissors. But too many cheeseweasels spoiled it, even before they shifted their whole ruleset and came up with a REALLY LOUSY live-action adaptation of their new rules.
>sigh<
Oh, I dunno; watching people hiss'n'spit and THEN get censored can break up the monotony of trolling through the boards...
:)
Ciretose it seems your issue is with RAIT(Rules as intended to work together)* which can sometimes be RAI, but not always.
Getting +10 caster levels is legal IIRC. I don't know if it is possible, and I am to lazy to try. The point is that devs also assume people won't do so or that the GM steps in to prevent it.
There is a difference between promoting combinations of the rules that are legal, and intentionally misinterpreting one rule. They are similar, but different.
Promoting the combination of different RAI of various rules in order to become to powerful is just bad form. Hopefully the GM handles the issue.
Trying to proclaim RAW as RAI even when it is highly unlikely is not much better than cheating, and that annoys me more than the RAID issue. At least the person who is ignoring RAIT* is not breaking the rules. Some people just have a terrible idea of balance. That is easier to fix than someone actively trying to manipulate the rules IMHO.
*I really need a better acronym for that.
|
|
Ciretose it seems your issue is with RAIT(Rules as intended to work together)* which can sometimes be RAI, but not always.
Getting +10 caster levels is legal IIRC. I don't know if it is possible, and I am to lazy to try. The point is that devs also assume people won't do so or that the GM steps in to prevent it.
There is a difference between promoting combinations of the rules that are legal, and intentionally misinterpreting one rule. They are similar, but different.
Promoting the combination of different RAI of various rules in order to become to powerful is just bad form. Hopefully the GM handles the issue.
Trying to proclaim RAW as RAI even when it is highly unlikely is not much better than cheating, and that annoys me more than the RAID issue. At least the person who is ignoring RAIT* is not breaking the rules. Some people just have a terrible idea of balance. That is easier to fix than someone actively trying to manipulate the rules IMHO.
*I really need a better acronym for that.
RD (surprise) got us over +10 in the other thread..
This is a back and forth in another thread that broke me.
I make the most ridiculous suggestion for how to abuse the exploit I could, and was met not only with agreement, but praise.
I saw RD's post, but I was speaking of caster level bonuses that don't have stop gaps like the ioun stone. I do see I was not clear.
I think Ashiel was just trying to be creative with what you gave her. I don't think she would actually have level 15 characters using Big T as a bio-weapon. I read it more of a joke post than as a serious idea(for a real game). In theory and in practicality it does work to an extent, but just like getting free wishes......