#2 may be the one that some people would find the most troublesome.

2 might be fun in my opinion. (especially if I could make a item to identify the areas. (Basically something like continuous flame. Which should be affected by the differences. ))

A GM has the right to do whatever he or she wants in the game. It may of course cost him or her the group, but that's them breaks. When a GM decides to something a certain way, it's usually not what is done, but WHY. So long as a GM is there to provide entertainment for the players, it doesn't much matter if the NPCs have wonky stats, break rules, or whatever. It's more important that the world is believable, that consequences of actions are predictable, and that the story keeps moving, at least to my thinking. I have played with people who kept all the rules straight but fubbed the above, and that was far worse than the reverse.

As long as I can follow a GMs line of reason I have no problem with following the rulings even if I disagree with them or would have done it differently myself. If they are resorting to "because I say so" then I'll likely not sit at their table twice.

It's that simple.

LazarX wrote:

Icyshadow wrote:

I only spoke of one specific person and here you are showing how arrogant and ignorant you are, thinking I need to learn something. All I was saying was that some DMs are dictators, but you should NOT let them get away with foul behaviour or abusing the power that might have very well corrupted them into such in the first place. And yeah, he's kind of a jerk even outside the table, but that's not something I felt was needed to be said. Also, learn to think before you type something in.

And I also said that as a Player, you have the ultimate veto power. For a GM without players is only talking to himself.

Beyond that, your problems with your GM are social/interpersonal problems well outside the context of a gaming forum. This is not the place for learning basic social or interpersonal skills.

As a unified group, the players have immense power, far above that of a dm. They could even dump the dm outside if he was a visitor to the house of one of them, and completely run the game with a new dm or rotational situation right then and there, at any time. Some dms don't get that, and some are better at being bullies than others, turning players against each other and running their awful games.

Again, that's not a gaming issue. This falls under the purview of people to people skills we're supposed to have learned by the time of coming to the age of presumed adulthood.

Of course the GM can be wrong.

But the rules ask players to defer to the GM in order for the game to work.

As a GM, I don't lord it over players, and as a player I always defer to the GM (unless I can be helpful by dissenting, even then, only rarely).

Yes, many GMs and players make a mess of this one way or the other. I think it is a general benchmark of gamer maturity to understand why it is, and abide by it.

The DM is never "always right," because the DM is just as fallible as any player. Sometimes, more so, since they have so much more to keep track of and so many details to keep straight at a given time.

I do see the DM as an authority, as an arbiter to the game. I might disagree with something the DM does, but at the end of the day, they make the call, not me. We can discuss it again outside of the game, but at that moment in-game that something arises, the DM is the one handling the situation and decides the outcome.

As for the creative direction of the game itself, I think the game benefits when everyone at the table contributes and puts a little piece of their imagination on the game-world, but that's just my preference.

On the other hand, many DM's have a very strict, inflexible vision of exactly what happens in "their world" and the players are sometimes at the mercy of it, regardless of what they do. Woe to those who trifle with that DM's pet NPC...

You might as well ask if the referee in a professional sports match is "always right".

Nobody ever makes the right call every time, but you abide by the call regardless.

The power of a gm is a gift given to him by the players who have decided that they may trust this person with that power to render a game that is fun and memorable for all. A GM must always remember that though he has the power to do whatever he pleases, it is his players devotion to the game and the fun therein that fuels it and without players he's just a guy with a story and no one to share it with.

Rocks fall, you all die.

If you're in an open area above ground and the players object, just tell them it was rocs...giant birds fell on them.

I have a standard rule in my game for rules. I will make the call after looking at it. If you disagree please discuss it with me afterwards or ask me to look at it more closely later. I am always willing to revisit my rulings and revise them. If my ruling caused your character harm I will also have that undone as it should not have happened.

The only things I demand power over is the way my world looks and feels. I also demand that logic remain consistent and you don't argue when your actions cause repercussions. If I have a certain laws in the country I will announce them to the group so they know what to not do aside from the normal.

I do demand my players pay attention to things I say. I hate repeating myself every session by answering questions I answered in the first hour, previous sessions, or that notes would have answered.

No no, not always informing a group of the laws of a new country, can be hilarious. If they don't know the odd laws, because they didn't make a check, so much fun can be had.

Or it can be a massive time waster, like last session where we spent thirty minutes discussing how to correct the previous thirty minutes of roleplay because the player of the witch did not realize how the new country treated animal companions and had to retroactively state that they would not be traveling through the country with us.

The DM can do whatever he wants to in his campaign - but he shouldn't be a tyrant, or a dick. First of all, because being a tyrant or a dick is just wrong, especially when you're doing it to your friends. Secondly, because the players can always "vote with their feet" and leave the campaign.

Ah back-peddling and going back to make it all fit, not a fan. That is time wasting.

If the witch didn't know how the country treated animal companions, then why wouldn't she go through it? Meta-gaming detected! Fire missiles 1 through 5.

If you are in a bad situation, deal with it and move forward! Onward, ever onward! http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/kb135.htm

If the witch didn't know how the country treated animal companions, then why wouldn't she go through it? Meta-gaming detected! Fire missiles 1 through 5.

The witch refuses to muzzle her panther familiar. The player did not realize that the country requires all dangerous animals to be leashed and muzzled at all times within its borders. The party had already traveled a couple days ride before the DM made it clear, which is when the player said their character would never have left the customs area of the docks. So we had to retcon the party's actions back to that point.

Easy, permissive border guards let it get through, but now you have to deal with an authority that takes the law very seriously. Go from there and you can't go back! Those days are over. Rp or fight people.

"Oh I never would have gone in."
"Well you did go in, and got past the border with no real problems, but how do you deal with this now? Are you gonna kill a lawful man?"

I ran into some laid back border authorities in Malaysia, so it happens. One guy laughed when I tried to declare something (get out of here idiot, basically, even though it was on the declare list), and later the sergeant ladies at a check-point flirted with me rather than do their jobs with thoroughness (which annoyed one of their male underlings greatly).

Easy, permissive border guards let it get through,

Not in this Lawful society.

Parts of Malaysia are theocratic. So yes, even in lawful countries.

Not in this DM's world.

It is okay man. There was no need to go backwards (I sure have seen this a few times, one players always wanted to go back if he made a bad choice, get a pc game with quick save already).

Talk to mdt, it was his game. I just had to wait while it was resolved.

I'm sorry.

One time a dm did allow a player to go back in time, and play a period that had already passed, because he missed a game. I told him not to mess with the time-space continuum, no good would come of it. The results were as follows:

1) time wasted with little benefit.
2) the player got a very small amount of xp, but not much.
3) critical fails and flow on effects.
4) dm vows to never do that again.

The question:

Can a GM do anything he wants at anytime regardless of the players decisions or input

Yes, but not all DMs have players.

It's TOTALLY ok Null -- emotions run high in the forums especially on issues that are exceedingly prescient and close to home for the OP, or people who have their own passionate investment in their viewpoint. I'll concede I could have been better at marketing my point - but I'm glad you were able to dig far enough down to see it wasn't entirely a bag of iron-filings for you to eat.

If it's any consolation (or enlightening) you could see in my recent thread history that I got into similar friction for holding a stance very similar to yours in a different situation (a situation where a GM was utterly and unrepentantly hijacking the rules to basically turn his players into a backdrop for his antagonists, rather than the other way around.

But all that being said -- and I'm sorry it's harsh -- but there are REAMS AND REAMS of unambiguously worded language that contradict your agency as a participant to what a GM can decide. Thoughtful GMs will consider their players and do their best to make for a good time -- but they run the show. This hasn't truly been up for debate... like ever. The players should not, and nowhere does it say they should, form committees to debate whether what a DM is doing is fair. Bad DM? Fire him.

But these forums are full of bad participant threads. Sometimes it's the GMs that are being jerks, more often though I see threads about individual (or a couple) of bad players with too big a sense of entitlement or an inability to think outside the box of their own enjoyment... Perhaps you see something some way, not just because it gives you a mechanical advantage -- but because you actually are firmly behind the logic of it. However, the GM sees it differently, and instead of your minor (or major) mechanical advantage he has to see the entire game through the headache-inspiring ripple effect of just what his capitulation means in the grand architecture of the entire ruleset. We all got read "If you give a mouse a cookie" in nursery school. Welcome to the minute to minute life of a GM...

What emotions? You act as if I got all hulk angry! Everything is cool buddy. It's only a discussion over the internet. How upset could I possibly get? lol

Ok first off, the entire EDIT was written literally 20 seconds after I made my post. I could have edited the entire thing.. but I felt at the time it was enough. I did not want to waste my time to rewrite everything. And yes, if someone told me those comments in person I would definitely b%@++ slap him to the floor.

I am sure you don't talk to your players like this Vicon. Hell buddy, I am sure you are a good dude.

Now that we are done bickering like old women.. lets get to the issue.

Are there "reams and reams" of content that says the DM is always right? hell yes there is. Just look at any 1st or 2nd gen book and you can see clearly that the GM is written as the supreme god commander of everything.

I have been playing and DMing DND for 18+ years and have been fortunate to have intelligent, creative, excellent DMs. I have also been in countless games with terrible DMs. You know the difference between the two? Good DMs are consistently sticking to RAW.. the bad DM's make up their own stupid s$!!. There are exceptions, but these exceptions know the rules, the game, and know their players and are excellent DMs in general.

You know why this subject is so damn hard to even approach? There are just to many type of games to consider. If you play DND like the guys I play with now.. its no more than a kiddie game. lol No one cares about their characters.. " I attack the king " type of stuff..

If you like playing these games then the rules don't mean anything to you. you could be using any system and be happy. These people just dont know any better.

But

If you are a serious gamer then playing by raw is your best option. It allows you to know what you can do. It allows you to control your environment. It is consistent.. It allows you to never feel cheated.

You know when you play by raw that if something bad happens its because of bad luck (dice) or because of a bad decision on your part. Oops maybe i should have never let myself get surround by these goblins.. ect

You want to create a story then do it but keep that story within the written rules as much as possible unless your a fantastic DM

Now about the players. can players feel entitled? sure.. can we be assclowns? sure.. but following RAW will carve most of our complaints out.

This is a difficult discussion guys. We all have our opinions but only one option is the best option.

Thank you all for taking the time to share your thoughts. Even if i dont agree with ya :).

Thx guys.

Pathfinder Society Guide -- Page 5, "Core Assumption":

The Core Assumption
"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."

Not having to go back to 1st or 2nd edition, the RAI has not changed a speck, really. The language has gotten a lot gentler so GMs with napoleon complexes don't feel entitled to make life hell for their players, and perhaps even moreso so certain players don't get all butthurt when they are presented with the "GM's in charge" medicine.

But the wording is threaded through every game-master's guide... and every player's guide, and practically every introduction or explanation for how the game is played. It's friggin' ubiquitous. The GMs run the show. We are beholden to being consistent, but not necessarily beholden to RAW -- (though your 'rule-fu' better be strong enough to replace what you're putting aside -- and if your players are RAW-fiends or hyper-mechanic it's just good business to relate everything you do differently at your table.) In the end, what's important is that everyone has a good time, and the game does not get bogged down. Sometimes GMs may have the skill, but not the familiarity or the library to pull all the RAW. That shouldn't be a problem if they're not being dicks, and the players don't see that as an opportunity to go Ides of March on his butt.

But even the shining guide above, in the portion I cite, is quietly screaming... like the whispering way... "NuuuulllllVoooooiidddd..... the GM can do annnnyyyything..... please stop interrupting the flow of the game and getting your nose out of joint with your 'endless rules discussions'... somebody is trying to run a world for your benefit."

It's ubiquitous. You've had some bad experiences, hell -- you got BURNED by bad company. Doctor's advice?: Seek a PFS gathering at a local game-store ASAP. At worst, you'll be exposed to people no worse than you're accustomed, but likely meet a couple of people who ARE worth their salt, and maybe that'll be the start of your next gaming group. At best? Well -- you'll be too busy with your new friends to keep jawing about slapping me. ;D

Game on, brother. Game on.

I have only one problem with letting the GM win in a rule discussion, even to resume it later, and is that one: the outcome will be unfavorable to my even if later he realizes that I was right, and two he just cheated on me. And what you guys are proposing in that just keep quiet and let him win.

Collaboration should be a fundamental part of the game, been GM at the present time is just too much power and responsibility.

NullVOID wrote:

The question:

Can a GM do anything he wants at anytime regardless of the players decisions or input?

CAN he? Sure.

SHOULD he? That's the real question.

Quote:

Do you think the GM has the right to do anything he wants? If so Why?

Personally I think the game is a collaboration between the players and the GM. If the GM wants to change something he not only has to tell his players but also get them to agree on the change.

I agree to a degree.

One of my GMs calls it the player/GM contract. I could go into depth into what it means but basically it's that the player and the GM agree to communicate their needs to each other, give each other feedback, and overall don't behave like dicks to each other.

Both sides require give and take. For a healthy game, the GM does need to communicate clearly and make sure players are on board with what he wants to see happen.

But at the same time, for that to really work, the players also need to be willing to give the GM the power to make calls on tough decisions and trust their decision is for the best of everyone involved. Sometimes there is going to be a rule or interpretation of a rule that is simply contentious, and consensus will not be achieved. In these cases, the GM needs to be trusted to make a decision and stick with it, and the players need to be trusted to accept that call even if they personally disagree for the benefit of the flow of the game. This also of course means that the GM needs to be trustWORTHY of course.

Players also need to respect when the GM says no, and GMs need to respect the Players enough to find good, real reasons as to why they cannot say yes.

It's just like any healthy social relationship or working relationship--there's a point where people have to let people work in their role and be respectful of each other.

Quote:

Also! Most if not all changes should be discussed before the campaign begins and not added in between or in the middle of adventures.

I...

My initial answer to the OP's questions

Can a GM do anything he wants at anytime regardless of the players decisions or input?

Yes

Do you think the GM has the right to do anything he wants? If so Why?

Yes. He who put the work into putting together a game for his friends for the evening gets to decide what happens- his game his world etc...

However- I find that Death quaker has put forth a nuanced answer far better then I could.
I do think there is a player/GM contract. For it to work, both the players and GM must trust and respect each other....that being said, i do think the GM is the final Arbritrator of how the rules are interpeted at his/her table.

Now I also tend to think of the rules of the game are there to facilitate the story....not contain and curtail the story/narrative. But again this is just my opinion. And Pathfinder is just a game. A fun one, but it is only a game. Hopefully a fun one.

Just my two cents

I have only one problem with letting the GM win in a rule discussion, even to resume it later, and is that one: the outcome will be unfavorable to my even if later he realizes that I was right, and two he just cheated on me. And what you guys are proposing in that just keep quiet and let him win.

Collaboration should be a fundamental part of the game, been GM at the present time is just too much power and responsibility.

It can be one of the drawbacks of a complicated game like Pathfinder. If as a player have more knowledge than the GM and make a decision based on that knowledge, but the GM changes it on you because he doesn't know the rule so makes a judgement call during the session.

Not only is your play experience disrupted, but if you argue with the GM trying to represent the rules accurately, you diminish the play experience of everyone at the table.

It's not a fatal flaw of complicated games, but it is something to be aware of in a group and know how to handle when it comes up.

I know what you're saying Iron -- have your citations ready before you disrupt the flow, or without making a scene ask for a moment or two to "consider what's happening" -- if I see something that explicitly states I'm doing something wrong, I'm not going to run all over a guy. I'll probably thank him.

But if it's something a GM does know and has made a conscious decision to conduct something elsewise (houserule) or it's an ambiguity that cannot be rapidly resolved? There's no purchase for argument there, on the part of the player. The GMs going to win that dispute every time.

I think the GM is always in charge, and therefore gets the final say. That is what the rules are trying to convey when they say he is always right. However having a few bosses who knew less than I did, I can tell you that being right and being in charge are not always synonymous. I can also say as someone who GM's more often that they like that I have been wrong. With that said the players should respect the work that GM's do. That does not mean the GM should be allowed to be a jerk, but mistakes will be made, and if you think the GM is in error then you should feel free to speak up. Just be civil.

As for arguing the rules, I only mention it when it matters, and then I leave it alone until after the session no matter what he says. If I am the GM feel free to speak up. Even if I don't know the exact page to go to I can tell flip the book to the correct chapter, and find the rule in less than one minute. Taking one minute to clear something up is not too much to ask. Now if I rule against the player I still check it again after the session, and shoot the player an email explaining my stance.

Ok I am skipping a lot so forgive me if someone already said this.

Is the GM always right? Yes. The GM is final arbiter of everything in her game. This means she can legitimately do anything she wants and is still right. The GM is given this authority so as to have complete freedom to make a story/game as she envisions it. Some GMs share a little or even a lot of authority with her players again since the GM is always right then this move is also right. In the end the game is a social contract however and there are a lot of options available in such a social situation for players to express their opinions or even try to change things.

When most people freak out about the GM always being right they are typically upset because either this GM or a prior one was a bad GM OR it is also possible that the player freaking out is a bad player and hates being called on it. Being good or bad at GMing (or playing) has nothing to do with the RIGHTness of the GM... hmmm Righteousness of the GM sounds better. ;) Bad people will make or play bad games. Try not to get the sides of this mixed up. The good GM being always right is a good thing and can lead to some wonderful games. In a way the truth of GM rightness is like a tool for creating entertainment. It can be used well or poorly.

If your GM is not a total tool, I would simply remind you to remember your place, fall back in line, and thank your GM and your lucky stars that you have one -- and in the event you still cannot abide not having editorial control of everything that happens (or can happen) I humbly suggest you instead take up the mantle of GM and enjoy the powers of that office.

Amen. I'm that GM that just wishes like hell one of my gaming group enjoyed running the show enough to let me play one (just one!) character. One of my players has proven himself to be at least as good a GM as me, almost certainly better, in a short-lived campaign. He just ain't into it that much. Bummer.

Being the GM is a special kind of fun, and when a cool session finishes and all the players say stuff like, "Cheers man, that was awesome," there's nothing quite like it. Conversely, if I get a sense that my players thought I performed badly as a GM, well, that's the worst. My fear of messing up my mates' good time definitely makes me think twice when little issues come up.

I don't mind the hours spent over the books, or the notepad (INTP here), as I really enjoy reading RPGS books and making up stories. But having a cool GM that makes the game wickedfun, and feeling like your character is badass, or brilliant, or whatever... I want more of that.

And looking back, when I argue with GMs, it's often because I'm just so damn invested in my PC, and I want them to do cool stuff that maybe RAI or RAW really don't allow for.

Anyhoo, if the GM bends the rules to make the game more fun for everyone, I'm cool with that. So long as everyone is having fun.

Some dms need to learn, that if the players win, at skill checks, over opponents (and especially over npcs that have become the pc's opponents), over puzzles, that is okay. There is always another dungeon, trap or enemy by which to challenge them.

Can a GM do anything he wants at anytime regardless of the players decisions or input?

Do you think the GM has the right to do anything he wants? If so Why?

well... yes.
the GM has the responsability of directing the game, the story, the world itself, the rules...
So yeah, he must be in control.
But given that, there are good GM and bad GM.
Sure a GM can do anything regardless players decision but should do it all the time ... hell no.
Players need the freedom to play their characters the way they intended.
There are of course consequences to the players decisions but still a GM shouldn't stop a player initiative given there are no mind affecting effects on their characters (and of course, it can happen sometimes but a good GM shouldn't abuse that kind of things)
Also all kinds of ... you can't go that way... because... there is a magical barrier! very bad GMming in my opinion.

So, good GMs consider the player inputs and decisions, SERVE the game, the players and the story.. but still must have absolute power.
The true option for a player with a bad GM is find a new one..

Believe me... I know your pain.. I played for 23 years and I almost never been a player, always GM... and the few times I have been a player... the other players begged me to be a GM.
The Last time I have been a Gm we were randomly switching from place to place while we were awake or asleep, we entered random villages where we had strange compulsions to enter a particular house. Strange compulsions to follow certain people.
Monks that stunned golems...
It was such a mess... you didn't even felt like a player, just a bystander

I think the consensus appears to be: "No, but yes."

I appreciate everyone input and I agree with some of what has been said.

At this point I still believe that the Rules on combat,skills, ect should be played as raw as possible to give some stability for the players.

Maybe Vicon is right, maybe I have been mind ninja'd by terrible DM's over these past months lol. I just get in these terrible situations where I just sit back thinking WTF? seriously dude! lol

I just had a game where we had serious trouble climbing a knotted rope that was against a wall. (no danger, no rush) with 15 skill check we kept failing.. Couldn't take ten, .. these kinda things.. are just, .. it kills me.. . I just want to flip to the page where climb DCs are and tell the dude he is an idiot then leave.

but instead like a good player and a decent guy I let it slide. I shut my mouth because its not that big of a deal. gotta know when to pick your battles.

I agree that the GM has the power to make the story, and even has the power to make a final decision on a rule, but like many have said the dm should have a good reason to say no if you have a complaint on a rule ect..

Evil Loncoln really is spot on when saying "no, but yes."

.. Besides to me when you do not use the correct DC's, the correct rules it means you either don't care or don't know what the hell you are doing. I DM all the time and I would feel like a prick if I acted like that.

The problem I have is that Im a fantastic DM that doesnt want to DM.

I would rather just be a player. It's more for to me.

lol

This thread makes me glad I don't call myself a "GM." I'm a combination tour guide and referee. House rules are provided to the players in advance, and don't change mid-session. I don't fudge dice rolls or change adventure details mid-play. My homebrew world is a big sandbox with some set pieces in it, and the PCs can stay safe, or get in over their heads, or change the setting drastically in ways I might not have anticipated, or wander off the edges of the maps as they see fit. Levels are awarded for completing adventures, but aside from that they can abandon one mid-adventure and go somewhere else and do something else -- although their actions have in-world consequences.

This is good for experienced players only, who are comfortable with a lot of the narrative power (traditionally DM-only) being shared. I would not recommend it for everyone, but it's definitely my preference.

Ok I am skipping a lot so forgive me if someone already said this.

Is the GM always right? Yes. The GM is final arbiter of everything in her game. This means she can legitimately do anything she wants and is still right.

That does not equal being right. That equals total power. If I go against how my own ruling works, then change the rule so that my last action is now within the context of the rules, then I was still wrong initially. I think that version of "right" is what is being asked. If "right" just means "what I say goes" then yeah I would agree, but I have never equated "what I say goes" with "being right".

This thread makes me glad I don't call myself a "GM." I'm a combination tour guide and referee. House rules are provided to the players in advance, and don't change mid-session. I don't fudge dice rolls or change adventure details mid-play. My homebrew world is a big sandbox with some set pieces in it, and the PCs can stay safe, or get in over their heads, or change the setting drastically in ways I might not have anticipated, or wander off the edges of the maps as they see fit. Levels are awarded for completing adventures, but aside from that they can abandon one mid-adventure and go somewhere else and do something else -- although their actions have in-world consequences.

This is good for experienced players only, who are comfortable with a lot of the narrative power (traditionally DM-only) being shared. I would not recommend it for everyone, but it's definitely my preference.

I've found that new players who've never played a traditional game tend to very quickly pick up the ability to use shared narrative power. But gamers who have spent years and year with railroady GM's tend to have a harder time adjusting.

A term a friend had to come up with for a game he's about to release: Narrative Butler

It's not the official term in the game, but in the GM section he talks about how idea influences play during the session. The players are supposed to be badass mofo's who have the ability to change reality and potential to become gods. Since the players need to feel empowered to make any choice they desire, the GM has to take a more deferential role in the game.

During play, I'm the arbiter of the rules, but I encourage people to tell me I'm wrong about the world. That they have the power to make stuff up, or alter things they don't like (quite literally in the game world, if they don't like the way a mountain looks and have something that lets them change it, they can).

So I'm there to present them options and choices, but they can easily tell me they all suck and make up something else. I've found it's a ton of fun to watch players take control of a game.

I've found that new players who've never played a traditional game tend to very quickly pick up the ability to use shared narrative power. But gamers who have spent years and year with railroady GM's tend to have a harder time adjusting.

Interesting... I'll have to do a survey or something. Maybe some personalities are just more comfortable than others, regardless of experience.

Irontruth wrote:

I've found that new players who've never played a traditional game tend to very quickly pick up the ability to use shared narrative power. But gamers who have spent years and year with railroady GM's tend to have a harder time adjusting.

Interesting... I'll have to do a survey or something. Maybe some personalities are just more comfortable than others, regardless of experience.

It still takes practice and comfort in the setting. A safe environment where people don't make fun of others for silly suggestions and what not. Most gaming tables are pretty safe in that regard, but the faster you convince players that it's safe the quicker you get them out of the shell.

It's also about learning methods for pulling answers out of people. I've found that leading questions that require an explanation work really well to get people used to thinking of stuff, but gives them limited parameters so that they aren't lost in a sea of possibilities.

I think the consensus appears to be: "No, but yes."

Don't be ridiculous; the answer is "Yes, but no." ;)

It still takes practice and comfort in the setting. A safe environment where people don't make fun of others for silly suggestions and what not. Most gaming tables are pretty safe in that regard, but the faster you convince players that it's safe the quicker you get them out of the shell.

Good ideas here, and useful discussion. Thanks!

I just want to flip to the page where climb DCs are and tell the dude he is an idiot then leave.

With 3.5, the DCs listed in the book were examples, not hard fast rules. So I'm sure many GMs continue with this in Pathfinder (I know I do). So while both 3.5 and Pathfinder list climbing a knotted rope as having a DC of 5, there are several reasons I can think of to set that DC higher.

Irontruth wrote:

It still takes practice and comfort in the setting. A safe environment where people don't make fun of others for silly suggestions and what not. Most gaming tables are pretty safe in that regard, but the faster you convince players that it's safe the quicker you get them out of the shell.

Good ideas here, and useful discussion. Thanks!

NP, I like talking about how games operate, what influences the ebb and flow of what is going on. I've been fortunate the past two years to meet some really cool people who are thinking really deeply, which has helped broaden my thinking and analysis.

@NullVOID:
Quick question about this "friendly fire" rule your GM has. Any miss when you fire into melee hits your ally right? (unless you have precise shot).

Here's my question.

Does the same go for the bad guys? Are they always shooting each other by accident?

The problem I have is that Im a fantastic DM that doesnt want to DM.

I would rather just be a player. It's more for to me.

lol

Totally, NOT trying to put the boot in -- but this may be the heart of the matter right here. Heavy wears the crown, "Players" -- Everybody wants to eat steak, but nobody wants to be the butcher.

Well... speaking for the butchers, if you're content to enjoy the fruit of our labors, but prefer to not get your hands as dirty as us, do us the courtesy of not grabbing for our knives and aprons while we are working.

Gamesetmatch.