Does anyone *actually* inspect inventory sheets? Is that a jerk move?


GM Discussion

251 to 273 of 273 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

I think deusvult has the heart of the issue.

Silver Crusade 2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This issue is why I try to get a feel for a gm before the table gets going. Gms with obvious attitude problems get walked away from before the game starts. Gms that hand down bogus rulings during the game are tolerated to get the sheet and not sat with again. There's no reason for a power struggle just vote with your feet.

I will say that when I GM I dont consider myself outranking players, as judgement calls should be minimized and acceptable to the table.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

N N 959 wrote:
deusvult wrote:
... the position of the GM outranks the position of the player. In PFS it's still true; the GM is still a GM despite some authority (namely, "house rules") being reserved only for VOs and Paizo staff.

And this probably underscores why I disagree with nearly all your posts in this thread. There is no hierarchy between GM and Player any more than there is between a referee and a basketball player. Pathfinder is a game of mutual consent, not structural or organization hierarchy.

Sorry, but you're wrong. At least in PFS.

If you and the GM disagree on how a rule is to be interpreted, or on what constitutes an Evil act, etc etc etc then
1) The GM and you should try and achieve consensus
2) If that fails or is taking too long then the GM decides
3) If you think the GM is wrong, then you later get to appeal.

But its NOT a democracy, its NOT a game of mutual consent. The GMs opinion trumps the players opinion.

Pretty much as is the case in basketball. The referee trumps the player.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

David Bowles wrote:


I will say that when I GM I dont consider myself outranking players, as judgement calls should be minimized and acceptable to the table.

While the GM should definitely try and minimize judgement calls and should definitely try and make calls acceptable to the table I think that the GM DOES outrank the players. If consensus can't be achieved he HAS to make the ruling. It is his responsibility and duty to do so.

Note - I am in NO way saying that he gets to make up rules or change rules. And he should definitely use that power with care and only when necessary.

Silver Crusade 2/5

pauljathome wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
deusvult wrote:
... the position of the GM outranks the position of the player. In PFS it's still true; the GM is still a GM despite some authority (namely, "house rules") being reserved only for VOs and Paizo staff.

And this probably underscores why I disagree with nearly all your posts in this thread. There is no hierarchy between GM and Player any more than there is between a referee and a basketball player. Pathfinder is a game of mutual consent, not structural or organization hierarchy.

Sorry, but you're wrong. At least in PFS.

If you and the GM disagree on how a rule is to be interpreted, or on what constitutes an Evil act, etc etc etc then
1) The GM and you should try and achieve consensus
2) If that fails or is taking too long then the GM decides
3) If you think the GM is wrong, then you later get to appeal.

But its NOT a democracy, its NOT a game of mutual consent. The GMs opinion trumps the players opinion.

Pretty much as is the case in basketball. The referee trumps the player.

I always let the table vote, because the rule is going to work the same for NPCs. So to me, it is a game of mutual consent.

4/5

It's not an issue of rank. It's an issue of responsibility. When a rule is unclear (or when consensus can't be reached) it's the GM's responsibility to make a call to keep the game moving. After the game interested parties can get to the bottom of it.

To borrow pauljathome's basketball metaphor, it's like a weekly pickup game where one of the players takes turns as the ref. He's not more important than any of the other players, it's just his job to call the fouls to the best of his ability. And while players can argue, his word is final while the game is going.

Back to PFS...if a call was made in error that materially affects the outcome it can be retconned if necessary. Though I'll say that as a player, I very much try to avoid doing that, because while I frequently see players on the forum arguing why their characters should have lived (or gotten full gold or prestige or boons), I've rarely (only once, in fact) seen a player argue why they should be reported as dead. So unless you're willing to sacrifice the consequences of bad calls that go your way, you should probably just let it go and assume that on the balance things will more or less even out.

trigger warning for the 'c' word:
I consider it essentially cheating when players conveniently ignore GM errors that go in their favor while arguing every single nitpicky rule that does not. Either you care about the rules being enforced to the letter or you don't.You don't get to have it both ways.

Silver Crusade 2/5

I always point out rules errors. I honestly have seen very, very few errors in the players' favor, however.

" it can be retconned if necessary"

It's almost always easier to figure out during the game. If there's no threat of time out, then it's well worth even 15-20 min of game time to hash it out to avoid having to involve litigious processes.

1/5

I would say redward has the heart of the issue.

1/5

pauljathome wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
deusvult wrote:
... the position of the GM outranks the position of the player. In PFS it's still true; the GM is still a GM despite some authority (namely, "house rules") being reserved only for VOs and Paizo staff.

And this probably underscores why I disagree with nearly all your posts in this thread. There is no hierarchy between GM and Player any more than there is between a referee and a basketball player. Pathfinder is a game of mutual consent, not structural or organization hierarchy.

Sorry, but you're wrong. At least in PFS.

If you and the GM disagree on how a rule is to be interpreted, or on what constitutes an Evil act, etc etc etc then
1) The GM and you should try and achieve consensus
2) If that fails or is taking too long then the GM decides
3) If you think the GM is wrong, then you later get to appeal.

But its NOT a democracy, its NOT a game of mutual consent. The GMs opinion trumps the players opinion.

Pretty much as is the case in basketball. The referee trumps the player.

You're misconstruing my post.

1. It is a game of consent. I consent to allow the GM to make judgment calls on things not covered by the rules when I agree to play a scenario. If I do not consent and choose not to sit at the table, then the GM has zero affect on my character. I make that consent when I agree to play the game. Once given, I am bound by that agreement so long as the GM does not violate his or her responsibilities or the rules of PFS. No player has to sit there and endure personal insults from a GM.

2. The referee doesn't trump the player. Nobody who plays basketball adheres to that concept. The referee has a job to call fouls. The players are not allowed to call fouls so there is no conflict in power or authority. The Coach trumps the player...the coach decides who plays, how long, and what they do. The GM is not a coach. The referee has no control over the player other than to enforce the rules of the game which have been decided a priori.

Yes, the GM makes judgment calls, that's the GMs responsibility. The GM is not anyone's "boss" and using that term or concept is going to turn people off from the game and set up neophyte GMs with the wrong attitude.

1/5

David Bowles wrote:
I always point out rules errors. I honestly have seen very, very few errors in the players' favor, however.

I will always point out buffs I no longer have or hit point I should have lost. I have found that one has to be very careful about correcting a GM for all kinds of reasons.

1. The player who now loses the unfair advantage may take it personally,

2. Any correction of a GM, for or against the players, can solicit a variety of responses from the GM.

3. I've learned it's better to pick your battles (I've ignored unfavorable calls if I thought it was inconsequential).

4. Many players don't care if the game is not air tight and resent any disruption regarding rules.

5. And in some cases, I may not know what's really going on behind the scenes.

David Bowles wrote:
It's almost always easier to figure out during the game. If there's no threat of time out, then it's well worth even 15-20 min of game time to hash it out to avoid having to involve litigious processes.

If it's a big issue, like player death, I completely agree.

4/5

N N 959 wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
It's almost always easier to figure out during the game. If there's no threat of time out, then it's well worth even 15-20 min of game time to hash it out to avoid having to involve litigious processes.
If it's a big issue, like player death, I completely agree.

As do I.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West

Fortunately I've never had to deal with player death :-)

If I do end up killing a character, though, I'm quite prepared to spend some time at the table making sure there weren't any obvious mistakes. I'll also review the scenario when I get home (or, more likely, the next day); the players don't have complete information*.

In fact I just did this yesterday. I ran a table on Monday night that resulted in a TPK (a party of 5 characters with APL 1.2 in a season 6 scenario, PCs with dice that couldn't roll above 5 on any important saving throw, and GM dice that rolled multiple critical hits in the fight and almost maximum damage).

When I took another, closer, look at the encounter I spotted a mistake I had made in the tactics of a key NPC; he should have failed a morale check and fled, rather than [redacted]. This meant that the PC he had targeted would have been able to have joined the fight and, rather more importantly, stabilised the fallen PC (who was at death's door). This, and the change in the way the fight would have progressed with one less opponent, and at least one more PC participating, meant that I felt the TPK was unsafe. So the party lived to fight (and maybe die) another day. Maybe next time they'll have an in-combat healer, and not somebody relying on UMD and a wand of cure light wounds; failing the UMD check, and then getting a '1' when taking your folio re-roll, is not going to end well.

* Well, not all of them do. There were a couple of other GMs at the table, and I'm pretty sure they would have gone home and checked through the scenario as well - that's what I would do if my PC had died.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/5 *** Venture-Agent, Michigan—Jackson

Time for the world's worst GM to step in. I just don't give a crap. If you want to cheat-fine! If you want to always win-fine! I can't hit you-fine! If you have to cheat at a story to make yourself feel better, then I'm happy for you. I'm so happy you found the exploit in the game! God mode unlocked for you!

Honestly, I'm here to tell a story. No one likes a god mode story. They're almost as bad a GM who just torture the players. I just don't care about it. If you need to cheat at this to feel better about yourself, go ahead. You obviously got a ton wrong with you, so go ahead and cheat at this then.

Grand Lodge 3/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
fine_young_misanthrope wrote:

Time for the world's worst GM to step in. I just don't give a crap. If you want to cheat-fine! If you want to always win-fine! I can't hit you-fine! If you have to cheat at a story to make yourself feel better, then I'm happy for you. I'm so happy you found the exploit in the game! God mode unlocked for you!

Honestly, I'm here to tell a story. No one likes a god mode story. They're almost as bad a GM who just torture the players. I just don't care about it. If you need to cheat at this to feel better about yourself, go ahead. You obviously got a ton wrong with you, so go ahead and cheat at this then.

If it was just you and the offending player that it affected, then this would be fine. Unfortunately if I was at your table and you just let someone cheat with their god-mode character I would have a pretty poor experience and walk away with the hope that I didn't end up playing with either of you again. I WANT the GM to play fairly, and to hold the players at their table to the same standards too. I think that you are doing the other players a disservice by allowing someone to cheat at your table.

4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
dwayne germaine wrote:
fine_young_misanthrope wrote:

Time for the world's worst GM to step in. I just don't give a crap. If you want to cheat-fine! If you want to always win-fine! I can't hit you-fine! If you have to cheat at a story to make yourself feel better, then I'm happy for you. I'm so happy you found the exploit in the game! God mode unlocked for you!

Honestly, I'm here to tell a story. No one likes a god mode story. They're almost as bad a GM who just torture the players. I just don't care about it. If you need to cheat at this to feel better about yourself, go ahead. You obviously got a ton wrong with you, so go ahead and cheat at this then.

If it was just you and the offending player that it affected, then this would be fine. Unfortunately if I was at your table and you just let someone cheat with their god-mode character I would have a pretty poor experience and walk away with the hope that I didn't end up playing with either of you again. I WANT the GM to play fairly, and to hold the players at their table to the same standards too. I think that you are doing the other players a disservice by allowing someone to cheat at your table.

To be fair, I don't think responsibility to call someone out on cheating lies solely with the GM. It doesn't even have to be confrontational (until it has to be). "Doesn't your gun misfire on a natural 2?" is a perfectly reasonable question to ask a fellow player.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West

It has been my experience that the sort of player who "forgets" that his gun misfires on a roll of 2 also resents other players interfering. I've called other players on things like this, and been told "It's not up to you to tell me how to run my character!.

Sovereign Court

John Francis wrote:


It has been my experience that the sort of player who "forgets" that his gun misfires on a roll of 2 also resents other players interfering. I've called other players on things like this, and been told "It's not up to you to tell me how to run my character!.

To them - "Nope - it's up to the rules."

But yes - I agree. I had a very grumpy magus at a PFS table when he was told he actually had to cast defensively to not take an AOO in melee with Spell Combat. (apparently not made to in his home game) He ended up pouting and using his rather subpar bow attacks for the rest fo the fight. (Could have been bad since it was the last fight of the Dalsine Affair and we were had barely qualified for the 3-4 tier - but fortunately no one died.)

I don't think he had done it on purpose - but he was obviously grumpy that there was a rule he didn't know which hurt his character.

Grand Lodge 3/5

redward wrote:

To be fair, I don't think responsibility to call someone out on cheating lies solely with the GM. It doesn't even have to be confrontational (until it has to be). "Doesn't your gun misfire on a natural 2?" is a perfectly reasonable question to ask a fellow player.

Oh I agree with you there. How many players are going to start calling it out if the GM is allowing someone to blatantly cheat though? Often the GM sets the tone for the session. If the GM shows that they don't care if players cheat, the other players will feel much less comfortable calling out someone's "mistakes"

1/5

dwayne germaine wrote:
I WANT the GM to play fairly, and to hold the players at their table to the same standards too. I think that you are doing the other players a disservice by allowing someone to cheat at your table.

I agree. The rules of neither Pathfinder nor PFS empower players to enforce the rules against each other, nor do they require it. Enforcing RAW is a very important responsibility of the GM and should not be shifted towards the players. Certainly other players can point things out, but as a GM or player, I don't expect one player to correct another, nor would I encourage it. I'd much rather they go through me so I can be the "bad" guy as it where.

I recall playing that quest Under Absalom, or whatever it was called. The GM let players make up their own pre-gens. He even went a step farther and let a player create a character from scratch, specifically trying to "break the game" as the player put it. Then the GM let the guy use arguably illegal actions in combat. I think the player got every kill in the quest. It was a mercifully short game, but it felt like a total waste of time. I imagine the GM let it happen because it was all GMs at the table. Still felt like a total waste of time and ruined what might have been an enjoyable experience. All the effort that Paizo exerted on that quest was essentially flushed down the toilet for a majority of the players. Sure, a drop in the proverbial bucket, but a needless waste.

4/5

N N 959 wrote:
dwayne germaine wrote:
I WANT the GM to play fairly, and to hold the players at their table to the same standards too. I think that you are doing the other players a disservice by allowing someone to cheat at your table.
I agree. The rules of neither Pathfinder nor PFS empower players to enforce the rules against each other, nor do they require it. Enforcing RAW is a very important responsibility of the GM and should not be shifted towards the players. Certainly other players can point things out, but as a GM or player, I don't expect one player to correct another, nor would I encourage it. I'd much rather they go through me so I can be the "bad" guy as it where.

I don't think there are any rules empowering players to argue rules with the GM, either. Doesn't seem to stop them.

I don't think the GM should be the "bad" guy. That just encourages adversarial gaming between the GM and the players. Rather, it should be an understanding that we're all playing the same game and have agreed to play the rules to the best of our abilities.

Enforcing RAW is everyone's job. At least in my opinion.

1/5

redward wrote:
I don't think there are any rules empowering players to argue rules with the GM, either. Doesn't seem to stop them.

It doesn't require a rule to point out that the person enforcing the rule is enforcing the wrong rule. In sports, players and coaches are free to cite the rules to the referees if they believe the refs are not following them despite there being no rule which allows it. But the coach/player can't change the outcome of the game, the referee can. In PFS and Pathfinder, the player has no authority to change the outcome based on an incorrect application of the rules by another player. The GM does.

Where one transitions from discussing/informing the GM on the rules vs "arguing/debating" with the GM about the rules is a subjective call. I am of the opinion that the PFS/Pathfinder rules indirectly prohibit "arguing" with the GM such that it interferes with the game.

Quote:
I don't think the GM should be the "bad" guy.

Neither do I. But a player might resent another player pointing out that on a roll of a natural 1 for a save, all the character's exposed equipment might be destroyed. The GM can point this out without being the bad guy.

Quote:
Enforcing RAW is everyone's job. At least in my opinion.

It's great if everyone feels comfortable keeping everyone in line. At a table of random people, you're not going to be very well liked if you are constantly correcting the GM to the detriment of the players. I don't play PFS to win, I play it because I enjoy interacting with others on an adventure. I disagree with putting the onus on the players to do the GM's job.

I have no problem with a GM asking for help on the rules at the table. That creates a completely different social dynamic than someone jumping in to point out Kyra rolled a natural 1 vs her fireball save.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:

I disagree with putting the onus on the players to do the GM's job.

I have no problem with a GM asking for help on the rules at the table. That creates a completely different social dynamic than someone jumping in to point out Kyra rolled a natural 1 vs her fireball save.

I'll tell you right now: a lot of GMs will complain about people who build powerful characters, or people who play silly characters, or folks that make gunslingers / summoners / whatever.

None of that bothers me. I love all those sorts of players.

What gets old is the attitude that "catching players" (like players who "don't notice" a '1' on a fireball save, or a gun misfire, or who won't mark off ammunition or wand charges, or a spell with an illegal target, or who take an extra 5' of movement, or run an animal companion like an eidolon, or ...

They won't press the issue. If I ask them, they'll grin, and say, oh, yeah, that's right. But that means I can't relax and just get into character, or pay attention to how I can make sure they have a good time. Instead, I'm paying attention to dice, and stats, and spell lists, and all that.

And it's this attitude, that the rules are "the GM's job", rather than the communal job of all the people at the table. It's exhausting.

You're right, N N 959. When players help keep one another legal and honest, it really is a completely different social dynamic. One I appreciate.

1/5

Chris Mortika wrote:
And it's this attitude, that the rules are "the GM's job", rather than the communal job of all the people at the table. It's exhausting.

It's everybody's responsibility to educate themselves on the rules and follow them to the best of their ability. GMing is exhausting. It's stressful, it's time consuming, and sometimes when you have players who make poor decision, roll poorly, or do both, it's not fun.

Quote:
You're right, N N 959. When players help keep one another legal and honest, it really is a completely different social dynamic. One I appreciate.

If the GM is overwhelmed, then he or she should ask for help. Ask if someone will keep an eye out for bad rolls or expiring buffs. That removes any reproach from other players. Maybe some players aren't comfortable doing it, find one that is. Easy solution, everybody wins.

And as much as I want the rules to be followed, I'd rather have the GM miss a few calls than an environment where players were required to call out every mistake missed on someone else's character. I just don't think that improves the table experience, but YMMV.

251 to 273 of 273 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / GM Discussion / Does anyone *actually* inspect inventory sheets? Is that a jerk move? All Messageboards

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