Common Sense and Pathfinder

[Theryon Stormrune]

First, a disclaimer since I am as guilty about needing rulings as much as the next guy.

When D&D 4e came out and WotC did it's turnabout with licenses and direction of D&D, some of us tried it (and hated it) and then turned to what essentially became the savior of 3.x … Paizo and Pathfinder. Some call PF 3.75. And in some ways it is. But Pathfinder has given us a system that has expanded beyond what 3.5 was. And part of that were more rules and more options. And one of the things that I feel makes Paizo so much stronger than WotC in d20 is the support and interaction of Paizo with it's users. Errata and updates are second nature with Paizo. And while WotC did put out FAQs and answered questions, I still feel Paizo has done better.

We've come to rely on Paizo for so many judgment calls that it is second nature for us to ask for rulings on this or that. Now I also realize that our game masters (like Mike and Tanis and Vic and company) enjoy us debating situations that cause conundrums in the game to actually create solutions.

But something in the back of my head keeps going back to something Tanis has implied … Use Common Sense. It is why a lot of times in these discussions I'll ask "what was the intent of the designer?" That drives the direction of the solution. The most recent Ambush thread came to mind and there have been others. Does it need clarification? Probably not. It doesn't come close to the complexity of Damiel or Lini's issues. What does "your" mean? I'd interpret it to mean the first and any other check to defeat. Not just the first. It is my first impression when reading the card. I may be right or wrong but the question forming in my head is … "Does playing it one way (both checks) or the other (first check) break the game so much that it requires a ruling as long as it is played consistently?"

We get so much support here that we expect rulings on everything we post. And sometimes I feel like we don't rely on ourselves to answer some of the simple stuff. Use common sense. Play it consistently.

[Again, not passing judgment on anyone and am not picking on anyone specific, just voicing an opinion.]

[csouth154]

I don't disagree. In the case of the recent Ambush thread you referred to, I am fairly positive that the intent is that we subtract from any checks to defeat and not any other kind of checks that might be required.

I am usually all for going with what my common sense or intuition tells me; but sometimes there are rulings from the team that go against that and cause me to doubt myself. The recent bit from Mike about "loot" being a boon type that is subject to the "one card per type per character per step or check" rule is an example. I have no intention to play it that way, but that is the kind of thing that throws me for a loop and causes me to decide to just ask on the forums instead of going with my gut.

I wholeheartedly agree, though, that the ease with which we can ask questions on the internet has caused many to forego the use of their own common sense. It's definitely a double edged sword.

[Theryon Stormrune]

And now 30 minutes later I realize after seeing Mike's response to that thread, it may not always be about ruling one way or another but the language they (the designers) use in the cards and how it can confuse us.

[Theryon Stormrune]

csouth, I am with you on the loot thing.

But it is a dual-edged sword, we know we can ask. We expect (and are usually given) a response from the Paizo family. We become less reliant on our own decisions about cards. The Ambush discussion is one where I think the wording on the card caused a small confusing situation. The Pirate Hunting discussion is a bit more. Damiel's power can be abused. And we ask the questions to hopefully make the game better for all.

But I guess I'm saying that don't let a bit of language stop you from relying on common sense. Look at the intent of the card and not the min/max potential of it.

[Captain Bulldozer]

Well, I'm sure players are still using common sense (whether it is common or actually sensical is as you all know, is a different question) when they're playing the game. That is, I'm sure players discuss the situation, and come to a ruling in their group, then continue on with the play. It's later, after their common sense has been applied that they begin to seek certainty, especially if there is still some group disagreement on the issue. Hence, we come to the forum and aske for Mike or Vic or Tanis' or Chad, etc view of common sense for the situation, as we tend to assume they knew what they meant when they designed the cards.

But yes, usually the problems occur because what "they" meant isn't always what they "said"; and we mostly have what they "said" to go by.

[Firedale2002]

The main issue with the other thread isn't which check to defeat it counts for, that was something brought up because of the wording and what an interpretation one way can lead to.

The issues with Ambush are the cards that require other checks in addition to the checks to defeat. There is more than one 'the check' for those cards. These would be any bane that requires a check before the encounter or something happens, or checks after the encounter or something happens.

Ambush doesn't say "check to defeat" it just says "check" so the clarification is needed on what exactly was intended by that.

Common sense tells the OP in that thread that the intent of it was that it should be "check(s) to defeat" and any other checks don't get the penalizing.

However, that may or may not be the designers' intent, and sometimes it can make a big difference in the outcome of an encounter or even that game's scenario. Not being able to play a spell for a certain villain on the last round of a scenario is one example.

So in this instance, common sense says one thing, but because of the type of situation it is and how it can actually have effect on the outcome of a game, more clarification is needed.

I do agree, though, that I've seen a fair share of forum questions that common sense would answer. That being said, one person's common sense isn't always another person's common sense.

Many RPGers know the 0 on a d10 is a 10. There were lots of people playing the game that didn't have that knowledge or the common sense to understand that, and so it had to be clarified. Just because one person can make sense a situation doesn't mean everyone else can, especially if they don't have any experience or relevant perspective.