I'm firmly in the 'rules are just guidelines, the DM makes his ruling based on common sense and creating a fun time for the players' camp. As such, most of the rules debates seem to me to be unnecessary* - people drill down to the minutiae of many disparate rules excerpts/FAQs/item descriptions/etcetera, almost like they are interpreting legislation.
Given the well-known 'it's up to the DM' advice, I think most of the rules controversies are molehills rather than mountains. One rebuttal I often hear to that is "What about Pathfinder Society games? We need a clear ruling for organised play." I wonder if that's true? Is there a clamouring from monk-players in PFS games demanding to know whether they can flurry with their left hand, right elbow and sole of their feet and if so, whether their amulet's enhancement bonus helps them penetrate DR? If it is the case that these controversies are raging through the organised play world - why not just ask in the PFS section of the forums? Don't the people running organised play have processes to solve queries like this?
The broader rules team are clearly swamped with work (witness Sean's fantastic BB transition PDF - I for one am very glad he put time and effort into that over the last few weeks/months rather than digging through obscure rules references trying to reconcile how flurry of blows works) and I dont see any real issue outside of organised play - the rules require interpretation and it's up to your group to solve that (by DM fiat, majority vote or rock-paper-scissors - whatever tickles your fancy).
Why is it necessary to sort this stuff out "definitively"? Do you think it's even possible to have an RPG whose rules don't require interpretation at the table?
What is the Rules question?
It's a meta-question.
"This forum is for questions and answers about the rules of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game."
Is it necessary to nail down the precise meaning of the rules or can they be (in fact must they necessarily be) left partly open to interpretation?
Does the existence of the PFS have any bearing on this? If it does, should any subsequent confusion be directed to the broader rules team or to the PFS team specifically?
|
What is the Rules question?It's a meta-question.
"This forum is for questions and answers about the rules of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game."
Is it necessary to nail down the precise meaning of the rules or can they be (in fact must they necessarily be) left partly open to interpretation?
Then it belongs in the General Discussion Forum.
I disagree (obviously), but the flag function is your friend.
I would say that in a home game the rulings do not mean too much. The GM can decide how the rules are interpreted and players can create characters based upon those rulings. The reason this works is that you have the same GM giving the same consistent ruling for the lifetime of that campaign / character.
In PFS this doesn't hold true. A player can see a multitude of judges during a single characters career. As such, if your argument held true then the player may make a character based on one judges interpretation and then end up with a judge who does not follow that interpretation and invalidates the characters design. The player ends up not being able to enjoy his character because there is not a steady state of rules. In this situation we need a stable interpretation that can be applied across a multitude of table judges. Note that I call GMs judges in PFS. This is because they do not under any situation have the authority to alter the rules of the game. They are not true GMs in this sense. For all of PFS there is only one true GM, Mike the PFS coordinator. For the most part, Mike has determined that PFS will follow the rules as they are written (There are exceptions listed in the guide for organized play and additional resources documents). Thus PFS players need to appeal to the writers and designers of pathfinder for further interpretation when the rules are fuzzy.
As a side note. PFS shunts rules questions to the rules section of pathfinder because PFS follows the rules as written. A lot of PFS players ask their rules question in the PFS forum only to see it moved to the rules forum by staff.
As a side note. PFS shunts rules questions to the rules section of pathfinder because PFS follows the rules as written. A lot of PFS players ask their rules question in the PFS forum only to see it moved to the rules forum by staff.
Ah I see, thanks. Sounds like this is the answer to my question: "Don't the people running organised play have processes to solve queries like this?"
That's not the way I'd do it, but I guess my approach would run the risk of two "official" game interpretations developing in parallel.
|
A healthy approach to character building in organized play, such as PFS, is to build characters that don't rely upon areas that are known to be subject to a lot of rules variation unless you're willing to abide by the least favorable of those rulings. There will always be some variation in how some rules are approached.
Some rules decisions are transactional. I'm not sure this is a good word for it, but I'm having trouble thinking of something else. Basically, I mean stuff like those tactical elements of the game that happens repeatedly during a 4 hour session. There will always be differences in how some of these are approached, and they don't require some imaginary universal consistency.
On the other hand, referring to one of your examples, I wouldn't play a monk in PFS right now at all. I wouldn't because I can't make basic decisions about what feats and equipment to set up the character with given the state of the flurry of blows situation. In a home game, you'd ask the GM and he'd tell you how it was gonna be handled; all's fine and dandy. For PFS, you'd have to make decisions on feats that you can never change, and the utility of which is uncertain. You might buy equipment that turns out to be tactically unfeasible to be able to use, and would have to sell for half-price to re-equip.
So, to answer your question, yes, there are things that need rulings for PFS. But, many questions that get a "....need a ruling for PFS...." tag line really don't need it.
|
Then it belongs in the General Discussion Forum.
What part of my library do you suggest I put Sun-Tzu's Art of War in. Asian studies? Philosophy? Psychology? Military history? Business strategy?
--
As to the OC's post, it depends on the questions.
1. Internally inconsistent rules strongly need clarification/errata ect. Counter-spelling SA's was my personal pet peeve, but as I like counter-speilling which by itself is a reason to discount any post I make. How to calculate melee weapon "two-handed" with natural attacks was another.
2. Rules clarifications/interpretations requested by many people probably should be answered at some points. Especially if it comes up a lot at play.
3. I wish Paizo would do more blogs expanding on rules. The poison blog, for example, I thought was great in terms of answering some questions.
4. On reason Paizo does so well is because it listens to its customers. If feeding the rabbid goblin dogs some crunchy rules clarifications is what makes 'em happy, then give 'em the clarifications.
5. Where I do agree is that any TTRPG is going to have adjudications required by the GM. Is jumping onto the bench going to give my enlarged halfling the higher ground bonus against the fiendish dire sloth?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules are actually the rules, and not guidelines, but a GM is advised to ignore or change them if they don't fit is group aka rule 0. :)
The reason why it is important for the rules to be definite is so that Steve from Michigan, and Ed from New York don't have to sit down and worry about it. They can just start playing instead of going "Well what about this..." 10000 times.
It is also important because if someone understands the rules on a fundamental level they will be more likely to know how the change will affect the game, and that helps to avoid bad decisions.
PS:Personally I enjoy the conversation, and the debating. Even when I am wrong I learn something new so for me it is a win-win.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm firmly in the 'rules are just guidelines, the DM makes his ruling based on common sense and creating a fun time for the players' camp. As such, most of the rules debates seem to me to be unnecessary* - people drill down to the minutiae of many disparate rules excerpts/FAQs/item descriptions/etcetera, almost like they are interpreting legislation.
Given the well-known 'it's up to the DM' advice, I think most of the rules controversies are molehills rather than mountains. One rebuttal I often hear to that is "What about Pathfinder Society games? We need a clear ruling for organised play." I wonder if that's true? Is there a clamouring from monk-players in PFS games demanding to know whether they can flurry with their left hand, right elbow and sole of their feet and if so, whether their amulet's enhancement bonus helps them penetrate DR? If it is the case that these controversies are raging through the organised play world - why not just ask in the PFS section of the forums? Don't the people running organised play have processes to solve queries like this?
The broader rules team are clearly swamped with work (witness Sean's fantastic BB transition PDF - I for one am very glad he put time and effort into that over the last few weeks/months rather than digging through obscure rules references trying to reconcile how flurry of blows works) and I dont see any real issue outside of organised play - the rules require interpretation and it's up to your group to solve that (by DM fiat, majority vote or rock-paper-scissors - whatever tickles your fancy).
Why is it necessary to sort this stuff out "definitively"? Do you think it's even possible to have an RPG whose rules don't require interpretation at the table?
Honestly, in PFS scenarios (and select few homebrew sessions), the RAW is the LAW. If the magic weapon description says I cannot place a special property until the weapon receives a +1 enhancement, that's how it would be ruled in PFS, and for those who do play that way (regardless of PFS or not), that's just how it is. It's either you get a +1 Special Property weapon, or you get jack s***. It's that simple, and that's what the Core Rulebook is there for. It's the rules, it tells you how to accurately (and fairly) play the game, and if any changes are brought up, then they are placed on the PFSRD for all to see the change/official clarification.
In those scenarios, you can't exactly get away with "Oh hey, we can just rule it this way for now until we get an official clarification!" because their ruling may very well differentiate as to how the rules are interpreted from the developers of the game, and essentially nullify that campaign (or character, depending) because of illegal subjects such as that.
Besides, if you don't like to look at Rules as Rules, you should look at them as Game Mechanics. While they are somewhat similar, the difference is that Rules aren't something you can just change on the fly due to some oddball scenario. Game Mechanics are things that are built into a Game that cannot be changed except by the ones who created the Game (which would be the Developers). If you see the Rules as Rules, then that's fine. We're not here to argue about what constitutes as Rules and what doesn't constitute as Rules. However, in a PFS case, they must go based solely off of Game Mechanics, which is an "only official" interpretation of the rules.
The rules are actually the rules, and not guidelines, but a GM is advised to ignore or change them if they don't fit is group aka rule 0. :)
The reason why it is important for the rules to be definite is so that Steve from Michigan, and Ed from New York don't have to sit down and worry about it. They can just start playing instead of going "Well what about this..." 10000 times.
This isnt really an issue if Ed and Steve both agree to just do whatever the DM says. I appreciate it's a different mindset than the way you approach the game, but nonetheless - the way our group sees it is not a barrier to people from other, similarly minded, people joining the group. When we make choices about what action we're going to take, it's often with only the vaguest idea of how the DM is going to rule it works and what dice we need to roll.
It is also important because if someone understands the rules on a fundamental level they will be more likely to know how the change will affect the game, and that helps to avoid bad decisions.
That's a fair point. It's why I read the rules forum so much, of course. You guys might read way too much into stuff than I ever would, but I clearly benefit from it (eventually). :)
PS:Personally I enjoy the conversation, and the debating. Even when I am wrong I learn something new so for me it is a win-win.
Yeah - I wasnt arguing against rules debates, of course - I can fully appreciate there are people who both like the process and who desire clear, objectively determined rules. Nonetheless, when I see them degenerate into "You said this...." followed by several back and forth posts analysing what happened a couple of threads ago. I do wonder if they're really enjoying themselves (<- a general, non-specific observation not directed at anyone in particular).
My main point was that the "We need clarity for PFS!" cry is over-used, although Lab_Rat set me straight on that, to some extent anyhow.
4. On reason Paizo does so well is because it listens to its customers. If feeding the rabbid goblin dogs some crunchy rules clarifications is what makes 'em happy, then give 'em the clarifications.
You make some fair points. I'm just going to respond to this one with an opinion or perhaps speculation. I think the subset of ardent, well-informed rules debaters on the forums is, in fact, a relatively minor part of Paizo's fanbase, even if a very vocal segment. (And it's a segment I greatly benefit from, so I hope nobody takes that as a slur).
I'm following the monk threads at the moment (we dont really have a choice, right? :p) and it seems to me that there's basically a dozen or so very active posters making essentially the same points over and over again in a number of different subtly different contexts. I think the appearance of controversy is greater than the actual problem (measured as say a proportion of (groups using or wanting to use monks who have confusion as to how the rules work):(groups using or wanting to use monks)).
People sometimes cite the ongoing problem and need for "monk errata/rewrite" as something the rules team should urgently fix. In my opinion, the enormous barrier to entry that Pathfinder has (a 500+ rulebook? WTF!) is a far greater problem - albeit one that's never going to get much play on a forum frequented by enthusiasts.
"What the fans want" does not necessarily equal "What the fans who post in the rules subforum want".
That obviously doesnt mean that this group should be ignored, but I think it's important to keep perspective. It's easy as a customer to extrapolate from one's own preferences and to assume those are widely held.
This isnt really an issue if Ed and Steve both agree to just do whatever the DM says. I appreciate it's a different mindset than the way you approach the game, but nonetheless - the way our group sees it is not a barrier to people from other, similarly minded, people joining the group. When we make choices about what action we're going to take, it's often with only the vaguest idea of how the DM is going to rule it works and what dice we need to roll.The rules are actually the rules, and not guidelines, but a GM is advised to ignore or change them if they don't fit is group aka rule 0. :)
The reason why it is important for the rules to be definite is so that Steve from Michigan, and Ed from New York don't have to sit down and worry about it. They can just start playing instead of going "Well what about this..." 10000 times.
They still have to ask the GM about every possible rule change. Everyone using the same rules gets rid of that. I will also add that if you change enough rules you are playing the game in name only, and that leads to disappointed people, if expectations are not met. I don't care for the PFS reason though. I just want to be able to play with almost anyone and not have to worry about misinterpretations. For groups that have been together for years it is less of an issue, but some of us have a high turn over ratio, and the stability of the rules helps a lot.
Besides, if you don't like to look at Rules as Rules, you should look at them as Game Mechanics. While they are somewhat similar, the difference is that Rules aren't something you can just change on the fly due to some oddball scenario. Game Mechanics are things that are built into a Game that cannot be changed except by the ones who created the Game (which would be the Developers). If you see the Rules as Rules, then that's fine. We're not here to argue about what constitutes as Rules and what doesn't constitute as Rules. However, in a PFS case, they must go based solely off of Game Mechanics, which is an "only official" interpretation of the rules.
I'll have to ponder that distinction. I appreciate it though. :)
(witness Sean's fantastic BB transition PDF - I for one am very glad he put time and effort into that over the last few weeks/months rather than digging through obscure rules references trying to reconcile how flurry of blows works)
I'll briefly hijack this thread to say thanks for this reference. That PDF is a very nice piece of work! Kudos to Sean :)
They still have to ask the GM about every possible rule change. Everyone using the same rules gets rid of that.
I'm not convinced (unless the ultimate utopia of completely-spelled-out-and-clarified-rules is ever met). I suspect that, should a new monk player join your group, the two of you would have to spend quite some time clarifying how things work (ie which side of the various fences your group sits on). Once monks are resolved - there'll be something else, I suspect.
At our table, if someone like-minded joins the group, it never even comes up. There might be a raised eyebrow from time to time, I suspect, but it wouldnt actually add any time - you just might find things not going the way you'd expected them to.
I will also add that if you change enough rules you are playing the game in name only, and that leads to disappointed people, if expectations are not met. I don't care for the PFS reason though. I just want to be able to play with almost anyone and not have to worry about misinterpretations. For groups that have been together for years it is less of an issue, but some of us have a high turn over ratio, and the stability of the rules helps a lot.
Yeah. I think it would be far worse for you joining our group than if I joined yours. You'd continually find yourself frustrated, I suspect (though you'd be outshining anyone anyhow, so it probably wouldnt matter :p) whereas I'd just be forgetting to add the odd bonus from time to time and/or occasionally trying to do something I wasnt allowed to.
(witness Sean's fantastic BB transition PDF - I for one am very glad he put time and effort into that over the last few weeks/months rather than digging through obscure rules references trying to reconcile how flurry of blows works)I'll briefly hijack this thread to say thanks for this reference. That PDF is a very nice piece of work! Kudos to Sean :)
It is excellent, in my opinion. I hope they one day do an "introduction to the other classes" document for the non-BB classes, spelling out what roles they are intended to fill and some guidelines on how to build them.
The rules are the rock in which a good GM leans. The rule are the rock in which a player can depend. If the rules weren't important enough to discuss/argue about then decisions derived from then also wouldn't be important enough to discuss.
If a rule seems unclear then the decisions made regarding it would be arbitrary or bias.
Here are some reason I choose to argue/discuss rules.
1. Because I want my players to trust me. They can trust that if they make a choice about there character that the rules suddenly won't change and make those choices useless.
2. Knowing the intricate details about the rules helps in making other decisions about the rules.
3. Being able to show an official ruling stop arguments that harm the trust between players and GM.
4. It improves the game as a whole. This is the essence of Playtesting.
5. Knowing the rules helps spot GMs that can't be trusted.
I could actually give examples for each of these.
|
On the other hand, referring to one of your examples, I wouldn't play a monk in PFS right now at all. I wouldn't because I can't make basic decisions about what feats and equipment to set up the character with given the state of the flurry of blows situation. In a home game, you'd ask the GM and he'd tell you how it was gonna be handled; all's fine and dandy. For PFS, you'd have to make decisions on feats that you can never change, and the utility of which is uncertain. You might buy equipment that turns out to be tactically unfeasible to be able to use, and would have to sell for half-price to re-equip.
That's a bit of an overreaction. It's perfectly possible to play a monk in PFS now without running much of a risk of having your character suddenly turn out to be invalid. Even the dread "flurry of blows" controversy (which has generated many thousands of posts) only affects you if you want to use a single weapon in your flurry. If you fight unarmed, or with two weapons, it doesn't affect you at all.
Furthermore, if there is an eventual "rules clarification" which materially affects your ability to use feats or equipment that you have chosen, you will be able to rebuild as much of your character as necessary to comply with the new rules, and any equipment you can no longer use can be sold back at full price.
Sure, there's uncertainty, and it's a pain to have to rebuild a character if the rules change (and sometimes you'll choose to retire the character instead, because the new rules are inconsistent with your view of how your character concept would work). But it's not quite as bad as you suggest - you don't get irrevocably locked into "feats you can never change" or "equipment you would have to sell back at half price" unless your character build is pretty far out into the grey areas.
They still have to ask the GM about every possible rule change. Everyone using the same rules gets rid of that.I'm not convinced (unless the ultimate utopia of completely-spelled-out-and-clarified-rules is ever met). I suspect that, should a new monk player join your group, the two of you would have to spend quite some time clarifying how things work (ie which side of the various fences your group sits on). Once monks are resolved - there'll be something else, I suspect.
If everyone uses the same reading of the rules then most things never come up for discussion, but for the monk I would just ask the GM on day one if I was planning to play one. I have always had a revolving door group. It has never(almost) been an issue with regard to rules. If I am the GM then I will say the monk works like this ......
I will also add that if you change enough rules you are playing the game in name only, and that leads to disappointed people, if expectations are not met. I don't care for the PFS reason though. I just want to be able to play with almost anyone and not have to worry about misinterpretations. For groups that have been together for years it is less of an issue, but some of us have a high turn over ratio, and the stability of the rules helps a lot.Yeah. I think it would be far worse for you joining our group than if I joined yours. You'd continually find yourself frustrated, I suspect (though you'd be outshining anyone anyhow, so it probably wouldnt matter :p) whereas I'd just be forgetting to add the odd bonus from time to time and/or occasionally trying to do something I wasnt allowed to.
That might be true, but most likely I would play some caster and try to indirectly influence things so the other people could get the kills.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Knowing and discussing the official rules is also a good way to learn how the game balance works. Maybe the rookie players makes a homebrew cleric because "all they can do is heal, while fighters have lots of feats and rogues can sneak attack!".
It's also the only way to have a reasonable discussion on the internet. RAW may be far from perfect, but it's the one thing we all share, therefore, it should be used as a base when trying to discuss the game with people other than your usual gaming group.
I often use house rules and even advice people to do the same, but when discussing game balance, possible builds, problems and solutions, I try to stick to RAW and maybe add a "see if your GM is open to houserule/homebrew X" or similar, but that's always the exception, never the rule.
Knowing the rules and discussing them with people who share this knowledge is a great way to learn more about the game, how to build more powerful/fun/flavorful/balanced/whatever characters, what to do in situation X, against monster Y with weapon Z. But again, one must assume RAW is in play when talking to other people, because that's our only common ground.
So yeah, following RAW may not be necessary, but knowing and discussing it'll do wonders for your understanding of the game and probably increase your fun too.
To stop this from becoming another Monk crusade thread...
I see the value in having a rule set that makes sense and is balanced because unfortunately, common sense isn't all that common and there are people that take enjoyment and pride in twisting rules and making overpower characters. I don't mind making a decision as a GM on something that might be a bit vague, but for the sake of speeding up a game, I like rules to be for the most part, clear.
|
|
On the other hand, referring to one of your examples, I wouldn't play a monk in PFS right now at all. I wouldn't because I can't make basic decisions about what feats and equipment to set up the character with given the state of the flurry of blows situation. In a home game, you'd ask the GM and he'd tell you how it was gonna be handled; all's fine and dandy. For PFS, you'd have to make decisions on feats that you can never change, and the utility of which is uncertain. You might buy equipment that turns out to be tactically unfeasible to be able to use, and would have to sell for half-price to re-equip.That's a bit of an overreaction. It's perfectly possible to play a monk in PFS now without running much of a risk of having your character suddenly turn out to be invalid. Even the dread "flurry of blows" controversy (which has generated many thousands of posts) only affects you if you want to use a single weapon in your flurry. If you fight unarmed, or with two weapons, it doesn't affect you at all.
Thanks for your opinion about whether it's an overreaction for me to opt not to worry about dealing with the rules issue
Furthermore, if there is an eventual "rules clarification" which materially affects your ability to use feats or equipment that you have chosen, you will be able to rebuild as much of your character as necessary to comply with the new rules, and any equipment you can no longer use can be sold back at full price.
Maybe yes, maybe no. If there is a rules change, yes. If there is a clarification along the lines of "it's always been that way," very likely not, if the animal intelligence blog SNAFU is any indication.
Sure, there's uncertainty, and it's a pain to have to rebuild a character if the rules change (and sometimes you'll choose to retire the character instead, because the new rules are inconsistent with your view of how your character concept would work). But it's not quite as bad as you suggest - you don't get irrevocably locked into "feats you can never change" or "equipment you would have to sell back at half price" unless your character build is pretty far out into the grey areas.
I don't care to deal with the uncertainty. That's my option.
If I'm playing in a home game and the GM decides something should work differently with a feat my character has, it's pretty common practice in my experience to have an option to change out the newly nerfed feat. Similarly with equipment. In PFS, that is not a guarantee..it's the campaign standard in circumstances where there is a change, but it isn't the standard, nor the experience, when it's merely a clarification of how things have been.
I noticed that you trimmed out the first paragraph of my post, in which I talked about a healthy way to approach character building in organized play. The uncertainty that you refer to is one of the things I'm talking about. We disagree about the terrain when the monk situation is ironed out. In the meantime, it puts the situation where I'd prefer to just play something else. People have different risk tolerances, and what is over-reaction to you is the risk tolerance I'm comfortable with.
Most importantly, I used the monk situation as an example of the difference between something like "can I jump to attack an opponent out of my reach from the ground," where variance is a transactional tactical matter, in comparison where the difference goes to a fundamental problem in making choices about the limited resources available to the character. If you'd prefer to find a better example, please do. I merely used this because OP mentioned it.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@the OP:
The importance of a ruleset (whether published or crafted by the GM) is to let everyone come to the table with similar expectations. Nasty surprises aren't fun.
Example:
A player at a table with me got his PC swallowed whole. But he was prepared to cut his way out with a light or one-handed slashing or piercing weapon... until the GM said no, only a dagger works for that. The PC died, and the player did not have fun. Had both the player and GM had the same understanding of Swallow Whole (whether the published version or not), the PC would have had the correct gear for cutting his way out (made no sense in-character for him not to), and fun would be had.
Example:
A player wants to build Concept X for his PC, and his understanding of the rules is that by doing such-and-such, he can make that concept. He does so, then discovers during play that the GM runs feat/spell X differently, making it impossible for the player to enact his concept with the build he's made. Even if the GM lets him make changes or make a new PC, that still takes time and energy and doesn't change the disappointment of that surprise. But if the player and GM had had the same understanding of mechanics (published or custom, either way) beforehand, that wouldn't have happened.
You get the idea.
If a player and GM have different ideas of how mechanics work, there will inevitably be conflict. If that conflict happens at a good time (before the game starts, while the PCs are still shopping, or another time when players can adjust), no biggie. But that's not what usually happens. What usually happens is someone decides a rogue would make a cool undead hunter, then discovers 5 levels in that his GM doesn't let undead get sneak attacked (and had the player known it, he'd have adjusted his concept to be, say, an inquisitor).
---------------------
It is my belief that in the vast majority of cases, there needs to be a common understanding in order to have fun. As I noted multiple times above, this common understanding could be the published rules, or it could be a GM's house rules. But there has to be something. When you're playing your 17th campaign with the same group, everyone knows the "rules" of that group. There aren't any "gotcha"s. But not everyone has that luxury.
People move. People try new groups. People's schedules change.
Sooner or later, most players/GMs end up with a different group. When they do, they have to learn a new set of "rules" for that group. Some very responsible GMs actually print a document detailing all deviations from printed rules. (In fact, the forums have entire section just for working that stuff out!) But even with that, learning those deviations can be a chore. The easiest way to join a group or have someone join your own group is if the common understanding used is one that both parties have had access to prior to meeting each other. And that, of course, is the Pathfinder CRB.
The purpose of knowing how the rules work is so that GMs don't have to remember to tell a new player all their house rules, so that players don't have to learn a bunch of new rules when they join a new group, and so that someone traveling to a convention and playing with strangers can expect their character to work the same way it did last week at their local game store instead of suddenly having unusable feats/spells/gear.
Thanks for the perspective, jiggy. Not my style of rpging, but I do take your point. Out of curiosity, do you have a view on this question from the op:
"Do you think it's even possible to have an RPG whose rules don't require interpretation at the table?"
Or is it just a case of minimizing the necessary evil of impromptu rules interpretation?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Thanks for the perspective, jiggy. Not my style of rpging, but I do take your point. Out of curiosity, do you have a view on this question from the op:
"Do you think it's even possible to have an RPG whose rules don't require interpretation at the table?"
Or is it just a case of minimizing the necessary evil of impromptu rules interpretation?
No, I don't think you can reach the point of zero interpretation - nor would I want to.
However, I prefer to keep it in perspective of "expectations", as described above. When you get into weird corner cases, GM adjudication will be needed, but you're also not going to cause the kinds of situations I talked about because no one had an expectation about that situation. No one built their character around the assumption that telling a charmed farmer to wait a month to harvest would/would not be "against his nature" and affect the spell. But people do build their characters on the idea that fighting with two short swords so they can take Weapon Focus/Spec once instead of twice will be worth the slight reduction in damage dice, so changing that would be the type of thing the player needs to know in advance.
Basically, the more frequently something will come up or the more likely a player will be making permanent decisions based on something, the more important it is for there to be a pre-existing understanding of how that something works.
Like other magic weapons it's an enhancement bonus for your fists and so our group believes it breaks DR. Since no has said it can't, and none of the arguments saying it can't are believable enough to say it can't.
"The DR-bypassing rules are rules for Magic Weapons, and the AoMF is a Wonderous Item, not a Magic Weapon," isn't a believable argument?
Lolwut?(For what it's worth, I don't think anyone wants it to not work that way. We're just not sure that it does.)
Like other magic weapons it's an enhancement bonus for your fists and so our group believes it breaks DR. Since no has said it can't, and none of the arguments saying it can't are believable enough to say it can't.
Wrong thread maybe?
Thanks for the perspective, jiggy. Not my style of rpging, but I do take your point. Out of curiosity, do you have a view on this question from the op:
"Do you think it's even possible to have an RPG whose rules don't require interpretation at the table?"
Or is it just a case of minimizing the necessary evil of impromptu rules interpretation?
I'm with Jiggy on this. It will never reach a state were there are no differences in interpretation. New material will arrive and we will all attempt to see how this new material works in the context of the previous rules and interpretations. Not even real law is at that state. Judges still take everything into account and attempt to interpret a broadly written law for that particular situation.
Basically, the more frequently something will come up or the more likely a player will be making permanent decisions based on something, the more important it is for there to be a pre-existing understanding of how that something works.
This is my perspective as well, which is why I'm more interested in clarifications/errata on class features and archetypes more than anything else. Those are the thing that can fundamentally break a character concept (or affect choices that can't easily be undone, like big purchases or animal companion/familiar selection).
Chill out, eat some cheetos, the dm should try to be fair and move on.
Basically, the more frequently something will come up or the more likely a player will be making permanent decisions based on something, the more important it is for there to be a pre-existing understanding of how that something works.This is my perspective as well, which is why I'm more interested in clarifications/errata on class features and archetypes more than anything else. Those are the thing that can fundamentally break a character concept (or affect choices that can't easily be undone, like big purchases or animal companion/familiar selection).
That's another good point.
For my own part I tend to believe that the game goes better if both GM and players have a well-developed sense of the rules. I also believe that once you have basic competency, the best way to further develop such a sense is by talking the rules through with other competent players. The rules forum is of course a good venue for this, and has the added benefit of being able to be helpful to people who just want to find the answer to a rules question (which are often simply obscure or overlooked, rather than actually debatable.)
I rarely if ever bother invoking "but what about PFS" in rules debates as I consider talking about the rules to be a worthwhile activity in its own right. YMMV.
As for the old "but it's all up to the DM anyway" I certainly never use that one, because in my experience while it may nominally be all up to the DM, most DMs still try to play more or less by the rules of the game rather than house rule every time a rules question comes up. When house rules are issued they have generally been a result of understanding and disliking a rule rather than as a result of not wanting the bother of knowing how the rules are supposed to be. Again YMMV.
Chill out, eat some cheetos, the dm should try to be fair and move on.
This is one area where I am sure I am in the minority, but I have never eaten Cheetos at the game table (don't think I have eaten them anywhere else since maybe middle school, either) nor have I ever played at a table where they were being eaten. So unhealthy!
Proper healthful gaming food is of course liver-withering quantities of alcohol. ;)