|
What's the point of my noting this? Sometimes maybe you don't notice that the official Pathfinder rule for something is, to be blunt, f~$*ing moronic. Sometimes you're not sure of how something works, you look it up, find the rule, and then wonder just how much heroin Paizo was doing when they let that rule through. So you can run with the pure RAW, even though you consider it to be an absolutely horrible rule, or you can change it to something you consider better on the fly. The problem with the latter is that you risk some player castigating you on these forums for not having informed you that you would be replacing this rule long before you ever knew the official rule was such crap. With the usual result being an overwhelming tide of "fire the GM" type posts, and you can usually count on Thomas Long 175 advocating physical assault against the GM.
Yeah, and I'd consider doing that entirely appropriate. I'd also consider saying "Wow. That's dumb, okay guys, we're not going with the official rules on this one." to be the appropriate course of action, rather than acting like you're not changing anything.
Prior notice is nice about rules changes. Rules changes on the fly are okay. Personally, what I've got issues with are intentional rules changes on the fly that the GM doesn't tell the players are changes. It's poor form, not because of the rules lawyer who knows you're doing it and b%!+&es, but because of all the players who won't notice and will then go on to think that what you did is the official rule and might make decisions based on that in another person's game. You're effectively lying to them about what the rules actually are, and thus basically (albeit probably unintentionally) laying a trap for them, which might have unpleasant consequences for them in the future.
For an comparison, it's like if a cop chooses not to arrest someone for an illegal act, but instead of informing them it was illegal and they're letting them go, just implies that what they did wasn't illegal...which might easily get them penalized for, say, doing it again right in front of a cop. The letting them go was probably fine. The not telling them what was up? Not so much.
The Pathfinder version is obviously a much less severe potential consequence, but it's wrong for the same reasons, much like stealing $20 is wrong for the same reasons as stealing $20,000.
And sometimes you don't want to completely stop the game for a rules lookup and rule something on the fly till you have time to look it up later.
"But how could you not know the modifier for being on horseback, underwater, and when in heavy darkwood armor? Its right on page 354!" Because I have s$*& to do instead of studying the Holy PFS Manual.
To be clear: What I say above is about intentional changes, not winging it like this when nobody's certain what the rules are (which I'm cool with and is even less likely to result in the confusion noted above), though again, being clear about what you're doing is a solid call. "F%+% it, we'll just wing it." after a bit of rules confusion is a useful and entertaining phrase.
I'd wager I know the rules more than most DMs, but I don't have everyone memorized and haven't exclusively played 3.5/pf for the last 10 years. No one remembers that time you got a great ruling by stalling the game 20 minutes, you remember good stories. If it doesn't go RAW, this too shall pass my precious.
True. Never said otherwise.
Once again, putting my digression about my personal preferences regarding GM rules changes aside for a moment, I'm not primarily arguing for any specific style of gaming, I'm saying that there are enough different styles of gaming, most pretty valid, that making absolute statements like "The GM can't break the rules." is simply, patently, untrue because there are groups where they most certainly can in one way or another.
Personally, what I've got issues with are intentional rules changes on the fly that the GM doesn't tell the players are changes. It's poor form, not because of the rules lawyer who knows you're doing it and b!@*$es, but because of all the players who won't notice and will then go on to think that what you did is the official rule and might make decisions based on that in another person's game. You're effectively lying to them about what the rules actually are, and thus basically (albeit probably unintentionally) laying a trap for them, which might have unpleasant consequences for them in the future.
I think that's a pretty poor analogy, and it places a GM's rules on a lower level than the official rules. The important rules that everyone needs to know how to play, like how hit points work, how stats work, saving throws, attack rolls, etc. are key. If a GM is going to adjust one of those, then he should definitely talk with the group before hand.
Other rules are much less important and a GM should feel free to change them as the situation requires. As an example, I'm not familiar with retraining rules (never used them,) but a GM should not feel required to use them at all. Or if he/she wants, he can completely change them to something more fitting.
If a player says "Oh, but I already planned my character out and I want this feat for these three levels, because its more powerful, but later I want to trade it in for something else because it doesn't stay powerful," then the appropriate answer is "tough luck."
|
|
I think that's a pretty poor analogy, and it places a GM's rules on a lower level than the official rules.
The GM's rules aren't less important, but they're less universal. I'm assuming that most people don't play with the same single GM forever...and assumptions based on one GM's House Rules are definitionally not gonna apply in another GM's games.
The important rules that everyone needs to know how to play, like how hit points work, how stats work, saving throws, attack rolls, etc. are key. If a GM is going to adjust one of those, then he should definitely talk with the group before hand.
Agreed.
Other rules are much less important and a GM should feel free to change them as the situation requires. As an example, I'm not familiar with retraining rules (never used them,) but a GM should not feel required to use them at all. Or if he/she wants, he can completely change them to something more fitting.
Naturally. My 8-page House Rules document agrees with you entirely. But what they shouldn't do is claim their version of retraining is the standard one that will be used by other GMs. They shouldn't do this even by implication (ie: "This is how retraining works." and going on to exclusively talk about House Rules).
If a player says "Oh, but I already planned my character out and I want this feat for these three levels, because its more powerful, but later I want to trade it in for something else because it doesn't stay powerful," then the appropriate answer is "tough luck."
I'd be a bit more polite than that, but yeah, that answer's reasonable.
You appear to be profoundly misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm not saying rules changes need to be noted for the benefit of people who know the rules inside out (though doing so is good for them too), I'm saying they need to be noted for the benefit of those people who don't know the rules inside out and will assume your House Rule is standard and that it will apply in other GMs games. Because it won't. And you left them with the impression it would. And that's not cool.
You appear to be profoundly misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm not saying rules changes need to be noted for the benefit of people who know the rules inside out (though doing so is good for them too), I'm saying they need to be noted for the benefit of those people who don't know the rules inside out and will assume your House Rule is standard and that it will apply in other GMs games. Because it won't. And you left them with the impression it would. And that's not cool.
With my current group, I'm happy to sit around and discuss rules outside of game sessions. During the game though, I'm not going to waste time explaining the differences between my calls and RAW. If that means some of them won't know the difference between my calls and RAW, I can live with that.
|
|
With my current group, I'm happy to sit around and discuss rules outside of game sessions. During the game though, I'm not going to waste time explaining the differences between my calls and RAW. If that means some of them won't know the difference between my calls and RAW, I can live with that.
It's not really very hard or time consuming. "Well, in my games, X." Or some other brief qualifier is usually sufficient after the first few times.
|
|
He was talking about explaining the difference between RAW and his rules as in (at least from my interpretation) trying to validate and explain your reason of why you're doing it as opposed to saying "Swim works like this in my campaign".
Explaining all that can indeed take awhile if you allow it to (which you're not obligated to). But so can explaining why the official rules work how they do, which IME, comes up at least as often as a topic of discussion. And was the point I was making.
Indeed, the game I played in that had the most such arguments had no house rules, just a lot of speculation on the whys of the official ones.
Just going to say I always tell the GM if the rules are not being followed. If I am the GM I also want to be told if I am screwing something up. It is just WAY too easy to end up hurting someone by breaking the rules. Imagine how that one player who was following the rules feels when the GM or some player starts breaking the rules and everyone is like "Hey this is too cool to stop... so what if Pete's character is totally screwed over here and may even die. We are the rest of us having fun and that's all that matters!"
Now that being said I never argue with the GM over it if I am a player. I just tell him the way it really works and leave it be. After all I may be misreading the situation we might not even be fighting a vampire. But IF we are fighting a Vampire then things would be much better if we do it right.
Prior notice is nice about rules changes. Rules changes on the fly are okay. Personally, what I've got issues with are intentional rules changes on the fly that the GM doesn't tell the players are changes. It's poor form, not because of the rules lawyer who knows you're doing it and b%#!@es, but because of all the players who won't notice and will then go on to think that what you did is the official rule and might make decisions based on that in another person's game. You're effectively lying to them about what the rules actually are, and thus basically (albeit probably unintentionally) laying a trap for them, which might have unpleasant consequences for them in the future.
I think lying is perhaps a little strong, but this is a good point, I think. In our games the rules are very much a point of departure rather than the way things should be (some instance of a particular vampire having a "super-dominate" ability is par for the course). I've never really thought about it since our group is so static, but if we ever played with someone new (or from a different group) it would be polite to point out that basic assumption.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think lying is perhaps a little strong, but this is a good point, I think.
That's why I put in the 'effectively'. I didn't mean to imply that doing so was intentionally lying, just that the effect was the same.
And I like to think all my points are good...but that's probably the bias talking. ;)
In our games the rules are very much a point of departure rather than the way things should be (some instance of a particular vampire having a "super-dominate" ability is par for the course).
Yeah, my previously mentioned 8 page House Rules document and I feel a bit of that as well. I use quite a few House rules that change a basic game assumption (simplest example: I let you use your choice of Charisma or Wisdom for Will Saves). Letting people think that'll work in another GM's game does players no favors (that particular one might get chalked up to 4E...but that might make it worse on the player in some circles).
I've never really thought about it since our group is so static, but if we ever played with someone new (or from a different group) it would be polite to point out that basic assumption.
Probably a good call, yeah.
And my group is actually also pretty static, but aside from my game there are currently two other Pathfinder games going on in my pool of players...and neither uses any of my House Rules. This is not an especially unusual situation, either (okay, all three games being Pathfinder is, but one other than mine being isn't). So...yeah, making stuff like this clear seems necessary to me from my experience gaming and running games.
I'm typically a DM, though when I get the chance to be a player, I operate like this:
I never DEBUFF, in any circumstance. If I did it to players, I'd see it as unfair. If I do it to my npcs, I feel like I'm handing away their XP values for free.
However, I DO agree with buffing enemy vitality, or attack rolls to make their presence memorable. Letting the dragon not get nuked in round one, so that it can retreat, repair, and return for example.
Or, if a player misses by 1 or 2 as part of a glorious action, or if they're bending rules without knowing (Alot of my players are inexperienced with the rules).
One that comes to mind is; against an evil ranger military commander, who had already rapid shot the drow alchemist (his +4 favored enemy vs a lvl 3 character), the drow hid under a pile of rubble for cover.
Then, she drank infusions of Expeditious retreat, mutagen, and activated her racial levitate, and wanted to charge the target. By rules, she couldn't charge, because she was in difficult rubble, and the ranger was 30ft off the ground, and away from her. But, I let it go for the majesty of her aerial dash with a poisoned rapier thrust of vengeance.
In fact, it dropped him to 1 hp (legally), but the poison was COn damaging (He succeeded the resist save by 1, but I let him fail, for the drama.)
At the end of the day, so long as you bend for the sake of story telling, and enjoyment, and to preserve the tension, without killing someone, it's fine.
Also, if I notice a DM mistake on someone else's part, I ask: "Normally it's X, is it so this time?" If I get a yes, the correction typically saves a PC life. If it's "no", I nod and accept it.
Just going to say I always tell the GM if the rules are not being followed. If I am the GM I also want to be told if I am screwing something up. It is just WAY too easy to end up hurting someone by breaking the rules. Imagine how that one player who was following the rules feels when the GM or some player starts breaking the rules and everyone is like "Hey this is too cool to stop... so what if Pete's character is totally screwed over here and may even die. We are the rest of us having fun and that's all that matters!"
Now that being said I never argue with the GM over it if I am a player. I just tell him the way it really works and leave it be. After all I may be misreading the situation we might not even be fighting a vampire. But IF we are fighting a Vampire then things would be much better if we do it right.
I played a game once where the DM allowed casters to cast spells of a level equal to their level spontaneously infinite times per day, while I was playing a Warlock...
I played a game once where the DM allowed casters to cast spells of a level equal to their level spontaneously infinite times per day, while I was playing a Warlock...Just going to say I always tell the GM if the rules are not being followed. If I am the GM I also want to be told if I am screwing something up. It is just WAY too easy to end up hurting someone by breaking the rules. Imagine how that one player who was following the rules feels when the GM or some player starts breaking the rules and everyone is like "Hey this is too cool to stop... so what if Pete's character is totally screwed over here and may even die. We are the rest of us having fun and that's all that matters!"
Now that being said I never argue with the GM over it if I am a player. I just tell him the way it really works and leave it be. After all I may be misreading the situation we might not even be fighting a vampire. But IF we are fighting a Vampire then things would be much better if we do it right.
Doesn't that make the warlock redundant?
Would level 10+ casters then get metamagiced 9th level spells for free?
That was probably his point.