RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Someone PM'd me today (I'll leave them anonymous) with a concern. The subject line is what I used for this thread's title.
I will personally vouch for the author of the below not being any kind of "problem player" or the sort to try to get away with anything. Yet he is concerned about the implications of this "common sense rulings" section of the new Guide.
As such, I think all of us GMs should read this and keep it in mind the next time a player at one of our tables contests what we believe to be a "common sense" ruling - could be they know something we don't, as opposed to looking to sneak in some cheese.
Here's what they wrote:
Do you know what the story is behind this change? I'm assuming there was some drama between PFS players and GMs over strict interpretation of rules.
Page 5: Added the following sentence: “The leadership of this campaign assumes that you will use common sense in your interpretation of the rules. This includes being courteous and encouraging a mutual interest in playing, not engaging in endless rules discussions. While you are enjoying the game, be considerate of the others at the table and don’t let your actions keep them from having a good time too. In short, don’t be a jerk.”
The part about not being a jerk is fine, but it seems like by encouraging 'common sense' rules rather than rules as written, it's effectively sanctioning house rules as long as they're couched as being 'common sense.'
There are plenty of people out there who would argue (vehemently, and at length) that it's common sense to take TWF penalties if you hold a weapon in your other hand, or that an animal can't flank, or that rangers would wander around with their bow unstrung, or that trying to help someone and failing actually penalizes them, or that taking 10 takes ten times as long, or that a caster zaps his gloves if he has a held charge, etc.
Personally, I think it's common sense to assume that JB and paizo knew what they were doing, and what they wrote in the book is what they intended; that RAW = RAI unless they've specifically said otherwise.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I think that anybody who would argue "vehemently, and at length ..." on the grounds that the Guide allows common sense interpretation of the rules is conveniently forgetting that the very next sentence in the guide explicitly rules against engaging in endless rules discussions.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I think that anybody who would argue "vehemently, and at length ..." on the grounds that the Guide allows common sense interpretation of the rules is conveniently forgetting that the very next sentence in the guide explicitly rules against engaging in endless rules discussions.
That would be common sense, wouldn't it. :-)
Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Tucson
|
Running games in a public setting requires tact and judgment. The GM will often encounter players or bystanders whose rule interpretations differ wildly from their own. As gamemasters for organized play, we've all run into players and GMs armed with bizarre or unreasonable rule exploits, who used "but the rules say..." as a weapon to bludgeon the other players at the table into kowtowing to their outrageous interpretation of the "rules as written". If you look at any messageboard, you'll soon find some examples.
I took the guide's statement as encouragement for gamemasters to use their own discretion when questions arise, encouraging reasonable discussion or suggestions from players. While it is important to follow the rules, there are times when the rules don't quite fit the situation and a judgment call must be made.
Gamemasters also need to discourage arguments when they become detrimental to the game. It's a mistake to let a player hold the game hostage to his own rule interpretations, especially if the GM and other players share consensus that it's time to stop arguing and move on. By empowering Pathfinder Society GMs to make judgment calls, the guide reduces rules lawyers' ability to manipulate the game. The guide allows a GM to state "I don't think that should apply in this case" and get the game back into gear.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think that anybody who would argue "vehemently, and at length ..." on the grounds that the Guide allows common sense interpretation of the rules is conveniently forgetting that the very next sentence in the guide explicitly rules against engaging in endless rules discussions.
I imagine that the author of the PM was merely expressing how dearly some GMs hold their beliefs. Please don't get caught up on how they phrased it and miss the point.
The point is that this player is concerned that GMs will enforce their own preferences - sometimes provably illegal preferences - under the guise of "common sense rulings".
That fact, and the fact that the player felt the need to express that concern but was not willing to do so publicly on the forums, should at the very least make us all pause a moment to consider how we handle being disagreed with.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
(Stuff mostly concerning problem players, using terms like "bludgeon the other players" and "hold the game hostage")
There's a reason I went to the trouble to vouch for the person who sent me that PM. None of what you talked about applies to that person. Yet that person is worried by the "common sense ruling" clause.
What does that tell you?
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Tucson
|
There are plenty of people out there who would argue (vehemently, and at length) that it's common sense to take TWF penalties if you hold a weapon in your other hand, or that an animal can't flank, or that rangers would wander around with their bow unstrung, or that trying to help someone and failing actually penalizes them, or that taking 10 takes ten times as long, or that a caster zaps his gloves if he has a held charge, etc.
There are some people who should be discoraged from being running tables in an Org Play setting. Bad rules judgment is just as much a problem as failure to prepare or running with an adversarial mindframe.
Conversely, there are players who will argue (vehemently, and until we all want to slap them) that they should be able to 5 ft. step into a square heaped with half a dozen dead bodies, that they shouldn't ever need to handle animal to get their warhorse to attack a monster, that they can climb a rope while holding a weapon in each hand, that allies shouldn't give cover to foes, that their weapons are always (ALWAYS!) in hand (no matter what they're doing), that their bowstring can't be cut ("Because this book here says a bow has Hardness 5 and makes no exception for the string"), that they can all simultaneously aid the party rogue's bluff check, that they can take ten ALL THE DARN TIME, and that setting themselves on fire shouldn't harm their fancy courtier's attire.
The unfortunate thing about common sense is that it isn't.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Tucson
|
There's a reason I went to the trouble to vouch for the person who sent me that PM. None of what you talked about applies to that person. Yet that person is worried by the "common sense ruling" clause.
What does that tell you?
Like most players, most gamemasters are reasonable, but the few unreasonable ones certainly make a lasting impression.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
My interpretation of that clause is that if there is some ambiguity in the rules or some situation arises that the rules don’t cover, then it gives the GM the clout to use their own common sense (especially in the heat of players who don’t know when to concede a point).
But if a GM uses this clause to expressly change the rules or use a house rule, then yeah, the player should contact their V-O or Mike.
This clause does not give GM’s leave to use house rules when the written rules already provide clearly defined rules.
When there is ambiguity, this clause gives GM’s the authority they need to fairly adjudicate a situation.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
The point is that this player is concerned that GMs will enforce their own preferences - sometimes provably illegal preferences - under the guise of "common sense rulings".
I'm sure this will happen. I'm also sure that the converse will happen - players will be convinced that the GM is enforcing an incorrect ruling simply because it's not the decision they would have made.
First, has everybody read Painlord's guides to PFS play, judging, etc.?
He lays out pretty good procedures there on how to handle disagreements between a player and a judge.
If I'm the judge, I'll allow a reasonable amount of time for discussion. If I'm the player I'll state my objection once. But after that, unless it's going to result in something like the death of a character, or the total failure of the mission, whatever the GM decides is how that scenario will play out. Not being able to use a cool feat doesn't count.
Further discussion can take place at the end of the scenario. If there is still strong disagreement, then escalate (to the event coordinator, your local venture officers, or maybe even to Mike Brock).
Finally, if you consider it's impossible for the player and the judge to agree to complete the scenario using the GMs ruling, and there isn't an event coordinator available to act as arbitrator, one or other of them should leave the table. That should be a last resort - it's going to spoil somebody's enjoyment, and create headaches for all concerned.
I'm lucky - in the past year I haven't encountered any GM who was so far from my reading of the rules that I felt I couldn't play at their table. That doesn't mean I agree with all their decisions; in fact I don't believe there's been a single scenario where there wasn't something I'd have done differently (at least in those scenarios that I've later judged myself; I don't know about the others, as I haven't read them). Nor have I had a player at the table who was not prepared to accept my rulings. That doesn't mean I've been right 100% of the time (even after accepting corrections from players), just that we've been able to agree to deal with the fine details after the session.
|
|
Dms need to keep the game moving, and that requires making rules decisions quickly in some cases.
Some players don't have much common sense. Some Dms don't have much common sense. Other times the RAW is unclear. Other times the RAW is clear, and there are forum posts stating that it works some other way, that explicitely isn't allowed for in the RAW. In all cases, the games need to continue to flow.
All the guide says is that table variation is a necessary evil. People should realize it's a game. People should be cooperative, and use common sense. People shouldn't be jerks. People shouldn't feel like they need to get a con organizer or VO to make a ruling each and every time there is disagreement.
Much of that section was aimed at both players and dms.....
With that said, I've seen DMs clearly break the rules and kill entire parties in living campaigns before, although not in PFS yet. I've seen other DMs get frustrated they couldn't reach the threatening party members and coup de grace downed party members, though again not in PFS yet.
In any game, you have to expect bad experiences. Some DMs and players lack common sense AND also lack social skills. Just like you have to expect a MMO to occasionally have programming glitches that ruin whole evenings.
|
|
In my view all this clause is doing is codifying something that's a pretty universal unwritten (or sometimes written in some of mine) rule in pretty much every RP group everywhere. Nobody I know actually likes rules arguments and most people I know refuse to get into them. I don't even usually get into it with GMs unless I can point to a line in a book (though there was the one time recently with readied actions...).
As a GM, when I run for people that don't know me, I make a point of asking players if they need to know my interpretation of a rule up front and/or point out my view on things that might be different from the way I see things played. Back in my LFR days, I was for example very strict on any abilities that allowed for re-rolls (i.e. before or after the result is announced). But all in all I'm a very strict constructionist when it comes to the rules :).
|
My interpretation of that clause is that if there is some ambiguity in the rules or some situation arises that the rules don’t cover, then it gives the GM the clout to use their own common sense (especially in the heat of players who don’t know when to concede a point).
But if a GM uses this clause to expressly change the rules or use a house rule, then yeah, the player should contact their V-O or Mike.
Andrew, I hope that your interpretation is correct, as this is exactly what I think is needed - a recognition of the authority and duty of a GM to make a ruling on an unclear area and then keep the game going for the enjoyment of everyone.
From reading some other threads, I think a further statement might be of use as to whether a GM's default ruling should be ACCEPT or DENY (to use firewall terms). If a player wants to do something that isn't explicitly covered by the rules, but is equally not explicitly disallowed, then I tend to lean towards ACCEPT - it's obviously important to that player. I only DENY when it's likely to not be fun for the other players, or when I feel that the player is exploiting ambiguity to gain an unfair advantage.
The point is that this player is concerned that GMs will enforce their own preferences - sometimes provably illegal preferences - under the guise of "common sense rulings".
As a society, we have two choices:
- Remove all duty/authority of interpretation from GMs - run purely RAW
- Encourage interpretation and trust in reporting of egregious violations to the VCs/Mike
I do understand the concerns of this person - this does add an extra bolt to the quiver of GMs who want to break the rules. However, I think that more harm can be done to the society as a whole by overly strict and literal approaches to the rules, than by explicitly allowing interpretation.
There is a difference between abiding by the written rules, as far as they can be translated from unavoidable ambiguous english to rules, and enforcing the rules as explicitly written. The latter tends to be less fun for all as the rules can't handle every eventuality. We should be aiming for fun.
|
|
As a society, we have two choices:
- Remove all duty/authority of interpretation from GMs - run purely RAW
- Encourage interpretation and trust in reporting of egregious violations to the VCs/Mike
There is a difference between abiding by the written rules, as far as they can be translated from unavoidable ambiguous english...
Running just on RAW isn't always possible. RAW is always going to be ambigious from time to time. Judgement is always going to be needed.
For example, what can illusion spells do? What tasks can a mindless creature carry out when ordered to do so?
With that said, there is a difference between using RAW as interpreted and using RAW as I wish it was.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone seems to be focusing on whether or not the passage in question from the Guide is appropriate to have. No one seems to be talking about what would prompt a player to privately voice concern about this and not about something else.
So why would this player believe that? Where did their subconscious gather such experience and data as to provoke this response in them? And what does that mean for us? How should we (since we have no control over anyone's actions but our own) respond?
One can only assume that this person's experience suggests that the abuse of the passage in question is likely. Not some obscure risk that needs to be accepted because someone somewhere in Theoretical Land is going to abuse it, but a risk that I'm guessing this player expects to encounter a significant number of times.
So where does a player get that idea? Presumably from some combination of their own experience and what they see on the messageboards. And unless this player travels to a LOT of conventions, the majority of the incriminating experience is going to be from what's seen on the messageboards.
My speculation, then, is this: you and I are the problem. The GMs with a messageboard presence. We're what this player is seeing, and he's concerned about what we'll do with the "common sense rulings" passage. Not some distant idiot who theoretically exists to do all the bad stuff.
Us.
It is my belief that WE are the ones that players are worried will abuse the "common sense rulings" passage.
I could be wrong. Maybe this person's concern is purely hypothetical. Maybe all their local GMs suck. But I, for one, am not willing to assume that the problem is always someone else at some other table, making all the trouble while I'm doing just fine. I refuse to assume that because my GMing is pretty decent overall or because some aspects of my GMing are good, that I couldn't have some major weaknesses. I am further unwilling to shrug at what shortcomings I may have and refuse to improve. I choose to apply this player's concern to myself, and look for ways to make sure my table rulings could not reasonably be construed as enforcing my own houserules under the guise of "common sense".
And I hope I won't be alone in that endeavor.
|
So my personal Definition for RAW are Rules that a clearly written and not up for interpretation. The majority of rules actually fit that definition. These GMs should not be changing. Sure GMs make mistakes on RAW all the time, but the table is not the place to argue with the GM about it. You bring up your concern and your point, and if the GM does not agree you talk to him in more detail after the game.
Now there are still plenty of rules that are not clear and are up for GM to interpret and make a call, I think that is where this comes into play. Really for these rules starting a rules argument is pointless because you are never going to get a concesus, so use the same as above.
What I don't want to see is GMs using this as the Next Play, Play, Play! and saying that this gives them the right to change rules to make the game more "Fun".
|
|
Everyone seems to be focusing on whether or not the passage in question from the Guide is appropriate to have. No one seems to be talking about what would prompt a player to privately voice concern about this and not about something else.
** spoiler omitted **...
Honestly? I don't know said person and I (maybe I'm alone in this, even on the internet! Who knew!) do not want to make inferences on what someone meant or did not mean by a comment meant privately to you.
What could have prompted him to voice his concern?
1. Bad past experience (my interpretation)
2. Super-human foresight
3. Being new to PFS (again, don't know this guy) and being over-concerned about rules
4. Distrust in his local GMs (ties to 1, honestly the problem here lies with him, not us)
I think you are asking us to deal in theoreticals, Jiggy. I just don't know what you are hoping to hear from us that hasn't been said.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
It is my belief that this Common Sense passage is meant to allow the GM a bit of lee-way when it comes to the table, and to keep players from getting up-in-arms over a slight misinterpretation by the GM.
For example, the tactics-as-written for a monster may be to Spider Climb up a wall and use their quarterstaff on the first enemy to get close - but Spider Climb reads that you need to use one hand & a quarterstaff is 2-handed... so by Common Sense, the tactic needs to be changed.
Another example I can think of from my early GMing (which thank the gods I'll never have to run into this example again) was a time when a player sat down with an Undead Lord - the player had never come to the forums for an FAQ and I hadn't either. I ruled at the time that as a divine caster he needed a deity, and that there wasn't a way that I could see logically for him to channel positive energy with that archetype without the Versatile Channel feat. The player got all uppity citing rules and technicalities in the rule book which was interrupting combat. I said to the player that unless he had a full FAQ/Errata about the Archetype he needed to abide by this ruling while at the table. He complained to the VL, who promptly agreed that without the player bringing the required materials, it was up to the table GM to interpret it. Now if the VL hadn't agreed with my stance, that could have been my first & last GM session.
Finally, players come up with some of the craziest off-the-wall ideas! How will the GM interpret the player wanting to pole-vault with their lance across the Goblin blockade? We could just say no, since the scenario never anticipated that tactic to be taken... or we could roll with it and make up some Acrobatics DC using Common Sense ^_^
This clause is really reinforcing that the GM is the end-all decider, but asking GMs to consider player arguments instead of just shutting them down.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think you are asking us to deal in theoreticals, Jiggy.
True. Knowing who it is does give me a lot of additional context, so expecting everyone to go through the same thought process I did isn't really fair.
Which would be why I walked you through said thought process. ;D
I just don't know what you are hoping to hear from us that hasn't been said.
I guess a lot of what's been said so far feels like old men sitting on their porch talking about today's youth or the government or whatever - always someone else.
Why does the first and universal response to a player concern always seem to be to point at other people and reaffirm that yes, bad GMs exist out there somewhere?
Why have I never seen a GM respond to a player concern by saying "Gee, maybe I should examine myself and see in what ways I might be part of the problem, and fix it"?
I stand by my conclusion/call to action at the end of the spoiler in my previous post.
|
|
Why have I never seen a GM respond to a player concern by saying "Gee, maybe I should examine myself and see in what ways I might be part of the problem, and fix it"?
Because I'm already perfect?
I kid. Jiggy, I can't speak for anyone else here, but I do my best every time I sit behind the (metaphorical) screen to do the best job I can to both keep by RAW and make the game fun for everyone at the table. Sometimes I have to say "Yes, but..." or "This is the way it's going to work, are you sure you want to do that?"
We all have to make judgement calls every time we sit down to run a game. I don't think anyone here is trying to do it worse than the last time they did.
If a player has a concern with the way a GM runs a game, they should address it to that GM. Calmly. Respectfully.
If they don't feel comfortable confronting the GM directly (for any reason), they should reach out to their local VO. It's what we're here for, among other things.
If they have a problem with a VO, and they don't feel comfortable contacting the VO, then they should reach out to Mike Brock.
If they have a problem with Mike's rulings or decisions, they can contact him directly or via the messageboards. I'm not sure what the escalation path beyond that is, and I trust it will never ever get to the point that I (or anyone) will need to find out.
|
|
Why have I never seen a GM respond to a player concern by saying "Gee, maybe I should examine myself and see in what ways I might be part of the problem, and fix it"?I stand by my conclusion/call to action at the end of the spoiler in my previous post.
I'll certainly answer your call to arms. I'm open to comments on my performance and they are taken away for suitable reflectance. I also admit that there is a (hopefully decreasing) portion of the rules that I can't implement correctly from memory at the table.
However, I'll also say that certain participants in the hobby treat the texts of the core rules as if they blazed with holy fire while they were dispensing the one true way to interpret them. It's a book of rules, written by fallible people, for a game that is supposed to be fun.
It worries me that this person is worried by "encouraging 'common sense' rules rather than rules as written" as the alternative is to blindly implement the rules as written even where they contradict common sense. That's not likely to be fun for anyone.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Why have I never seen a GM respond to a player concern by saying "Gee, maybe I should examine myself and see in what ways I might be part of the problem, and fix it"?
Because the place where I respond to complaints about my GMing style are at the table after the session, or in discussion with the event coordinator or my venture officers, not on the forums. I hope I don't come across as so dogmatic that players are unwilling to try and talk things through with me as a first step.
Similarly, if I've got a problem with a GM, I'll take it up with them directly.
I referenced Painlord's guides earlier: he's pretty strong on continuous self- (and peer-) evaluation. I might not ask myself "How could I do this better?" after every table, but I'll certainly ask "How could I have handled that better?" after any table where there was an issue.
That's not just as a GM, either - I'm trying to be a better player, as well as a better GM.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It worries me that this person is worried by "encouraging 'common sense' rules rather than rules as written" as the alternative is to blindly implement the rules as written even where they contradict common sense. That's not likely to be fun for anyone.
You have to be careful with this though.
What you are saying is exactly what Worries me, and I think the person that PMed Jiggy as well..
Who's Common Sense?
Who's Definition of Fun?
If someone builds something around a rule that is clearly defined and not up for interpretation but the GM says that by his "Common Sense" that make no sense and won't let it work and it is not "Fun" to run it that way, who is now not having fun?
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Columbus
|
There are plenty of people out there who would argue (vehemently, and at length) that it's common sense to take TWF penalties if you hold a weapon in your other hand, or that an animal can't flank, or that rangers would wander around with their bow unstrung, or that trying to help someone and failing actually penalizes them, or that taking 10 takes ten times as long, or that a caster zaps his gloves if he has a held charge, etc.There are some people who should be discoraged from being running tables in an Org Play setting. Bad rules judgment is just as much a problem as failure to prepare or running with an adversarial mindframe.
Conversely, there are players who will argue (vehemently, and until we all want to slap them) that they should be able to 5 ft. step into a square heaped with half a dozen dead bodies, that they shouldn't ever need to handle animal to get their warhorse to attack a monster, that they can climb a rope while holding a weapon in each hand, that allies shouldn't give cover to foes, that their weapons are always (ALWAYS!) in hand (no matter what they're doing), that their bowstring can't be cut ("Because this book here says a bow has Hardness 5 and makes no exception for the string"), that they can all simultaneously aid the party rogue's bluff check, that they can take ten ALL THE DARN TIME, and that setting themselves on fire shouldn't harm their fancy courtier's attire.
The unfortunate thing about common sense is that it isn't.
and a lot of those arguements are supported by RAW. you can't target just the bowstring. stepping into a square heaped with bodies etc. No they dont make sense, but they are supported by RAW. much like firing and reloading two double barrel pistol each 3 or 4 times in a 6 second round--meaning about 12 barrels being loaded as well as fired. that is where a good GM has to step up. as for the string being cut--I would not let that be indidually targeted--no more than I would let a swordsman deliberatly cut the fingers of a swordsman fighting him to severe them and make him drop the weapon. you go against the whole bow. Now take it out of their hand so it is an unattended bow?--slice the string all you want.
|
|
It worries me that this person is worried by "encouraging 'common sense' rules rather than rules as written" as the alternative is to blindly implement the rules as written even where they contradict common sense. That's not likely to be fun for anyone.You have to be careful with this though.
What you are saying is exactly what Worries me, and I think the person that PMed Jiggy as well..
Who's Common Sense?
Who's Definition of Fun?If someone builds something around a rule that is clearly defined and not up for interpretation but the GM says that by his "Common Sense" that make no sense and won't let it work and it is not "Fun" to run it that way, who is now not having fun?
I agree with you - very careful. Unfortunately there are always going to be situations where two people have irreconcilable opinions. The rules are not written in such a way as to support a blind logical implementation.
Who's Common Sense : It's my duty as GM to make a ruling based on my understanding of the situation and as much crowd-sourced wisdom as I can get from the players without holding up the game.
The phrase : I'm of a mind to rule on this like this - does anyone have a major problem with that tends to get used.
Who's Definition of Fun : That's they key one. It has to be the prevailing definition of the players at your table, even if it doesn't mesh with your personal tastes.
Does that mean break the rules if you are at a 'beer and pretzels' table? No, not if it's being run as PFS.
My mental order of precedence from lowest to highest is :
- rules on the page (both spirit and letter)
- common sense - both to cover when something isn't explicitly allowed by the rules and isn't explicitly disallowed
- suspension of disbelief required for a fun mechanical system
The last one is key, because certain things (like more than 3 shots per minute from a musket) are required to make the game work. Is it a realistic simulation? No, but it's more fun that way.
It's a tough balancing act.
I can empathise with the player who raised this issue as I've been affected by it too. One of the most fundamental aspects of organised play is the ability to use the same character at different games. When I sit down at a table I know how my character works and I just want to focus on the game and have fun. But when a GM starts ruling that my class abilities or spells don't work the way they did at the last table it brings my suspension of disbelief crashing down. I have to stop and re-read the rules, try and work out where the GM is coming from and then rethink my actions. At the next game I then don't have any confidence in how my character works and it just becomes a hassle. I get enough of that at work, gaming should be easy. If I find a character suffers from serious ambiguities now I just retire them and start again.
The problem isn't any specific interpretation, its the fact that different GMs (I'm one myself) are interpreting the rules differently. I'm not talking about characters pole vaulting over goblins, I'm talking about basic class abilities or core rules. One of those might be how many free actions does someone get, and which free actions are limited and which aren't (see the Gunslinger reload posts). I don't actually care what the answer to that is as I don't play a Gunslinger, but I do care that some random GM will impose an arbitrary limit on free actions and change the way my character works. Can I talk and draw a weapon whilst moving? My character always has done, but suddenly she finds she can't - what the hell? That kind of decision would stop the game in its tracks for me, however much the GM thought it was common sense.
There's no point talking about it after the game because its too late by then. I could talk about it after every game with every GM but I'll probably get a different answer from all of them anyway. There needs to be consistency up front and if that means Paizo need to expand the FAQ substantially then that's what needs to happen. Anything that's debated at length should be a FAQ candidate. These messageboards can spread as much confusion and worry as they can help resolve issues and answer questions.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Why have I never seen a GM respond to a player concern by saying "Gee, maybe I should examine myself and see in what ways I might be part of the problem, and fix it"?Because the place where I respond to complaints about my GMing style are at the table after the session, or in discussion with the event coordinator or my venture officers, not on the forums. I hope I don't come across as so dogmatic that players are unwilling to try and talk things through with me as a first step.
Indeed. But in addition to that, sometimes a player concern comes up that's not directed at one specific GM and doesn't happen to be voiced at the table. Those need to be given the same attention as direct discussions. In fact, in some ways it's better, because we can all respond (and potentially adjust our GMing) instead of just the GM in question.
That's why I brought this up. So a player could be heard, and so we can all, communally, improve our GMing.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Can I talk and draw a weapon whilst moving? My character always has done, but suddenly she finds she can't - what the hell? That kind of decision would stop the game in its tracks for me, however much the GM thought it was common sense.
While I take your overall point, this isn't actually an example of something the GM is free to change. RAW doesn't say drawing a weapon while moving becomes a free action under certain conditions - it says drawing a weapon (or two weapons, if you have two-weapon fighting) can be combined with a move action as long as your BAB is +1 or higher. That's not open to interpretation - it's explicit.
But there will always be grey areas, no matter how large the rulebook and FAQ become. That's the penalty we pay for playing a game set in an open world, with very few limits on what a player can try to have her character do. If you want absolute 100% repeatability and consistency, you'll end up with the situation where anything not explicitly permitted by the rules in prohibited (such as a CRPG). If you want full freedom for the GM to determine outcome, you can play an a story-telling game where you don't even need to roll dice, but that's going to have massive table variance. Pathfinder tries to find a middle path.
Could we and Paizo do a better job? Almost certainly. In the last six months I've made a few changes to how I judge. One is to keep my own personal opinion to myself. If I see a player doing something I think falls into a grey area, but which isn't how I'd make the call, I'll generally let it go as long as it doesn't adversely affect anyone else. I might talk it over with the player after the session - maybe he knows something I don't. But I'm not judging my own home game, so I'm not going to try and run tables under my interpretation of the rules. In the same time frame, Mike Brock has implemented quite a few rule changes to PFS play. I expect we'll both find other ways to improve things going forward.
I think people are more worried about ruling that arent explicit such as with weapon cords. They prevent Fine manipulation but it nevers covers what that is so is it common sense as to reloading a fire arm with the hand that the cord is attached to?
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Columbus
|
me--I want to recite the gettysburg address as a free action before I charge the dragon
GM--that is too long it is not a free action
me--well is reciting one line of it a free action?
GM--yes
me---then I take 200 free actions to recite the gettysburg address as I charge
|
|
me--I want to recite the gettysburg address as a free action before I charge the dragon
GM--that is too long it is not a free action
me--well is reciting one line of it a free action?
GM--yes
me---then I take 200 free actions to recite the gettysburg address as I charge
LoL. This in a thread about common sense?
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
RAW doesn't say drawing a weapon while moving becomes a free action under certain conditions;)
;) indeed.
RAW says the same thing different ways in different places. How surprising.
My quote was a direct copy from RAW as well (Table 8-2, Actions in Combat, footnote 3). I suppose by the rule that body text trumps information from tables the quote you give is the more definitive.
I guess we now need to argue what "combined with a regular move" means, and whether a free action combined with a regular move really counts as a free action. It would have been so much easier if it had been classified as "No Action" ...
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I guess we now need to argue ... whether a free action ... really counts as a free action.
Or: Does a free action combined with a regular move action still count towards the total of free actions taken in a round, should you be faced with a GM who puts a limit on those?
As there is a separate limit (of one) of free actions that can be combined with a move action, even if a GM is not otherwise limiting them, there's precedent for (a) counting them towards a limit, and (b) treating them as in some way different from other free actions.
Next week, on page 4783 of the fully clarified rule book (section 1), we'll be discussing ...
|
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a weird discussion. (Jiggy, not much of this is directed at you or your OP, but is related tangentially.) I think we need to look at the discussion from a different point of view.
The truth is that the RAW paradigm needs to be shifted. It focuses players on the wrong game element (rules and scenarios need to be run RAW) rather than the more important social (let's work together socially to solve and minimize issues) element.
Let me see if I can get this concept out of my brain and into text: I think the current RAW paradigm breeds entitlement ("Things should be RAW.") rather than healthy social interactions ("Let's work together on finding a fun solution...this is a social game that is supposed to be fun.").
I think the primary assumption should be "every player and the GM needs to work together to find common ground" rather than "if it's not my version of RAW, it's wrong."
In my mind, one of those two ideas encourages cooperation/trust and the other encourages entitlement and expectations that (usually) cannot be fulfilled.
Though this might not be how others view the change, but I hope it eases the player base away from RAW and into a more healthy frame of mind wherein they are encouraged to work more with the GM.
I think PFS would be better off without players coming to the table expecting RAW...since it has never happened across the Society and no amount of threads like this is ever going to change that...and instead expected some table variation and understood that they would need to work with players and GMs on local and social solutions.
In short, I don't think RAW will ever exist in PFS (even if it was a good thing). It hasn't since the inception of PFS and never will. We need to accept that and embrace a different system that will work better.
-Pain
|
|
Personally I'm very happy about this rule. I know Jiggy is concerned about the player - but what about the GM.
I felt more than once being shot down here on the boards using common sense - only to be shot down by a small vocal group with the argument RAW you can't do that.
I do listen as GM. I try to be sensible. I alter rulings if I get convinced. But if I bring up a ruling here and the majority of GMs - I'm saying the majority - not all - agree - then I feel justified.
I remember the discussion about selling expensive bonded items to make a profit. This is an example I felt was common sense. But you two argued toe and nail I'm not allowed to rule that way and only Mike adding it to the FAQ settled it.
I still remember being flat out told - you can't do that. RAW trumps common sense. I shouldn't drag this up - but as you argue for players I want to give you the perspective of a GM. It really sat badly with me that it was necessary for a - in my view minor - issue to get Mike rule in my favour and make a FAQ out of it to be 'allowed' to rule that way.
I guess you never realised how upset I was about your stance that didn't allow a compromise and even went as far as close to comparing me to a 'cheater' because I wasn't following RAW and dared to break it for common sense.
|
|
In short, I don't think RAW will ever exist in PFS (even if it was a good thing). It hasn't since the inception of PFS and never will. We need to accept that and embrace a different system that will work better.
-Pain
Thanks for saying what I've been thinking. I try to give a good game. I try hard to follow all the rules, but all I'm ever going to be able to do is the best I can, which will never hit every single rule as it is written, and not every single player is going to agree on what every rule as written actually means. Let's just acknowledge that and have a good, fun game.
|
|
My interpretation of that clause is that if there is some ambiguity in the rules or some situation arises that the rules don’t cover, then it gives the GM the clout to use their own common sense (especially in the heat of players who don’t know when to concede a point).
But if a GM uses this clause to expressly change the rules or use a house rule, then yeah, the player should contact their V-O or Mike.
This clause does not give GM’s leave to use house rules when the written rules already provide clearly defined rules.
When there is ambiguity, this clause gives GM’s the authority they need to fairly adjudicate a situation.
Not sure I should mention this, but it appears I will ...
I am partially responsible for the Common Sense text. I made a comment to Mike along the lines of, "wouldn't it be nice to have some text in the guide that told GMs AND players to use common sense at the table instead of endless rules discussions?"
Mike surprised me and said to write something up. So I did. And after his review and editing by the Paizo team, we are now discussing it in this thread.
Andrew's interpretation matches mine.
Who's common sense? I guess that would be the GM's and that of the players at the table, together. You know, common sense. Of course, this doesn't mean the players get to out-vote the GM. Ultimately it is the GM's responsibility to adjudicate the rules. But the GM should give the player(s) a chance to be heard.
I also understand Jiggy's player's concern. Every time I sit down to play using one of my precious PFS characters at the table of a GM I do not know, I am anxious as to how they will run the game. Luckily, in my PFS experience, those GMs are few. Beyond reporting a poor gaming experience to your Venture Officer all I can suggest is avoiding that particular GM in the future. Also, I avoid a lot of that player anxiety by GMing instead.
As far as RAW goes, this text was not meant to change the way the rules are used. It's really just a reminder that everyone is hear to have fun.
|
|
Mistakes, yup mistakes happen, and sure I can go with the flow with mistakes, but if after it is later explained how it was a mistake and you (You is whoever) still do not accept it then it goes beyond a mistake.
Not liking a rule, this happens, I see this less in PFS the I do in Home games, Most GMs will still follow the Clear RAW even if they hate it.
Taking an example from one place and using it to confuse another clear rule where it does not belong. This is what I see the most, and this is frustrating as all hell. I can give you 2 examples of this. I had a GM running Half Movement the same as difficult terrain, I explained to him the correct way and pointed it out but he refused to see it and insisted they were the same. This consistently screwed over my rogue during combat because what should have taken me 1 move action to flank would take multiple move actions or rounds. Another example of this was a player trying to convince a GM that my Alchemist using his extract for enlarge person was doing it wrong and it should have been a full round action to use the Enlarge Person Extract instead of thee standard action it is to use all extracts. He was taking the casting time for Enlarge person and trying to convince the GM that applies to extracts as well. Just Grrr!
So I will still always says someones, what we are now calling "Common Sense", should never change a clear RAW.
What we are now calling "common Sense" should be left do those times that always appear when something is not defined in the rules or is not clear in the rules.
Edit: Also if we were talking about selling Bonded items And you were saying you can't because PFS did not allow you to sell other specific items you got for free and should be the same for bonded items and I was saying there was no rule in PFS that said it specifically for Bonded items, I was in the wrong, not because of PFS rules *Though Mike decided to make a blanket rule on that anyway* but because someone pointed out a line I missed that stated Bonded Items lose all magic when lost or given away. I was mistaken but once it was pointed out to me of the mistake I accepted it.
|
|
The big thing here is, in the scope of PFS, following clearly defined rules, as written, constitutes common sense.
But based on how many discussions on various topics happen, there are many rules sets, that when applied to unique situations, corner cases, interesting circumstances, and other combinations of rules sets or subsets that obfuscate how to adjudicate the situation. In these cases, common sense should prevail.
There is a time limit on a PFS scenario. As such, common sense says that belabored rules discussions should happen after the fact, not during a scenario.
It is not common sense, however, within the scope of PFS, for a GM to use house rules or purposely not use a clearly defined rule, as written.
The issue then becomes, what is clearly defined to one person, may not be clearly defined to another. In these cases, see the top of my post and remember that as a GM your job is to help your players have fun, and as players your job is to have fun.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Warning: this is a pretty standard Nani response, that has little to do with RAW, and involves all kinds of touchy feely ideals *hugs Painlord*
First of all, I want to say that nobody is perfect. And that no matter what gets written in the guide, someone, somewhere will find a way to use, misinterpret, or abuse it. This clause was a good faith effort to help both GMs and players at a table, because the most important thing when playing a PFS game is to keep the game moving and to have everyone have fun. If a player wants to perform an action that has no explicit adjucation, and could be interpreted in a number of ways (I can't think of a good example right now), I have a choice as a GM. I can say no. I can spend ten minutes looking it up. Or I can make a call, whether it is right or wrong, and keep the game moving, and maybe get a few laughs.
My point is, this was a way to help adjucations, not hinder them. I understand the concern that the player above has, regarding GMs who will use this as a crutch to make bad calls. If so, they are doing so incorrectly. And that should be a legitimate concern brought up to that GM/local coordinator/upper management. And chances are, if they are using this to justify bad rulings, then they aren't a fantastic GM to begin with. My advice is always to do your best to help them be a better GM in a kind and friendly fashion. And if that doesn't work, try not to play with that GM. And, if that doesn't work, do your best to have fun anyway.
Playing PFS is always a risk, like any other kind of social event. It is impossible to eliminate that risk entirely...is it possible to guarantee every party you go to will be a blast and that no one will be sick on your shoes? But you can always do your best to avoid drunk people, go to parties where you know the hosts, and kindly show those sickest to the bathroom. And if your shoes get a little dirty, you can always take them off and dance barefoot!
|
|
Thanks, Painlord, for the great summary, and thanks, Nani, for the party metaphor. I think too many people use a "competitive sport" metaphor instead, which is the root of the issue in the first place.
Part of my opening spiel at the table includes, "I don't know all the rules by memory. If I make a call and you disagree with it, show me the correct rule in your book in a reasonable period of time (like, a minute), and I will happily reverse it. If you can't, we'll go with my call and move on." If it's a life or death call, I give them more than a minute, but if it's not, we move on.
Actually having the Rule As Written open, available, and ready in advance makes most of these arguments become very short. In cases of interpretation on wording, the GM makes the call after listening to the opposing viewpoints.