|
I have to agree with Zach's "drinking from a fire hose" comment. I also totally get it that as GM's, we'll have to make tough decisions on the fly. With the overwhelming array of rules already out there and more coming down, this can really slow down a table no matter how pragmatic you are.
I'm also in agreement with the situation where someone pulls out a "I have a Puff the Magic Dragon spell coming out of last week's release of the Dragon-wannabe Handbook", I'm going to have to just shrug my shoulders and go with it if it seems at all reasonable (or as reasonable as I've seen some other game-tilting things go on).
Personally, I have enough trouble trying to keep all the Core rules straight and I'm still learning various aspects of those just about every week. And, I'm one of those geeks that actually read the book from cover to cover!
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Well, it's not exactly an expectation that doesn't have a basis in reality. Most people don't GM until they feel they have a level of rules mastery they feel comfortable with, while we welcome complete newbs as players.Then maybe that expectation needs to be challenged and held up against reality to see if it's worth keeping or not.
Honestly, at a table with one GM and six players, how likely is it that the person at the table with the best rules-fu is going to be the GM? Why should we expect reality to defy the six-to-one odds?
The presence of newbies does not at all indicate what you're trying to make it look like. If you can read my posts and honestly think I'm advocating treating newbies the same as everyone else as far as expectations of rules mastery, your head's on backwards.
As people graduate out of the "newbie" category (and into the category of people that any intelligent reader can tell I was talking about in the first place), some of them switch to exclusively GMing, some of them stick to exclusively playing, and some of them do a mix of both. And among that population as a whole, there's no reason to think there's any sort of correlation between the GMing/playing ratio and their generally-increasing proficiency with the rules.
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Well, it's not exactly an expectation that doesn't have a basis in reality. Most people don't GM until they feel they have a level of rules mastery they feel comfortable with, while we welcome complete newbs as players.Then maybe that expectation needs to be challenged and held up against reality to see if it's worth keeping or not.
Honestly, at a table with one GM and six players, how likely is it that the person at the table with the best rules-fu is going to be the GM? Why should we expect reality to defy the six-to-one odds?
The presence of newbies does not at all indicate what you're trying to make it look like. If you can read my posts and honestly think I'm advocating treating newbies the same as everyone else as far as expectations of rules mastery, your head's on backwards.
Jiggy,
I am not sure I understand what you are getting at and I am not sure you understand what I am getting at, so let's start over.
Your suggestion is that we should treat players and GMs as being on the same tier regarding rules knowledge.
To be honest, I do not know if this is a good idea or not, but I am open to it, especially if it might make my job as a GM easier.
What I am trying to do is point out the difficulties in making this idea a reality as the perception that GMs know the rules more than players is not a perception without at least some basis in fact.
1) The average GM does not start GMing until they feel they are comfortable with their level of system mastery. While the average player needs much less system mastery to feel comfortable playing. This means the average GM's system mastery is higher than the average player. This is, of course, simply a group average that will have numerous exceptions.
2) There is a long history of expectation of greater system mastery on the GMs part. At one point, Wizards even had a test you had to take on system mastery in order to GM for Living Greyhawk. No such test was required in order to play it.
3) The average player sitting at the table only needs to know the rules appropriate to their character. While the average GM needs to know the rules appropriate for all NPCs in the adventure. So in the course prepping and running a game, the average GM is more likely to learn new rules than the average player. Though it could be argued that the guy playing a fighter will learn more about fighters than the GM whose running a fighter, wizard, rogue, cleric and troll.
4) As evidenced by this thread, there are many GMs who take pride in their rules knowledge. They see it as a part of what makes them a good GM. So they try and master it as best they can. Rules knowledge does not seem to have the same level of importance for the average player.
|
|
2) There is a long history of expectation of greater system mastery on the GMs part. At one point, Wizards even had a test you had to take on system mastery in order to GM for Living Greyhawk. No such test was required in order to play it.
So I didn't play Living Greyhawk, the one time I tried the game store I was at was full with it's regular players and wouldn't accept new players.
But, I did take the GM test for Living Greyhawk to become what my friends still mock as a "Herald" level DM.
It was not a test of system mastery, it was a test of being able to reference rules. It was open book and many question asked what page do you find this rule on. Or what are the rules on this page.
To be fair, in PFS GM's are allowed to use the PRD as a refrence for rules. And while that doesn't help with splat books it can be a great bonus for the Hardback rulebooks.
Especially when you have programs out there like Masterwork Tools which allow you to search the PRD on phones or tablets for free without an internet connection. (Android at least, I don't own I Phone's)
I tend to use those quick rules search as a great time saving aide when I need to reference rules as a GM. And yes it can be hard to keep up with all the endless combinations player's have. I have a player base that loves all the random char op nuts and bolts which keeps me on my toes but newer GM's don't have much of a problem because the players know that they need their reference material for GM's and that they should help newer GM's as players when they play because GM's are the life blood of organized play.
My opinion for what it's worth.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover
|
You know what i do when i have new players that have no clue?
I recommend them to play an easy class in the beginning, and if it´s only for the first 3 sessions, so they can get a grasp on the rules.
If this is going good and they want to play a different class, i take some time outside the game and look at it with them.
Should i feel they can´t handle it or will never spend the time to get familiar with the rules, i ask them straight to play something easier.
Most do.
There is the "own what you play" rule for a reason.
You can totally expect even new players to get familiar with their character and class and abilities. That´s only a few pages to read.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You seem to be under the misconception that I'm arguing some theoretical point.
I'm not. I'm expressing the frustration and explaining the real problems I'm running into with the real people I really GM for.
I spend a ton of my own time helping my players out. I go to the game store on off days to help them create characters. I field questions from GMs at all hours to help them prep scenarios. I get pulled away from the table I'm currently running to answer rules questions and when a PC dies I'm called in to make sure everything was kosher. I listen to their gripes about other players and how they spoil the fun by exploiting or appearing to exploit the rules, and watch some of the people I enjoy playing with the most walk away because that makes the game un-fun for them.
And I'm having trouble keeping up with the rules expansions to answer their questions.
This is causing troubles for me and for my players. Real, actual, non-theoretical problems. It's bogging down games while people argue over rulings. It's making it harder for me and my GMs to manage tables and try to make sure everyone is included. It's making GMing less fun and more of a chore.
I don't doubt for a second that you really are having these experiences, and I said nothing to contradict them when you brought them up the first time. In fact, at this point I don't even know what you think I said, so I can't even reply.
That's a very confident statement. Look at the Additional Resources entry for the Monster Codex, there's actually a pretty good amount of material being added for what I expected to be a GM resource like the NPC Codex or GMG.
I have absolutely no idea what will be in the Strategy Guide or Unchained. (That's actually part of the problem, there's so much new stuff in the pipeline I can't keep track of it.) But I seriously doubt that there won't be anything new from either of them. I'm still fielding regular questions about retraining from Ultimate Campaign, after all.
I read the product description of the Strategy Guide, as well as several clarifying posts from Vic Wertz (one of the Paizo higher-ups) about its content. It is literally a guide to using the material that already exists. Believe me, you WANT your playerbase getting hold of that one. :)
As for Unchained, it's going to have revamped versions of certain classes (monk, barbarian, summoner) as well as some suggested alternate rules that would fundamentally change how martial classes (like fighter and rogue) function. Don't you think those things seem unlikely to get into PFS? I mean, maybe there'll be something, but certainly not a truckload of massive character options like most of the hardbacks.
On top of that, it seems that there are a lot more gray areas that require interpretation or judgment calls in the ACG than in previous books.
I'd like to point out that I didn't contradict this the first time you said it. Might be the grayest book in the product line, largely due to editing errors.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Jiggy,
I am not sure I understand what you are getting at and I am not sure you understand what I am getting at, so let's start over.
Sure thing. :)
Your suggestion is that we should treat players and GMs as being on the same tier regarding rules knowledge.
Eh... Well, sort of... Hm, maybe you only just joined the conversation, and just saw my last couple of posts? Because your summary of my point is just like a piece of what I'm trying to say.
Let's see if I can sum it up:
The original premise of the thread was "There's so much new stuff coming out, I don't know what my players' characters can do!"
My response to that was basically "That's okay, most players will know their own capabilities, so don't worry about it."
Then some folks were like "But how can I catch their errors if I don't already know how their PCs work?"
Then I pointed out that we already start with a baseline of trust for GMs (that is, unless it's super-serious, we trust the GM's claims of how something in the scenario works, even if it's a little suspicious), so I asked why not do the same for players? Just trust their assertions unless it's super-serious?
Then people replied to the call for equal-footing trust between GMs and players by suggesting that players in general are less rules-savvy than GMs.
I then stated as one supporting point for my overall position that there's no inherent difference between the rules-fu of the player and GM populations.
I think that's right around where you came in. Hopefully you're up to speed now?
What I am trying to do is point out the difficulties in making this idea a reality as the perception that GMs know the rules more than players is not a perception without at least some basis in fact.
1) The average GM does not start GMing until they feel they are comfortable with their level of system mastery. While the average player needs much less system mastery to feel comfortable playing. This means the average GM's system mastery is higher than the average player. This is, of course, simply a group average that will have numerous exceptions.
You are correct that most people don't make the jump to GMing until they get out of the "newbie" category; note that the first time you said this, I didn't debate that point.
With that in mind, draw a vertical line on a piece of paper. This is the range of possible rules proficiency a player might have: the top is the greatest rules-fu ever known, and the bottom is someone completely new to the hobby.
Next to it, draw another vertical line, this one representing the range of possible rules proficiency a GM might have. The top will be in the same place as the player line (this should be self-evident). The bottom will be a little higher than "total newbie", because of the phenomenon you correctly observed.
So now the two lines of GM and player rules-fu start at the same place at the top, run parallel for most of the range of rules-fu, but then the GM line stops while the player line dangles a bit further, accounting for newbies.
Now I refer you to my earlier clarification that of course newbies should be handled differently, and my call for trusting players to know their characters does not apply to them. So for the scope of this discussion, you can erase that bottom portion of the player line that represents being a newbie.
And you know what happens? The two lines are about the same length now.
Within the context of non-newbies (who should be handled differently anyway), GMs and players span the same range of rules-fu, with members of both populations landing anywhere from "rules master" to "has the basic idea".
Now, take that point and apply it to my overall position: we're already supposed to be giving a certain level of trust (whatever level that might be) to the GM, whose rules mastery could be anywhere between X and Y; since a (non-newbie) player's rules mastery will also fall within that same range, shouldn't they be given the same level of trust (again, whatever level that may be) as a GM?
2) There is a long history of expectation of greater system mastery on the GMs part. At one point, Wizards even had a test you had to take on system mastery in order to GM for Living Greyhawk. No such test was required in order to play it.
I don't understand your purpose in pointing out that there's an expectation of GMs knowing the rules better. An expectation that X is true has no bearing on whether X actually is true, or should be true, or even can be true. So what has it got to do with anything? Where are you going with that?
3) The average player sitting at the table only needs to know the rules appropriate to their character. While the average GM needs to know the rules appropriate for all NPCs in the adventure. So in the course prepping and running a game, the average GM is more likely to learn new rules than the average player. Though it could be argued that the guy playing a fighter will learn more about fighters than the GM whose running a fighter, wizard, rogue, cleric and troll.
Which in turn supports my main point: let everyone learn the rules they're using and trust each other to have done so. The player can trust the GM to have learned the rules for the monsters/scenario, and the GM can trust the player to have learned the rules for his class. This is exactly what I'm getting at.
4) As evidenced by this thread, there are many GMs who take pride in their rules knowledge. They see it as a part of what makes them a good GM. So they try and master it as best they can. Rules knowledge does not seem to have the same level of importance for the average player.
How would you know the relative importance of rules knowledge for GMs and players? Are you basing it on comments on the internet? Because even in this very thread you've got GMs boasting of the relative unimportance of rules-fu in good GMing, and most of the 3+ star GMs who have the time to post on the PFS boards wouldn't be caught dead in the Rules forum. I think your perception here differs a bit from reality.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
I don't understand your purpose in pointing out that there's an expectation of GMs knowing the rules better. An expectation that X is true has no bearing on whether X actually is true, or should be true, or even can be true. So what has it got to do with anything? Where are you going with that?
I am referring to cause and effect, or perhaps more specifically, perception effecting reality. If the general expectation is that good rules knowledge is part of what makes a good GM, then people who want to be good GMs will attempt to meet that expectation, thus turning it into a reality.
How would you know the relative importance of rules knowledge for GMs and players? Are you basing it on comments on the internet? Because even in this very thread you've got GMs boasting of the relative unimportance of rules-fu in good GMing, and most of the 3+ star GMs who have the time to post on the PFS boards wouldn't be caught dead in the Rules forum. I think your perception here differs a bit from reality.
I am basing the latter portion on personal experience. While there are indeed many players with strong rules-fu, my experience is that most of these are also GMs. The ones that only play do not seem to have that strong of rules-fu or a desire to have strong rules-fu. Many of these people are casual players who frequently rely on other people's rules-fu to cover their lack of it. Now whether the people who have greater rules-fu have it because they GM, or they GM because they have greater rules-fu is up for debate, though I suspect the answer lies somewhere in the middle.
Regardless, however, that does not seem to be the point you are trying to make. Rather, if I am getting this right, you are saying GMs should trust the players to know the specific rules for their characters at least as well as they trust the GM to know the rules in general. As to that, I agree, though as I stated earlier, some times they really do make it hard.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
most of the 3+ star GMs who have the time to post on the PFS boards wouldn't be caught dead in the Rules forum.
Just out of curiosity, what are you basing this particular statement on? Have you actually discussed this issue with many 3+ star GMs or are you simply assuming that because you don't see them post there, they must not be using the forum. I, as an example of a 3+ star GM, do not post on that particular forum very often. But when I have a rules question I am unsure of, my first stop after the rulebooks is usually the rules forum. A quick search there usually finds that someone else has already asked this question and gotten an answer, so there is no need for me to post.
If you are instead saying they wouldn't be caught dead posting on the Rules forum, I would probably agree with you, but I would submit that is because of the low value they put in rules arguments rather than the low value they put on rules knowledge.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Regardless, however, that does not seem to be the point you are trying to make. Rather, if I am getting this right, you are saying GMs should trust the players to know the specific rules for their characters at least as well as they trust the GM to know the rules in general.
Pretty much, yeah. None of us knows all the rules, so let's all trust each person at the table to know the rules they need to know, until such time as they demonstrate otherwise. Whether the person being trusted (or the person "demonstrating otherwise", for that matter) is a player or a GM doesn't really change anything.
As to that, I agree, though as I stated earlier, some times they really do make it hard.
Sort of like how sometimes GMs make it hard to trust them? Yes, I believe you. Those people are part of both populations. Hence why we should treat both populations the same as each other.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Bingo! And because of that, if one of the seven people at the table says that creature X can do Y, your response to them (whatever that response may be) should be the same regardless of whether it's the GM talking about a monster, or a player talking about a PC.
And since that response should be the same whether it's the GM or a player, and the accepted response for GMs is "go with it even if you're skeptical, unless it's serious business or they're a newbie"; then the response to a player should be the same: go with it even if you're skeptical, unless it's serious business or they're a newbie.
And since it's okay to just go with the player's assertions unless it's serious business or they're a newbie, that means the GM doesn't need to already have foreknowledge of every single thing a player might bring to the table.
And since the GM doesn't need to already have foreknowledge of every single thing a player might bring to the table, GMs with the same concern as the OP (too much PC material too fast) can relax a bit and not worry about it.
And that's the thread in a nutshell (and in reverse order, I suppose).
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
And since the GM doesn't need to already have foreknowledge of every single thing a player might bring to the table, GMs with the same concern as the OP (too much PC material too fast) can relax a bit and not worry about it.
At a very rational level, you are very correct. Now if I can just get that little voice in the back of my head to quit chanting, "Must know all the rules! Must know all the rules!" But maybe that's just me.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe it might be literally impossible to know *every* rule. I know I have absolutely no interest in trying.
To me, the best course of action as a GM is pretty straightforward: Learn the Corebook inside and out. And then learn it again. Review specific rules, creature types, and spells that are part of a scenario during the prepping process. Yes, this does mean more time and effort.
The onus is on the players to understand the their characters. If they don't, then they can use a different ability. If they do, and it sounds too good to be true, then you ask for a reference. Yes, that's going to slow things down. Unfortunately, I don't see a way around that, other than making swaths of material illegal for PFS, which doesn't serve the stated goal of PFS as a marketing tool.
Ultimately, the only "fix" is a simpler game. As much as I'd love to see Pathfinder become a simpler game, that's not the reality of PFS today.
|
|
Here's a situation that's been in the back of my mind for a while, but now seems appropriate to the discussion:
This alias is my 3rd-level bloodrager. Sooner or later, he's going to hit 4th level, and gain some spellcasting ability. There's a good chance I'll take burning hands as a spell known, to deal with swarms and whatnot. At that point, I fully expect to encounter some disbelief from GMs when I cast it (for reasons you'll see in a minute).
Now, there's two ways the GM could handle it. Have a look:
Me: Yikes a swarm/troll/whatever! Okay, I cast burning hands.
GM: Wait, weren't you raging?
Me: Yeah, why?
GM: You can't cast while raging.
Me: Actually, bloodragers can cast their own spells while raging. I can show you the text if you like.
GM: Okay, what's the damage and DC?
Me: Reflex DC 13 for half, base damage is...
GM: Wait, aren't you only 4th level?
Me: Yeah...?
GM: So then your caster level is only 1st, because it's your class level minus 3.
Me: Actually, bloodragers don't have that rule; they get full CL. I can show you if you like.
GM: Okay, it doesn't say you're at -3 CL, but that's obviously another ACG editing error. Come on, your casting is just like rangers and paladins, of course your CL works the same way.
Me: No, actually, the designer in charge of the bloodrager stated that full CL for bloodragers was an intentional design decision, not an oversight. I can show you the post if you like.
GM: Huh. Alright, how much damage was it?
Me: Yikes a swarm/troll/whatever! Okay, I cast burning hands.
GM (thinking to self): He's casting while raging? At full CL? That sounds wrong, but it's just a little fire damage, so no biggie; I'll just trust him on this. Maybe I'll ask about it after the game.
Which of those GM responses seems more conducive to a good game? Does the answer change if the player action is or is not actually legal?
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Scenario 1:
You know, I have had that type of conversation with players before but it wasn't because I didn't trust them. In fact it is usually the opposite. I am having the conversation because I want to understand the class myself (possibly because I might be interested in playing one) and am trusting them to inform me on it. Still, I probably shouldn't be bogging down play time with my own personal curiosity.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point is, I think everyone would agree that Scenario 1 (the long Q&A session) is undesirable. But it seems like some GMs think the only way to avoid it is to have already learned all those tidbits ahead of time, which in turn causes stress because that adds up to a lot of preemptive research. I'm simply suggesting that that's not the only way to avoid Scenario 1; it can also be done by just trusting the player (Scenario 2).
Here's a situation that's been in the back of my mind for a while, but now seems appropriate to the discussion:
This alias is my 3rd-level bloodrager. Sooner or later, he's going to hit 4th level, and gain some spellcasting ability. There's a good chance I'll take burning hands as a spell known, to deal with swarms and whatnot. At that point, I fully expect to encounter some disbelief from GMs when I cast it (for reasons you'll see in a minute).
My approach is very similar to Nosig's approach - Cool, how did you do that?
Jiggy, is there any reason why you can't be proactive as a player, rather than have the GM draw out one tidbit at a time?
New version:
Me: Yikes a swarm/troll/whatever! Okay, I cast burning hands.
GM: Wait, weren't you raging?
Me: Yeah, Bloodragers can cast while raging, and it is a full caster level ability - this has been confirmed that it isn't a mistake by a developer.
GM: Cool. Alright, how much damage was it?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Jiggy, is there any reason why you can't be proactive as a player, rather than have the GM draw out one tidbit at a time?
New version:
Me: Yikes a swarm/troll/whatever! Okay, I cast burning hands.
GM: Wait, weren't you raging?
Me: Yeah, Bloodragers can cast while raging, and it is a full caster level ability - this has been confirmed that it isn't a mistake by a developer.
GM: Cool. Alright, how much damage was it?
Is it that you want me to explain why I can do every single action I declare all afternoon, or is it that you want me to psychically guess which ones the GM will need explained? Neither of those options seems superior to "announce my actions, give info when asked".
@Zach: I totally believe you have that guy. I've met that guy a couple of times myself. But here's the thing: is that guy the exception, or the rule? If he's the exception, then he's not really relevant to this discussion. If he's the rule, then your playerbase has bigger problems that will NEVER be solved by having GMs be familiar with all the classes; in fact, GMs' ability to catch all that stuff for them is very likely enabling lazy players. Being pushed to the point of GMs not being able to take up the slack might end up being the best thing to happen to such a community.
Is it that you want me to explain why I can do every single action I declare all afternoon, or is it that you want me to psychically guess which ones the GM will need explained? Neither of those options seems superior to "announce my actions, give info when asked".Jiggy, is there any reason why you can't be proactive as a player, rather than have the GM draw out one tidbit at a time?
New version:
Me: Yikes a swarm/troll/whatever! Okay, I cast burning hands.
GM: Wait, weren't you raging?
Me: Yeah, Bloodragers can cast while raging, and it is a full caster level ability - this has been confirmed that it isn't a mistake by a developer.
GM: Cool. Alright, how much damage was it?
Well, if the GM starts off by being surprised that you can cast while raging, it is pretty likely that they are unfamiliar with the Bloodrager class, and it may save time if you provide the full explanation right away.
For me, it would also have me put you in the "knows their character and rules" group and I would be less likely to ask other questions, simply accept that you know the rules for your build. Thought I may still ask for you to provide me a listing of some of the fun stuff and which books that they can be found in, so that I can see if it is build that I may enjoy playing - and increase my rules-fu.
At GenCon this year, when I was running the Legacy of the Stonelords, I had a player with a high level hunter. When she started adding in flanking to her ranged attacks, I stated that you didn't get flanking for ranged attacks - she replied that it was a hunter ability, and that it hadn't been changed from the play test when the ACG came out the previous day, as she had checked. Seeing how she knew her build and the rules surrounding it, I didn't question the other things that seemed a bit surprising to me - but I did read up on the hunter class the next morning - cause what she had done seemed cool, and I wanted to know those rules for the next hunter that sat at my table.
|
|
Which of those GM responses seems more conducive to a good game? Does the answer change if the player action is or is not actually legal?
PROBABLY the whatever answer. The exception to that rule would be when the player is overpowering or stepping on another players toes because of the cheating. (Like the inquisitor with wisdom to diplomacy twice showing up the bard at face skills)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
(Gah, fell behind on my own thread.)
It's clear that there are a few different views here. One subset of people is feeling overwhelmed by the number of rules. These people have had experience with players not knowing the rules (or, even, being deliberately obtuse about them) and doing overpowered things, and these people aren't comfortable with that.
A second set of people is saying that we should just accept that nobody is going to know all of the rules, that we should just trust the players to get their classes right, and that it really doesn't matter if mistakes are made sometimes.
I'm in the first camp, I have to admit, but I fully see and understand and mostly agree with the points in the second camp. (To be honest, the most game breaking overpowered stuff that I've seen happen has been entirely rules-legal.) HOWEVER, it's one thing to have the philosophy that, hey, we should all just relax a bit, and it's another thing to really be comfortable with a massive rules base that you no longer feel like you have a handle of. I can intellectually accept that I should probably just be more relaxed and not worry about all the rules that I can no longer keep track of, but that doesn't change the fact that I feel overwhelmed and am starting to feel hesitant about wanting to GM PFS games if I come to have enough time to be able to start doing it again. Because, yes, I really do want to have a general handle of the rules as GM, and while I get what you're saying ("just know core very well, that's all that can be expected"), that doesn't help when I run a game and wonder if I'm really running the game I'm supposed to be running.
The suggested solution is to just be comfortable with not knowing all the rules of your game. And, yes, I agree that this would be a workable solution. But, "be comfortable" is one of those suggestions that it's hard to just follow. Honestly, to me a much more sane solution seems to be to move away from a game that you can no longer keep a mental handle on, and find something else to play.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking as a GM, it makes me uncomfortable when I don't know the rules my player is using. If you want to say I don't trust my players, that's fine. Maybe I don't. Maybe I shouldn't trust the player that keeps asking me how [common rule interaction] works when they suddenly show up with something out of the ACG that I haven't had a chance to look over yet. And that's a common book! What about the myriad player companions that most people just dip one or two things out of?
And before you say "Well that player resource has been out for X monts/years/whatever" let me remind you that there are common rules (light and darkness spells, Take 10 and Take 20, Attacks of Opportunity, just to name a few) that have been practically unchanged since the year 2000. How many people do you trust to know those rules correctly without having to reference them?
So yes, on a practical level I often have to take my players at their word, even when I have cause to believe their word is suspect. It's better than letting my ignorance of their character slow the game to a crawl while I look up everything. That doesn't mean I have to be happy about it.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How many people do you trust to know those rules correctly without having to reference them?
Every single GM that I ever play under, up until they demonstrate otherwise. Aren't we told that this is a good and proper thing?
If offering your players the same level of trust you expect as a GM (whatever level that might be) doesn't feel right, perhaps we can go the other way: that whatever level of oversight you want your players to accept from you, you also accept from your players. Would that be more palatable?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
That's fine, Jiggy. I expect, I even ask, that my players will call me out if I'm using a rule incorrectly and they know better. So, problem solved, at least on my end.
Awesome!
Establishing a culture of "we're all in this together and seven brains are better than one so let's respect and defer to one another" will do more to produce good games than any amount of formalized legislation or appeals processes. :)|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
That's fine, Jiggy. I expect, I even ask, that my players will call me out if I'm using a rule incorrectly and they know better. So, problem solved, at least on my end.So whenever something happens when you're GMing you have no problem telling the players everything behind what happened?
You make sure to tell the players exactly what creatures they're encountering regardless of knowledge checks and would have no problem with them then opening up a bestiary so they can double check all of the rules you're using?
Otherwise I doubt that's the same amount of oversight.
"Wait, that's not how Swallow Whole works."
"Actually, this monster has an ability that specifically says it can do that."/"Whoops, okay, it does X instead."That does not require "telling the players everything behind what happened" or "telling the players exactly what creatures they're encountering regardless of knowledge checks". Players can be a resource to the GM without causing the sky to fall.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Wait, that's not how Swallow Whole works."
"Actually, this monster has an ability that specifically says it can do that."
My response is usually more like, with a wry grin, saying, "Why, yes, you're right. That's not how Swallow Whole normally works."
|
|
Yeah, I was GMing a game with a Poltergeist in it. Players were surprised when, even after attacking the creature didn't become visible. I can't remember if anybody used an Invisibilty Purge spell; however, when questioned why the creature didn't become visible after an attack, I did answer with the, "yep, normally you'd see the thing by now... and yet you don't...."
|
|
Speaking as a GM, it makes me uncomfortable when I don't know the rules my player is using.Maybe I'm misunderstanding something?
Maybe. I meant exactly what I said. Let me try it another way...
It makes me feel like I'm failing at my "job" as a GM if I don't know the rules my players are using. There are too many rules for one person to know them all, but if I don't know them who will? Several people have said "the players", and that's great. But the players don't always know the rules for their own characters, much less the monsters I'm running.
In the grand scheme, I would rather have a player with the Bestiary open correcting my mistakes, than to have a mistake go unnoticed and I never learn to be better. That's a bit of an "argument to the extreme" though. I hope you realize that.
So whenever something happens when you're GMing you have no problem telling the players everything behind what happened?
Not sure I understand the question. I won't spoil the scenario in the middle of the session, but I sometimes go back and tell the players about bits they may not have experienced, and monsters they didn't identify.
|
|
From an original red box basic set D&D GM to current pathfinder.....
When I GM, whatever style, home game, private game or PFS, I find I often ask a player.....
Hey, I don't know everything and there are rules in this head for d&d, 1e Ad&d, 2e AD&d, 3.0-3.5 AD&D, 4e D&d, Pathfinder, MERP, Rolemaster, Harp, RuneQuest, and Pendragon.....
and that's just a small sampling of the fantasy systems I have ran over the years.....not counting other genres....
So yeah, I ask and will continue to ask a player how that works, where's that at, look that up for me so I can read it later, etc.