|
Exactly what it says on the tin. I actually haven't been able to find this, and I've heard it mentioned a dozen times but haven't ever found a real reference to it. I understand that a Coordinator is the guy/girl in charge of an event, the GM is obviously the annoying person who sits behind the screen, and the players try to screw up the nicely written story put before them. But what's the judge?
|
As far as I understand, a judge is the organized play equivalent to a GM; GMs typically have more power over their game and game world than a PFS judge does. Judges are not meant to change encounters, and cannot introduce their own rules into organized play. They are also meant to maintain a degree of impartiality that is not necessarily always there for a home game.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The judge is a person running the scenario for the PCs. Most people refer to them as a GM... but for some of us - the GM is the guy who has final say on how something works.
For example: Can I take 10 on (insert skill here). Until resently, many Judges felt that this was "open to interpretation" and we had a lot of table variation. Then the powers that be (the GM) made a ruling and all the Judges should go along and do it the same way.
Basicly, the guy you refered to as the GM (who would be the GM in a home game), I would call the table judge.
The term "Judge" is a carryover from other organized play systems. It is equivalent to GM in Pathfinder, and was brought to Pathfinder Society by people who've played in those other systems.
Edit: That said, it's not precisely an incorrect term. GM and Judge are one and the same thing.
|
I agree with Matthew on this one.
In a bygone era, when other gaming systems were first coming on the market, the term "Dungeon Master" was trademarked, and was not usable by other publishers, and thence came all manner of terms to refer to the same type of position at a gaming table. Many were chosen depending on the perceived job of the person running the game. Some tabletop games (especially war gaming) had an impartial person that observed the game's progress and made adjudications about the rules. Thus were born terms like "judge" and " referee". Others, like White Wolf, felt that it was more important for the person running the game to be more involved in the setting and plot, and thus terms like "storyteller" came about.
Then there were some that assigned a more neutral name - Game Master. Thus, we have GMs. That one has been used in many, many systems. To a large majority of gamers,within my experience, it doesn't matter what they're called .... It still means the same thing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Matthew on this one.
In a bygone era, when other gaming systems were first coming on the market, the term "Dungeon Master" was trademarked, and was not usable by other publishers, and thence came all manner of terms to refer to the same type of position at a gaming table. Many were chosen depending on the perceived job of the person running the game. Some tabletop games (especially war gaming) had an impartial person that observed the game's progress and made adjudications about the rules. Thus were born terms like "judge" and " referee". Others, like White Wolf, felt that it was more important for the person running the game to be more involved in the setting and plot, and thus terms like "storyteller" came about.
Then there were some that assigned a more neutral name - Game Master. Thus, we have GMs. That one has been used in many, many systems. To a large majority of gamers,within my experience, it doesn't matter what they're called .... It still means the same thing.
I've seen GM, DM, ST and Judge all used at different points within these messageboards. ST most rarely, GM and Judge almost equally, and DM about halfway in between. For some reason DM is the one that irks me the most.
In truth, though, each of these titles could be referred to as different aspects of what a Pathfinder GM does. As a GM, we are in fact the ones meant to keep the game on track. As a DM, we are meant to direct the combat encounters roughly according to the tactics provided in the scenarios and modules. As a ST, we are meant to lay out the story and provide the world with which the characters interact. And as Judges or Referees, we are meant to ensure that everyone, including ourselves, is following the rules.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the most part they are one and the same. However,
GM is the final word of everything. Their word is law. A judge on the other hand does not have final say on rules. They are named Judges because that's what they do. They judge and answer based on rules that they themselves can not change (Core book rules, Guide to organized play, additional rules list, FAQ, etc). Sometimes these rules are quite clear and all judges follow them while on the other hand some rules are iffy and could go either way. The iffy rules are where Judges still have the power to rule as they see fit. This does mean that a Judge is not in charge of all things at their table but that is the price you pay in order to be able to take that character anywhere and play it under the same exact rules.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GM is the final word of everything. Their word is law. A judge on the other hand does not have final say on rules. They are named Judges because that's what they do. They judge and answer based on rules that they themselves can not change (Core book rules, Guide to organized play, additional rules list, FAQ, etc).
I have seen OP campaigns (Living Greyhawk comes to mind) where the campaign documentation has been very particular on this point. The person at the table who ran the game was always referred to as a Judge, because they had this more limited area of ruling, whereas the campaign administration was, effectively, the Dungeon Master / Game Master for the campaign.
This becomes most important on game rules which note "ask your DM" or "at your DM's discretion"...in these cases, most OP campaigns have wanted to make it clear that the Judge at the table does not have that discretion, but instead, it's up to the campaign administration.
|
|
I have seen OP campaigns (Living Greyhawk comes to mind) where the campaign documentation has been very particular on this point. The person at the table who ran the game was always referred to as a Judge, because they had this more limited area of ruling, whereas the campaign administration was, effectively, the Dungeon Master / Game Master for the campaign.
This becomes most important on game rules which note "ask your DM" or "at your DM's discretion"...in these cases, most OP campaigns have wanted to make it clear that the Judge at the table does not have that discretion, but instead, it's up to the campaign administration.
Frankly, I wish there was a little more of this in PFS. I too played LG. in my preference, there is far too much of a concept in PFS that the guy at your table can interpret things however he wants, if it's not in the FAQ or the Guide. I strongly dislike the idea that guys running tables can basically say, "Until someone with authority tells me to stop, I am going to do what I want, so screw you."
I realize that's not the majority of GMs, but they're out there, and they ruin a lot of fun.|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly, I wish there was a little more of this in PFS. I too played LG. in my preference, there is far too much of a concept in PFS that the guy at your table can interpret things however he wants, if it's not in the FAQ or the Guide. I strongly dislike the idea that guys running tables can basically say, "Until someone with authority tells me to stop, I am going to do what I want, so screw you."
I realize that's not the majority of GMs, but they're out there, and they ruin a lot of fun.
And if that is the case, please email your local VC and me and let us know. I don't want to have a 75+ page guide to spell out every case (and then miss some). The reason we now have more than 100 VCs and VLs is because it helps me police the bad GMs better by utilizing volunteer campaign management.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
nopeWould it be worth a shirt reroll?Oh! Can we get T-shirts saying "Mike Brock is my GM"? ;DIf you like. But only if it has the yellow smiley face with a bullet hole between the eyes and a trickle of blood.
Better yet, given the graphic you specified, would a Judge wearing said shirt get to reroll a crit confirmation with a firearm against a PC? ;)
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Oh! Can we get T-shirts saying "Mike Brock is my GM"? ;DIf you like. But only if it has the yellow smiley face with a bullet hole between the eyes and a trickle of blood.
Well, OK. But then you have to wear a shirt that says "GM". Does that mean Janet has to wear one that says "GF" ?
|
|
Oh! Can we get T-shirts saying "Mike Brock is my GM"? ;DIf you like. But only if it has the yellow smiley face with a bullet hole between the eyes and a trickle of blood.Well, OK. But then you have to wear a shirt that says "GM". Does that mean Janet has to wear one that says "GF" ?
No. She is Mrs. PFS.
|
|
Frankly, I wish there was a little more of this in PFS. I too played LG. in my preference, there is far too much of a concept in PFS that the guy at your table can interpret things however he wants, if it's not in the FAQ or the Guide. I strongly dislike the idea that guys running tables can basically say, "Until someone with authority tells me to stop, I am going to do what I want, so screw you."
I realize that's not the majority of GMs, but they're out there, and they ruin a lot of fun.
I thought the problems, if any (YMMV as to what constitutes a problem), was generally in the other direction?
Namely "This rule makes no sense, but we're stuck with it, until an official errata or FAQ comes out, always assuming the errata or FAQ doesn't complicate matters further or make things worse."
Or, "I'd love to make a ruling that makes sense, but my hands are tied..."
|
|
Frankly, I wish there was a little more of this in PFS. I too played LG. in my preference, there is far too much of a concept in PFS that the guy at your table can interpret things however he wants, if it's not in the FAQ or the Guide. I strongly dislike the idea that guys running tables can basically say, "Until someone with authority tells me to stop, I am going to do what I want, so screw you."
I realize that's not the majority of GMs, but they're out there, and they ruin a lot of fun.
Well, then there are some PFS GMs who all but declare themselves sovereign of even the campaign coordinator's and developers' rulings. There have been a couple of GMs I've run into on the Messageboards who I've wanted to write in response to, but my words were so acidic when I tried that I simply had to decide not to do so.