Raising Gray Areas Up Front


GM Discussion

4/5

I wanted to run a quick straw poll of the GMs here to see what would be the best way to handle potential table variance that is baked into a character's build.

Example:
I have a Maneuver Master Monk that wears armor. By strict RAW, he can still use Flurry of Maneuvers...but he probably shouldn't be able to. I don't expect to be able to, but I like to know if it's an option available to me.

He also likes to Disarm people and take their weapons, which means he either takes a -4 penalty for doing so unarmed, or doesn't because with IUS he is never considered unarmed.

My current approach is to lay out the issues before we start, making it clear that I'll accept his or her ruling either way. But I also recognize that making those kinds of calls is not how a GM necessarily wants to start a game.

Would you prefer it if a player came to you with these issues up front, so you could get the ruling out of the way and not bog down gameplay later?

Or would you prefer to not have one more thing to deal with when you're going through all of the other scenario prep already, and deal with it when/if it arises?

Either way, in the future I plan tp bring print-outs of the relevant rule sections and/or FAQs. But I could also see how even that could come off as defensive or combative.


I would certainly prefer it if the player prepped me beforehand, although I'd probably prefer it even more if the player picked a PC that steered away from grey areas altogether.

3/5 RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

I would prefer players bring something like that up beforehand. Of course, I also make sure my prep work is done before I show up to the gaming venue, so I'm not rushed trying to start on time.

Grand Lodge 4/5

It is always a great idea to bring these things up beforehand, so that they do not cause things to come to a screeching halt in the middle of combat.

One of the things I ussually try and do is ask the table, "Is there anything 'funky' or different about your character that I should know about?"

This way the GM can make their ruling before hand on YMMV/Gray areas.

Nathan Meyers
NYC GM/Player

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I'd rather it be brought to me beforehand. Like RainyDayNinja, I've gotten into the habit of having as much prep done ahead of time as possible, specifically so I can handle any questions/concerns before we start.

Of course, the player with such a question should be showing up a bit early too, but you probably knew that. :)


Your example isn't a very good being that you answer your own question in the example. You say its illegal and shouldn't be allowed to function but you are still asking the GM in the off chance she'll let it slide? Seems fishy to me. But I know nothing about the build you used as an example.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Chalk Microbe wrote:
You say its illegal and shouldn't be allowed to function but you are still asking the GM in the off chance she'll let it slide?

Not quite; he said it's legal, but probably not meant to be.

4/5

Chalk Microbe wrote:
Your example isn't a very good being that you answer your own question in the example. You say its illegal and shouldn't be allowed to function but you are still asking the GM in the off chance she'll let it slide? Seems fishy to me. But I know nothing about the build you used as an example.

There were two examples. The first, as you mentioned, I consider to be much like the Pistolero/Mysterious Stranger combo that just got shot (ha?) down. I don't rely on it and i don't expect to use it. But if the GM says "no, it's RAW and you can and should use it," I'll consider using it if we get in a tight spot later. Again, I don't expect that to happen.

The second (disarming while unarmed) is more what I'm talking about. I've seen conflicting answers with strong justifications on both sides. In this case, I'd love to avoid the -4 penalty, but I'm happy to go with the GM's ruling.

But the actual examples aren't really that relevant, because everyone's going to have a different idea of what's cheesy rule-mongering, what's ambiguous and/or undefined, and what's somewhere in between.

So far the overwhelming response is to get it out of the way up front. I agree, but I also don't want to force a GM to rush a decision so they can get the game started. Showing up and asking early is a good point many of you raised.

Lantern Lodge 5/5 *

At GenCon last year, I notified each GM that my Urban Barbarian/Martial Artist had a 2H weapon (the awesome Sansetsukon), and wanted to know what their stances were on the flurry/2H debate. Had GM's that went both ways on that, but appreciated my input before the scenario began. Saves both of us trouble during the scenario.

Community / Forums / Organized Play / GM Discussion / Raising Gray Areas Up Front All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in GM Discussion