A group of friends playing Pathfinder and a professional soccer game are not exactly comparable situations.
The main differences I can think of are:
(1) In RPGs it's relatively trivial if the decision goes against you. Worst thing that happens is you have to make new characters. In pro-sports, there may be huge amounts of money and national prestige riding on it. So it's far worse to have a wrong decision in sports.(2) In RPGs, arguments that get out of hand can ruin friendships. The professional referee is rarely a personal friend of the players.
(3) In RPGs, the GM is expected to make up rules on the fly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like you would stop the game until you win the argument or left. Is this a fair assessment?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the DM isn't willing to stop the game for five minutes to make sure his rules call that killed a PC is correct despite the obvious protest of a player then don't play at his table anymore. That DM doesn't place enough value on the enjoyment of the players at his table.
My approach to solving rules disputes is pretty simple. If a player raises an objection I will do one of three things.
1. Advise him that his objection is incorrect and that the rule is covered under X, section Y of blah. I know most of the rules well enough to do this.
2. Admit I am unsure and if the matter is of little consequence make a judgement call, in the players favor, then I will research the issue after the game. If the player disagrees with me invoking fiat, I will move to rule 3.
3. We stop the game and research the issue as a whole group.
I've never found need to stop a game for more than 5 to 10 minutes while an issue was being researched. Most of us have the PRD on our phones or tablets, and we have multiple copies of every book at our disposal. Not to mention that the player with the least experience in our group has 'only' been playing for 15 years.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In Sumo, the senior referee carries a knife with him. Presently, this is merely an archaic prop, but the historical reason for this is that if the referee makes an incorrect ruling, he'd perform seppuku (in present day, he'd be expected to tender his resignation). Introduce a rule like this, and I think most GMs would drastically polish up their game and their rules mastery and the instances of "the GM doesn't know what the rules are" would drastically decline.
Due to there not being anyone willing to GM anymore?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not avoiding the question. It is merely completely irrelevant to the argument I made in the first place - namely that I'm going to insist checking the rules first in such situations, and that a GM does not have free reign to change rules on the fly just because he feels like it.
But fine, if it actually gets to that point where rules were checked and subsequently ignored, I'd keep arguing up until I had clear indication that it's completely fruitless - at which point it'd come down to the people and the specific situation in question (and how it was specifically handled) whether I'd approach it again after the session, or if the group loses a player, possibly immediately.
I don't see the relevance of the question considering Kain constructed that scenario entirely in his head, but there you go.
It is relevant because in a discussion we often need to know how someone may handle a situation, and while it may have been in Kain's head it is an event that takes place in real life. Had it been something that has never happened, and/or is likely to never happen that would have been different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like you would stop the game until you win the argument or left. Is this a fair assessment?
I took it as he would keep going until everyone said let it go, assuming a character death was at risk.
If the DM isn't willing to stop the game for five minutes to make sure his rules call that killed a PC is correct despite the obvious protest of a player then don't play at his table anymore. That DM doesn't place enough value on the enjoyment of the players at his table.
My approach to solving rules disputes is pretty simple. If a player raises an objection I will do one of three things.
1. Advise him that his objection is incorrect and that the rule is covered under X, section Y of blah. I know most of the rules well enough to do this.
2. Admit I am unsure and if the matter is of little consequence make a judgement call, in the players favor, then I will research the issue after the game. If the player disagrees with me invoking fiat, I will move to rule 3.
3. We stop the game and research the issue as a whole group.
I've never found need to stop a game for more than 5 to 10 minutes while an issue was being researched. Most of us have the PRD on our phones or tablets, and we have multiple copies of every book at our disposal. Not to mention that the player with the least experience in our group has 'only' been playing for 15 years.
I basically agree with this. For major things if I don't know the rule I can normally easily find it. So far I have been able to avoid it taking 5 minutes. It would have to be something completely out of the ordinary for that to happen.
As for 3 it really depends on the rule. If it is something such as trying to move and take a 5-foot step in the same round I can easily show them the rule. Sometimes I just make the ruling and email them the rule text after the game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good ones cite their sources and show people all relevant RAW in an impartial way, regardless of who it helps or hinders. They also try not to disrupt the game too much.
Bad ones are much more vague and selective when explaining the rules, or they distrupt the game a lot.
I havent read the rest of the thread but at it's core this is it for me. Fortunately I have a player like that at my table who will correct / point out a rule even if it hinders or screws him.
THATS an awesome player and a good example of a rules lawyer. The self serving dickbag that only does it when it benefits him? That person can stay away.
Sounds like you would stop the game until you win the argument or left. Is this a fair assessment?
It's not a fair assessment because you're assuming the GM is never going to change his mind or see your side. This concept Kain put forward is kind of a big appeal to probability, as I understand it. Sure, it's possible that a disagreement between two parties could result in them coming to a deadlock and nothing ever happens from that point on, but it's highly unlikely. If I cite a rule and I'm wrong, I will apologize once I'm proven wrong. If the GM has been proven wrong, I would expect the same from them. If the GM or the Player, is still insisting on his side, you have much bigger problems than what's going on in game. Yes, there's a point where arguing with a GM, or with anybody for that matter, becomes useless. But if you've actually reached that point there are issues going on outside the game. I think that is a fair assessment.
Sounds like you would stop the game until you win the argument or left. Is this a fair assessment?It's not a fair assessment because you're assuming the GM is never going to change his mind or see your side. This concept Kain put forward is kind of a big appeal to probability, as I understand it. Sure, it's possible that a disagreement between two parties could result in them coming to a deadlock and nothing ever happens from that point on, but it's highly unlikely. If I cite a rule and I'm wrong, I will apologize once I'm proven wrong. If the GM has been proven wrong, I would expect the same from them. If the GM or the Player, is still insisting on his side, you have much bigger problems than what's going on in game. Yes, there's a point where arguing with a GM, or with anybody for that matter, becomes useless. But if you've actually reached that point there are issues going on outside the game. I think that is a fair assessment.
Wouldn't the GM changing his mind or seeing your side be you winning the argument?
Oh, yes, I apologize for misrepresenting Freehold DM in the first sentence. My point is that saying that someone will hold up the game until they win or leave is unlikely because someone is going to give in when they're proven wrong. And if they don't then there are issues outside the game that are interfering with the game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, yes, I apologize for misrepresenting Freehold DM in the first sentence. My point is that saying that someone will hold up the game until they win or leave is unlikely because someone is going to give in when they're proven wrong. And if they don't then there are issues outside the game that are interfering with the game.
Have you read, like, any of the rules threads?
Have you read, like, any of the rules threads?
Where you have twenty, thirty, or even more people than that arguing over a point and they all have to be convinced in order for the thread to die? Sure, I've read them. I don't much care what the people playing at the game next to me think if we can reach a consensus at our game, though. And if we can't, then as I've stated, I think there are bigger issues at play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have you read, like, any of the rules threads?Where you have twenty, thirty, or even more people than that arguing over a point and they all have to be convinced in order for the thread to die? Sure, I've read them. I don't much care what the people playing at the game next to me think if we can reach a consensus at our game, though. And if we can't, then as I've stated, I think there are bigger issues at play.
Well the remark was meant to be humorous (I thought my use of "like" would give it away) but I have definitely seen threads with fewer than twenty or thirty people drag on and on and on...
Well the remark was meant to be humorous (I thought my use of "like" would give it away) but I have definitely seen threads with fewer than twenty or thirty people drag on and on and on...Have you read, like, any of the rules threads?Where you have twenty, thirty, or even more people than that arguing over a point and they all have to be convinced in order for the thread to die? Sure, I've read them. I don't much care what the people playing at the game next to me think if we can reach a consensus at our game, though. And if we can't, then as I've stated, I think there are bigger issues at play.
All it takes is one person being contrary.
See that take 10 on climb thread (i don't even know if the thread was actually about that, but most of the discussion was about it). IIRC only 1 person was saying you couldn't. I think he kept it going for over 100 posts.
Well the remark was meant to be humorous (I thought my use of "like" would give it away) but I have definitely seen threads with fewer than twenty or thirty people drag on and on and on...
Most people on forums are talking past one another.
If you have players or DM's that get emotionally involved every time there is a difference of opinion on a rule, and won't back down once the rule is clarified you have problems bigger than lack of knowledge in your group.
That problem is probably that someone at the table has played in a group where they HAD to behave that way in order to make their wants and needs known because the group dynamic between the DM and players was abusive at best. Or, it could be that you have the dynamic at your table (not you specifically Durngrun) and thats what is causing the problems. If the players at your table are competing against you and one another in order to have 'fun' then you have failed. DM vs players is not a healthy dynamic for a gaming group, it will eventually result in resentment and poor behavior.
Most people are not really interested in fixing their games though. Several years ago I was in a different group and it went something like this: January-March Person A is DM, everyone is bickering and fighting, the game barely moves.
April - July I am Dming, we haven't had a single fight or argument the whole time, people are laughing and enjoying their characters.
August - September Person B is DM, the bickering has resumed.
October - I am filling in for B, no one is fighting, laughter and progression have resumed.
November, Person C is going to try his hand, half the group is fighting again.
Almost everyone was completely oblivious to the fact that the houserules I introduced, gave everyone a copy of, and read outloud for everyone to follow along with essentially eliminated all the stupid fighting. The other DM's just kept saying "but I like to run this way" or "This is just my style man" I eventually just left and started my own group with more than half the players.
Wouldn't the GM changing his mind or seeing your side be you winning the argument?Sounds like you would stop the game until you win the argument or left. Is this a fair assessment?It's not a fair assessment because you're assuming the GM is never going to change his mind or see your side. This concept Kain put forward is kind of a big appeal to probability, as I understand it. Sure, it's possible that a disagreement between two parties could result in them coming to a deadlock and nothing ever happens from that point on, but it's highly unlikely. If I cite a rule and I'm wrong, I will apologize once I'm proven wrong. If the GM has been proven wrong, I would expect the same from them. If the GM or the Player, is still insisting on his side, you have much bigger problems than what's going on in game. Yes, there's a point where arguing with a GM, or with anybody for that matter, becomes useless. But if you've actually reached that point there are issues going on outside the game. I think that is a fair assessment.
If that is the definition you wish to use then literally just saying, "I'm not sure that's how it works," and the DM immediately saying, "yeah, your right. I don't even need to look it up, brain fart, my bad," will qualify as being a bad rules lawyer.
I think that's a patently terrible place to start from.
also, I'm still waiting for you to back up your ad hominem attack against me. I assume you gave up because you know you were both way out of line and way out in left field, so I will accept your apology in lieu of your defense.
Wouldn't the GM changing his mind or seeing your side be you winning the argument?Sounds like you would stop the game until you win the argument or left. Is this a fair assessment?It's not a fair assessment because you're assuming the GM is never going to change his mind or see your side. This concept Kain put forward is kind of a big appeal to probability, as I understand it. Sure, it's possible that a disagreement between two parties could result in them coming to a deadlock and nothing ever happens from that point on, but it's highly unlikely. If I cite a rule and I'm wrong, I will apologize once I'm proven wrong. If the GM has been proven wrong, I would expect the same from them. If the GM or the Player, is still insisting on his side, you have much bigger problems than what's going on in game. Yes, there's a point where arguing with a GM, or with anybody for that matter, becomes useless. But if you've actually reached that point there are issues going on outside the game. I think that is a fair assessment.If that is the definition you wish to use then literally just saying, "I'm not sure that's how it works," and the DM immediately saying, "yeah, your right. I don't even need to look it up, brain fart, my bad," will qualify as being a bad rules lawyer.
I think that's a patently terrible place to start from.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
also, I'm still waiting for you to back up your ad hominem attack against me. I assume you gave up because you know you were both way out of line and way out in left field, so I will accept your apology in lieu of your defense.
I made no attack against you. I made a comment and you got defensive.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never apologize. I'm sorry, that's just the way I am.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never apologize. I'm sorry, that's just the way I am.
Uh-huh...
Wouldn't the GM changing his mind or seeing your side be you winning the argument?Sounds like you would stop the game until you win the argument or left. Is this a fair assessment?It's not a fair assessment because you're assuming the GM is never going to change his mind or see your side. This concept Kain put forward is kind of a big appeal to probability, as I understand it. Sure, it's possible that a disagreement between two parties could result in them coming to a deadlock and nothing ever happens from that point on, but it's highly unlikely. If I cite a rule and I'm wrong, I will apologize once I'm proven wrong. If the GM has been proven wrong, I would expect the same from them. If the GM or the Player, is still insisting on his side, you have much bigger problems than what's going on in game. Yes, there's a point where arguing with a GM, or with anybody for that matter, becomes useless. But if you've actually reached that point there are issues going on outside the game. I think that is a fair assessment.If that is the definition you wish to use then literally just saying, "I'm not sure that's how it works," and the DM immediately saying, "yeah, your right. I don't even need to look it up, brain fart, my bad," will qualify as being a bad rules lawyer.
I think that's a patently terrible place to start from.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
I didn't use big words... Maybe try actually reading it instead of deciding what I'm going to say ahead of time and then trying to make the words fit that conception?
I made no attack against you. I made a comment and you got defensive.
also, I'm still waiting for you to back up your ad hominem attack against me. I assume you gave up because you know you were both way out of line and way out in left field, so I will accept your apology in lieu of your defense.
Apology accepted.
If an apology I didn't make makes up for an attack I never intended, that's win-win in my book.
Sounds like you would stop the game until you win the argument or left. Is this a fair assessment?It's not a fair assessment because you're assuming the GM is never going to change his mind or see your side. This concept Kain put forward is kind of a big appeal to probability, as I understand it. Sure, it's possible that a disagreement between two parties could result in them coming to a deadlock and nothing ever happens from that point on, but it's highly unlikely. If I cite a rule and I'm wrong, I will apologize once I'm proven wrong. If the GM has been proven wrong, I would expect the same from them. If the GM or the Player, is still insisting on his side, you have much bigger problems than what's going on in game. Yes, there's a point where arguing with a GM, or with anybody for that matter, becomes useless. But if you've actually reached that point there are issues going on outside the game. I think that is a fair assessment.
That has not been my experience at all. I am the DM in my group now, but I have seen bickering and arguing consume the entire night in other games that I have played. To me, that's not fun at all, and so I do not return to those games. But also, in my own games, there is a point at which I say, "this is the temp ruling, we'll figure it out after the game". And at that point, I expect all arguments to stop for the remainder of the session. We have limited time to play, and I'd rather take the group through the gold strewn floors of Opar than bicker over whether or not you can use a swift action while nauseated.
Moreover, I did not "put the concept forward". It was in specific response to the disagreement that was offered against what I thought to be a fairly inoffensive statement (which I didn't make, someone else did), that you make your case, and when the DM rules, you stop.
None of that is 'just in my head'. It is present here in this thread and present in the actual gaming community, which I know encompasses more than my personal experience. But also more than yours or any other single member of the community's.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He is not a 'bad player' because he doesn't just shrug and accept the DM being an idiot - and you implying this is the direct cause of the argument.
If you have a DM who is, in the end, determined not to see things your way, you will still end up choosing between a) giving up and playing along, b) filibustering the game ad nauseam, or c) leaving.
b) will generally be the worst choice of the three.
While just about everyone here agreed that most cases don't need immediate rules discussion or are easily resolved now or later... At some point things stop being that simple. If a GM choses to ignore a clear-cut rule to the detriment of the player, it will piss that player off - and the resulting argument simply cannot be laid squarely on the player's shoulder.
He is not a 'bad player' because he doesn't just shrug and accept the DM being an idiot - and you implying this is the direct cause of the argument.
Including me, yes.
But like Coriat (may I introduce my group's rules lawyer?) has said, filibustering the game is the worst option. No one, least of all me, thinks that the DM is behaving in a proper manner, making the wrong call, and then changing things on the fly so that he is right, you are wrong, especially at the cost of your character. I would not play with that DM further.
But you might. And the guys at your table who aren't losing the character tonight might. So I can't say walking out is the only option. But refusing to let anyone else play until you get your way isn't a good option by any definition. No matter how wrong the DM is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never apologize. I'm sorry, that's just the way I am.Uh-huh...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
going so far as to call him a bad player, in a situation that, to me, is clearly a case of a bad DM.
Are you seeing this as some sort of seesaw where the more wrong the player is, the less wrong the DM can be, and vice versa?
Because, practically speaking, if I am a third party sitting at the table not playing while a rules lawyer and a DM go in circles over a bad ruling, I'd be inclined to invoke a plague on both their houses.
I've done precisely the opposite of put blame on the player for the DM's actions. I've spelled out multiple times that the DM is bad, that I don't agree with their actions, etc.
But, and this is where you seem to refuse to move on past, the DM is the final arbiter of the rules. In fact, right there in the PRD, under 'getting started'
"Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt."
You seem to be hung up on the shared experience and all the players, etc. And I'm saying that final arbitrator means just that. Once they've contributed their thoughts when the rules were in doubt, we turn back to final arbitration.
And once that comes, you're done. You have the choice to prolong the inevitable by arguing, accept it and move on, or accept it and quit.
I don't see why anyone would think that prolonging it was the ideal choice.
The thread is about good and bad rules lawyers and not good and DMs, right?
The rules can declare the Gamemaster to be the supreme god of the universe for all I care. That still does not make it his game at the table, but our game. The GM is on the same team. There is no player versus gamemaster. He is as much responsible for the fun at the table as everyone else, and his role as a gamemaster does not give him any leeway in behaviour.
We're not talking rules here, we are talking social interaction - and that can't be regulated in a rulebook.
And once that comes, you're done. You have the choice to prolong the inevitable by arguing, accept it and move on, or accept it and quit.You seem to be quite hung up that the only choice is for the player to move on or quit - as opposed to the GM getting his act together before the party decides they need a new GM. Or, of course, the GM walks away because he can't cope with whatever it is his players are doing.
Because that's the DM's choice. We're discussing rules lawyers, despite the derail. The DM's choices don't really matter for that. The DM can decide to give in. He can decide he is right, and that is the way the game is going to go until he decides differently. He can decide to kick the offending player out of the game. He can decide to ignore the argument and start running the game, pretending the arguer is not actually there.
The DM actually has a lot more choices in the scenario, because despite statements otherwise, it is the DM's game. Without him the game does not go on. Any single player cannot make that statement, only as a whole, and even then, if replaced with other players, the DM's game goes on, while they have to find another one. It's an imperfect analogy, but consider Paizo, and their customer base. If some customers leave Paizo, Paizo's products continue. If enough of Paizo's customers leave, they shut down, but then no one gets Paizo products. As long as enough remain that Paizo continues to want to produce their products, those who remain will be able to get them.
I'm not saying that the DM can't abuse their greater amount of social capital. I'm simply pointing out that they possess such. You seem to be under the impression that they are equal, and that to point it out is to undermine some principle of fairness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh sure everyone blame Tibet now
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's Tibet?
Tiwager?
The good rules lawyer speaks up once, then shuts up when the GM makes his decision.No. No, absolutely not. The GM is subject to the rules too.
He's...actually not. Like, he's literally stated in the rules to be the arbiter of what rules do and don't apply to the game he is stated to run. He's not the Monster Player, he's the Game Master, the Referee. This power is the only thing that allows him to fudge player deaths, permit crazy stunts, and, oh, yeah, run the f%*!ing game.
If he's changing something that you inherently expect then you have players with mismatched preconceived notions. I can forgive it if the GM is upfront about what will be different during their game, but the GM is subject to the rules like any other player. Throwing a player a curve ball when there's existing rules for something is just going to start a fight.
Okay, a lot of people on this thread are not talking about rules lawyers. They're talking about last-minute house rules.
I know this concept of the GM as the final decision maker on the rules has been well-established in this hobby but it's a silly concept. I don't afford a GM any special treatment just because they're the GM.
Even though the GM is literally running the game and is explicitly intended by the rules to have the final say?
This is, like, the cartoonish idea most "players are entitled" GMs have of the entitled crowd. The player who's so entitled, he holds up the game while he argues the GM's very position as the referee.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being a Gamemaster does not make him exempt from manners and common courtesy
This is the weirdest point made so far. Did anybody say it does? Listen, bro, if the guy you're playing with is not being mannerly and courteous, LEAVE HIS GAME. The rules are not designed to protect you from that, and incessantly arguing them with him is only going to reduce you to his level. The idea that being a rules lawyer is sensible and justified if the GM is a jerk is just so mind-numbingly strange I don't know how it even belongs on this thread. Is that really how gamers try to handle social problems?
nor does it provide any form of special treatment
Actually, it does. It provides a ton of special treatment. Ever heard of Rule Zero? I'm sure you have. But if you think anybody here's arguing that that treatment extends to social conventions...
or protection from being an idiot
...you do realize you can leave this guy's game, right? That'd be better for everyone involved. You don't waste his time, he doesn't waste yours, and nobody wastes the other players' times. According to you, this GM is rude, discourteous, seeks special social treatment and is an idiot to boot.
The GM is subject to exactly as many game rules as he wants to be. This can lead to a GM who never kills players (which can get boring), the GM who kills players deliberately (which is frustrating), and the GM who is constantly making confusing last-minute house rules (which is obnoxious).
The players can start their own game, or discuss the matter with him outside the game, but they have no authority to say, "Uh, actually, that goblin barbarian we're fighting can't have a 16 Strength, there are no natural 18s in the NPC Creation chapter." The Game Master is the Game Master. He's chief storyteller.
The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
The Core Rulebook acknowledges that thoughts should be shared and the Game Master should explain his decisions, but states, very plainly, that "the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules".
That much cannot be disputed. I know you're trying to turn this into another "power-mad GM" thread, but this is literally how the rules are written. This is the amount of power the GM gets. Whether he goes mad with that...well, that's up to him and his shrink.
I think you are having an entirely different discussion than everybody else.
Having taken over for a GM myself, and having handed over the GM post to someone else... nope. Fallacy. If no one else is willing to GM that might hold some sort of limited truth to it, but only then.
It becomes the new GM's game. Even if you are following notes that explain that Lavinia and Vanthus Vanderboren are really aspects of Demogorgon, you now have the responsibility for everything in the world. You may make calls that I wouldn't. You may make calls that I would. But no matter how closely it resembles my game, it is no longer mine. If you decide that the Aventi priestess is just using the party's wizard as a setup to an aquatic invasion, that's your call, no matter how far it might have been from where I was intending to take that thread. If I hand off a half woven blanket to you, the half you weave is 'yours', even if the blanket as a whole is 'ours'.
But even from that standpoint, the game was handed off BY THE GM, to his or her handpicked successor.
And a GM has to find new players first, too - they do not magically appear in complete groups while that other complete group can't possibly hope to find replacement.
Completely irrelevant to the presence or lack of ownership.
Plus, as to his game not going on: A campaign can be salvaged right from the point where you left off. It might lead elsewhere as the original GM intended, but that's not a problem by itself.
Not a problem, simply not the same game.
Completely new players on the other hand mean you basically need to start a new campaign. You can't just 'drop them in' where the other guys left off.
Yeah you can. Done it for years now. To paraphrase Tim Curry's Cardinal Richelieu, "Players come and players go, but one thing remains the same. And that, is me."