Operator Error is The Biggest Cause of Problems in RPGs


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


So, a little while ago I wrote a post titled Operator Error is The Biggest Cause of Problems in RPGs. It got a lot of people agreeing, but there was also a lot of push back. People who felt I was undermining the rights of DMs to change the game to suit their table, or that I was demanding players play a certain way (which kind of ignores that I'm some mook on the Internet, and the only power I have is that of persuasion).

However, throughout the various discussions, I noticed there seem to be two groups of gamers. Those in my camp who feel the books should be read and understood, and that if there's a disagreement it should be looked up, and the rule read aloud for the table. Then there are other players who feel that a DM should just make a ruling on the fly whenever someone isn't sure about something, because to do otherwise would kill the pace of the game.

I don't expect DMs to be perfect. I'm certainly not, and my players are well aware of it. Sometimes rules are ambiguous, or it takes an extra minute to find the applicable section you need, even with our advanced technology. But I don't understand the aversion to actually looking up rules so you're running with what's in the book instead of what you half-remember, or how your last group did it, or how it runs in the organized game you play.

When in doubt, go to the source. It shuts down at least half the arguments, and making people look stuff up leads to them actually remembering what they searched for.


I'm in the Make the Ruling and move on camp. You can always look up the rule later, at leisure, and learn it for use next time. I don't spend more than a few minutes on any rule disputes or lookups when I GM. Anything longer just bores the table.


I'm in the camp of not letting operators have a say at all. Besides they're too busy with people calling them to get the police, ask what time it is and making collect calls.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think the proper solution in most cases is between them. The GM makes the best ruling they can, making it clear to players that is what they are doing. Then they have the responsibility to look up the proper answer before the next gaming session and update the players.


Game time is precious. If you can look it up quickly or while the game is paused for something else to happen, then do it. But if it's going to take a while and you're going to be eating into your limited time to play a social game with friends by poring through tomes instead of "actually playing the game" then make a ruling and move on.

In between games, however, someone should look up the actual rule or FAQ and before the next session if the actual rule appears different from the ruling made in the last game, discuss with the people at the table whether we like it better the way we already did it once, or the way somebody else says to play it and whatever we agree on we'll go from there.

But I've been playing tabletop games since the 80s, and I legitimately have never encountered a game I have not felt could be improved by ignoring, changing, or expanding upon some rule in some printed material somewhere. These books are guidelines, not holy texts. You're not playing them wrong if everybody at the table has agreed to play them differently.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Our group adopted the policy of make a quick ruling then look it up at the end of the session or between sessions.


I will say that, for me, I've never taken more than 40 seconds to find a given rule. So I suppose I'm confused about how people can dig for 5 minutes at a time to find something when it typically doesn't take me any longer than a few falling grains of sand to find something as a player. Especially with access to tools like Pathfinder's app, and the d20pfsrd.

The other point I would make, and it's been unstated up to this point, is that when a DM ruling will have serious, long-reaching consequences, it is worth stopping to look up.

For example, an invisible assassin shanks the barbarian, and the sheer amount of sneak attack damage would kill the character outright. However, in this case, the DM is totally unfamiliar with how Uncanny Dodge works, and doesn't realize that said assassin won't be able to catch the barbarian flat-footed, and thus gets no sneak attack damage dice. It's even possible that if the attacker was depending on the bonus from being invisible to hit that the attack might miss entirely.

I wish this was a theoretical example, but it's cropped up more than once since, in my experience, most folks who sit behind the screen haven't actually read the book in more detail than their players have.


I mean, the "Uncanny Dodge" example is a thing that should be fixed by the player knowing how his or her own stuff works.

When I'm talking about "looking things up" it's about obscure interactions, not about "really straightforward cases of this is literally what the class feature in question does."

If it's an odd interaction, I really don't think "long-reaching consequences" are a problem. I had a campaign that ran for seven years and went through three different editions where rulings made in the first month persisted throughout and became beloved quirks of the physics of the game universe not some sort of albatross. (Specifically was the question of "do teleportation effects like dimension door preserve linear momentum", and by the end of the campaign this became the preferred method of siege warfare in the setting).

I mean, the rulebooks don't tell you how to make the game fun. It's up to the players and the GM to make the game fun, and sometimes that's going to involve ignoring the rulebook. The reason it takes a while to look up rules sometimes is that some rules are in odd places. If a player asks how rope trick works on a moving ship, and you don't have the Skull and Shackles player's guide handy (because, for example, you are not playing Skull and Shackles), it might take a while to find. Sometimes questions come up that don't even have official answers (see the Shielded Gauntlet Style and Bardic Masterpiece kerfuffles in the rules forum).


Typically our gaming group looks up rules as needed. This usually doesn't happen very often so it rarely breaks immersion. I and one of my players are practically rules encyclopedias.


I prefer to go to the book. If it is something that is vague I will make a ruling for now and look it up after the gane.


Neal Litherland wrote:

But I don't understand the aversion to actually looking up rules so you're running with what's in the book instead of what you half-remember, or how your last group did it, or how it runs in the organized game you play.

When in doubt, go to the source. It shuts down at least half the arguments, and making people look stuff up leads to them actually remembering what they searched for.

For me, it's because "adhering to what's written in the book" has negligible value. We don't have "the arguments" you refer to as being shut down, so that's perhaps part of it.

Our view is that what's written in any rulebook is a guideline. As such, why put any effort looking up a guideline if the DM doesn't need it?

For the record, rules inconsistencies across sessions don't bother me at all. If one day I have to roll less than my strength on a d20 to open a door, then tomorrow we use an "open doors chance" d6, then the day after the DM just says "it opens" it really doesn't impact on my game (it's far more immersion breaking to me if, when following the rules, the weakling Mage opens the door that the brutish barbarian fails to).


I use my laptop when I GM, so finding a rule in the book takes 10 seconds. If we cannot find the rule in 20 seconds I simply give a suggestion and ask my players if they have any issues with that ruling.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Neal Litherland wrote:

But I don't understand the aversion to actually looking up rules so you're running with what's in the book instead of what you half-remember, or how your last group did it, or how it runs in the organized game you play.

When in doubt, go to the source. It shuts down at least half the arguments, and making people look stuff up leads to them actually remembering what they searched for.

For me, it's because "adhering to what's written in the book" has negligible value. We don't have "the arguments" you refer to as being shut down, so that's perhaps part of it.

Our view is that what's written in any rulebook is a guideline. As such, why put any effort looking up a guideline if the DM doesn't need it?

For the record, rules inconsistencies across sessions don't bother me at all. If one day I have to roll less than my strength on a d20 to open a door, then tomorrow we use an "open doors chance" d6, then the day after the DM just says "it opens" it really doesn't impact on my game (it's far more immersion breaking to me if, when following the rules, the weakling Mage opens the door that the brutish barbarian fails to).

I will preface the following statement by saying that if that is what works for you as a player, and your group, then I support you playing however makes you happy.

With that said, why bother having the rules at all if you aren't willing to actually read them and look them up in the situations where they matter?

From where I sit, the rules are one of the most important parts of the game, because they're what the players and the DM agree is the reality of this world. So if, in one session, my DM agrees that yes, hide in plain sight means I can be standing right in front of someone, and still make that Stealth check, that is the reality we've agreed on. If the next session my strategy is rendered invalid because the DM doesn't like it anymore, that means reality has changed without my consent.

For me, changing the rules on the fly (or not bothering to know them in the first place) is no different than changing elements of the PCs' personal stories from session to session. I wouldn't let the DM change my character's personal appearance, or the god they worship, or who their family is after we already set those facts in stone at creation. So I therefore object to DMs who are loosy goosy with rules, just doing whatever feels right at the moment, since those rules affect the way my character can or can't function and achieve in the game world.

That's my views on it, but to reiterate my starting point, I am not suggesting everyone has to play my way, or that my methods/philosophy is more right than anyone else's. I just have trouble understanding why players/groups who don't care so much about a game's rules would choose a game that is as rules dense as PF to play when there are so many lighter alternatives.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Neal,
You're heading from mildly judgmental to annoyingly judgmental. I understand your feelings that non-RULE oriented games seem to cheapen the not-inconsiderable effort you have put into rules-mastery. It doesn't make "Them" wrong, nor "You" right. It still comes down to a simple matter of taste. The concept of the One True Way is still as seductive as it is fallacious.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, I GM something like 12 different rules systems on and off. The reason we play Pathfinder sometimes is that people want something comparatively denser, or that supports more kinds of options, or that has a game-feel that other games do not. It's not that we want something maximally dense.

From where I sit the rules have two purposes:
1) To resolve "Bang! You're dead"/"No I'm not" scenarios by having something everyone can agree on.
2) To resolve "I have no idea how this is supposed to work" scenarios by having something to refer to.

Beyond that, the rules really have no value. If everybody at the table is able to agree on how the rules should work, there's really no need to even crack a rulebook. The game, after all, is in service to the players and not the other way around. If it's a matter of "people at the table can't agree on something to work" it's about as likely to be a people problem as it is a "insufficient rules mastery" problem and no amount of rulebooks can solve the former.

There's a reason that the fundamental rule of tabletop RPGs is the one that says you can ignore or change the rules as you see fit. If people can agree on it working one way on cloudy tuesdays, a different way when there's pizza in the room, and a third way otherwise because that's the most fun for them for whatever reason I'll roll with that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Daw wrote:

Neal,

You're heading from mildly judgmental to annoyingly judgmental. I understand your feelings that non-RULE oriented games seem to cheapen the not-inconsiderable effort you have put into rules-mastery. It doesn't make "Them" wrong, nor "You" right. It still comes down to a simple matter of taste. The concept of the One True Way is still as seductive as it is fallacious.

Also, there was a shift in example there that might have been important. From:

Quote:
If one day I have to roll less than my strength on a d20 to open a door, then tomorrow we use an "open doors chance" d6, then the day after the DM just says "it opens" it really doesn't impact on my game.
to:
Quote:
So if, in one session, my DM agrees that yes, hide in plain sight means I can be standing right in front of someone, and still make that Stealth check, that is the reality we've agreed on. If the next session my strategy is rendered invalid because the DM doesn't like it anymore, that means reality has changed without my consent.

One involves a difference in resolution, probably with minimal impact and the other involves negating what's likely a character's main ability. Both can be described as "rules inconsistency", but not only are they vastly different in scale, but in how closely they tie to character concept.

I suspect most on the less rules-oriented end are thinking more of the first and most on the rules are most important end are thinking more of the latter - worst case scenarios, if you will.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I am very much a "mostly by the rules" person I think this is coming off as a "one true way" type of argument.

Personally I wouldn't like a rules-lite game, bit I wouldn't label it as a "problem" if the group is happy with it.

Now if the reluctance to look up rules is a problem that is different, but most groups use something they are ok with.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Is there really a point to this thread besides the OP telling people how to play their game? (and advertising his blog)?


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Zaister wrote:
Is there really a point to this thread besides the OP telling people how to play their game? (and advertising his blog)?

Lol, nope.


Missionary Zeal is a common Human trait?


Neal Litherland wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

For me, it's because "adhering to what's written in the book" has negligible value. We don't have "the arguments" you refer to as being shut down, so that's perhaps part of it.

Our view is that what's written in any rulebook is a guideline. As such, why put any effort looking up a guideline if the DM doesn't need it?

For the record, rules inconsistencies across sessions don't bother me at all. If one day I have to roll less than my strength on a d20 to open a door, then tomorrow we use an "open doors chance" d6, then the day after the DM just says "it opens" it really doesn't impact on my game (it's far more immersion breaking to me if, when following the rules, the weakling Mage opens the door that the brutish barbarian fails to).

I will preface the following statement by saying that if that is what works for you as a player, and your group, then I support you playing however makes you happy.

With that said, why bother having the rules at all if you aren't willing to actually read them and look them up in the situations where they matter?

As I said - it doesn't matter (to us). I didn't mean to imply that I don't read the rules, I just treat almost all of them as suggestions.

Quote:
From where I sit, the rules are one of the most important parts of the game, because they're what the players and the DM agree is the reality of this world.

For me they're the least important - every RPG is a terrible model of reality, putting effort into sticking with one specific, terrible model over another doesn't seem like much of a gain, to me. The rules are still not emulating anything like a "reality" very well, in my opinion.

Quote:
So if, in one session, my DM agrees that yes, hide in plain sight means I can be standing right in front of someone, and still make that Stealth check, that is the reality we've agreed on. If the next session my strategy is rendered invalid because the DM doesn't like it anymore, that means reality has changed without my consent.

Thejeff hit the nail on the head here. I wouldn't do this because the narrative doesn't make sense (what you could do yesterday you should be able to do today). I just don't really care if your chance of success one day is 48% and the next it's 58% because we neglected some bonus. The story isn't enhanced for me by putting effort into getting that right.

Quote:
For me, changing the rules on the fly (or not bothering to know them in the first place) is no different than changing elements of the PCs' personal stories from session to session. I wouldn't let the DM change my character's personal appearance, or the god they worship, or who their family is after we already set those facts in stone at creation. So I therefore object to DMs who are loosy goosy with rules, just doing whatever feels right at the moment, since those rules affect the way my character can or can't function and achieve in the game world.

I think it's objectively different. I can appreciate that both things are equally sacrosanct to you. Nonetheless, if you find it hard to understand someone playing the game where story, character and setting are what matters and the nitty gritty of how tasks are resolved doesn't, perhaps you should consider the differences (you don't have to give up your preference for equal weighting to do so).

Quote:
That's my views on it, but to reiterate my starting point, I am not suggesting everyone has to play my way, or that my methods/philosophy is more right than anyone else's. I just have trouble understanding why players/groups who don't care so much about a game's rules would choose a game that is as rules dense as PF to play when there are so many lighter alternatives.

Sometimes the DM wants to run a module without doing any conversion work. Sometimes a player wants to play a specific class that would take a lot of effort to convert.

In my case, I'm usually the DM and I take the view that ruleset matters more to players (especially given our "loosey goosey" style) As such, I leave choice of system to them so will often play a game that doesn't really suit my preferences.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

While I am very much a "mostly by the rules" person I think this is coming off as a "one true way" type of argument.

Personally I wouldn't like a rules-lite game, bit I wouldn't label it as a "problem" if the group is happy with it.

Now if the reluctance to look up rules is a problem that is different, but most groups use something they are ok with.

There's also a huge difference between using a rules-lite system and not playing by the rules in a rules heavy system. A rules light game is designed around that premise and generally has broad rules for handling the details that it doesn't bother having separate explicit rules for.


I also think that rules dense systems by their nature are going to more often than not throw off conundrums that might require decision making on the fly. We all know there are little odd details, inconsistencies, and gray or subjective areas in Pathfinder. Rules in these sorts of situations are often less discrete than they are continuous. So just because I know what happens in situation 1 and situation two, doesn't mean I am prepared for situation 1.43, or situation 2.56. Add in any complications from setting specific rules or home rules, and this increases.


Daw wrote:
Missionary Zeal is a common Human trait?

Which book is that trait out of; I don't see it on the SRD. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have successfully stopped myself from posting (RW) Wiki's list of religious texts, but it was a near thing. (It is still in my clipboard as I type this.)

I am glad my poor attempts at humor are recognized :)


Most of the time consuming and annoying rules questions involve interpretations and interactions. That's when you're trawling through forum posts to get an explanation rather than just turning to a page in the book.

In these circumstances it's best to make a judgement and move on. As has been said, the game isn't improved by mid game navel gazing. That said I encourage my players to avoid edge cases and bizarre or perverse combinations of skills and powers so these are rarer than they could be. Luckily.


I have a long list of houserules and interpretations, largely drawn from comments and scenarios posted on this board that I present at the start of a campaign or as they turn up here (the latest being wand use whilst pinned being the and a note to ignore the FAQ on traps needing to be searched to be spotted...)

Before sessions I try and prep by creating a MS word document of the relevant parts of the adventure and any particular monster rules so I have all the information I think I need together for any given encounter.

In session I have several personal guidelines that I have shared with the group:
Rule 0 - the game is meant to be fun for all involved. As a subset to this if a game starts turning into a GM v players scenario we stop and discuss our grievances, agree on a solution and move on. On more than one occasion I have stated OOC that the party are being impacted by things they are not yet aware of and asked for their trust. Later, after the events have passed I have shown them my timelines for other groups and shown that they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The rule of cool - if somebody is inventive and there are no clear rules to cover it, let it succeed and sort out the mechanics for future use after the session.

Anti-cheese - if somebody is gaming the turn based mechanics and breaking the simulation for advantage or trying to gain a gross power advantage, firmly disallow it.

Be pro-player - if something falls between the rule of cool and anti-cheese, allow it for the session and review afterwards.

Fortunately (outside of these boards), I don't come across cheese very often. But when I do it is usually obvious as it breaks verisimilitude and places the RAW above RAI.


Daw wrote:

Neal,

You're heading from mildly judgmental to annoyingly judgmental. I understand your feelings that non-RULE oriented games seem to cheapen the not-inconsiderable effort you have put into rules-mastery. It doesn't make "Them" wrong, nor "You" right. It still comes down to a simple matter of taste. The concept of the One True Way is still as seductive as it is fallacious.

As I repeated twice, I am not suggesting my way of playing is right, or better, than anyone else's. If anything, people who aren't as concerned with RAW as I am seem to have MORE fun at their tables.

What I'm saying is that I don't understand why players who don't place importance on game rules would pick such a rules dense game to play. I'm not saying anyone else is incorrect, I'm saying that I am confused. The fault here is that I can't understand that choice. From where I'm sitting it feels like someone who buys a really complicated car with all the modern bells and whistles on it, but who doesn't really use them, and isn't really interested in making use of them.

It's still a functional car, and it gets you from A to B, but wouldn't it be easier to just forego all the stuff you're not going to use?


Neal Litherland wrote:
Daw wrote:

Neal,

You're heading from mildly judgmental to annoyingly judgmental. I understand your feelings that non-RULE oriented games seem to cheapen the not-inconsiderable effort you have put into rules-mastery. It doesn't make "Them" wrong, nor "You" right. It still comes down to a simple matter of taste. The concept of the One True Way is still as seductive as it is fallacious.

As I repeated twice, I am not suggesting my way of playing is right, or better, than anyone else's. If anything, people who aren't as concerned with RAW as I am seem to have MORE fun at their tables.

What I'm saying is that I don't understand why players who don't place importance on game rules would pick such a rules dense game to play. I'm not saying anyone else is incorrect, I'm saying that I am confused. The fault here is that I can't understand that choice. From where I'm sitting it feels like someone who buys a really complicated car with all the modern bells and whistles on it, but who doesn't really use them, and isn't really interested in making use of them.

It's still a functional car, and it gets you from A to B, but wouldn't it be easier to just forego all the stuff you're not going to use?

My players choose the system, as I said. In your analogy, they say "We've bought a whizbang car, would you drive us somewhere?" and I turn off power-steering (or perhaps more accurately those stupid sensors that beep when you get too close to stuff. I hate them!).

Or they say "I want to play an alchemist and they don't exist in Swords and Wizardry" so I say "let's play Pathfinder". The analogy here would be them wanting electric windows, so I buy a modern car (but choose to not get automatic transmission).

Is it really hard to understand? I think you're just focussed on the specific mechanics or task-resolutions being important - which is fine, but not a universal position to adopt. In my mind, the rules of an RPG really matter very little. I play every RPG almost exactly the same way as I have since the 70s - we get passing familiarity with the rules, then roll up characters and stumble our way through fights/exploration/roleplaying based on vague memories of what the book said and what seems to make sense to us. Over time with a system we get quicker and quicker at solving queries, but it's unlikely we're getting closer and closer to RAW. Trying to emulate RAW brings no value in my mind (my personal view is that there is literally no such thing as RAW anyhow, but that's a separate debate).

I consider the most significant difference between Shadowrun and Pathfinder to be the genre and the setting.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Any given week, I have approximently 62 balls in the air, with the spouse and the kids and the more-than-full-time-job and the yard work and the soccer game Saturday and on and on.

So, I have very little free time. What time I have to spend on gaming goes into adventure prep. In my world, system mastery is a huge waste of time because the system is constantly changing and, to me, system mastery isn't worth the time it takes. All that Pathfinder system mastery doesnt mean anything when you eventually move to another system. Good GM practices, like efficient prep and how to rule on the fly, are very portable gaming skills.

Also, I'm not reading your blog.

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Neal Litherland wrote:
What I'm saying is that I don't understand why players who don't place importance on game rules would pick such a rules dense game to play.

Because that's what the other members of the group want to play. Because it's easy for them to find a game in their area. Because the like the campaign setting that's it's heavily tied to. Because they like the books. There are lots of valid reasons. This ain't rocket science.

-Skeld


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Neal,

Do you realize your title and posting follow-ons equate lack of rule-mastery to Operator Error. You chose some of your words somewhat poorly to convey your message.

Steve said most of it better than I would, so just adding one little-big-thing.
I am far more interested in Paizo's Flavor Ideas, than a whole lot of their wargame heavy rules. I warn Rulesmasters that their skillset may be a disadvantage for them in my game, and seriously encourage players to prescreen clever ideas with me outside of playtime. One of my older players coined the phrase, "Cheese Kills, Dell."

I have GMed many game systems over the past 40 years. I don't need or want the level of restriction the level of density and precision a lot of Pathfinder rules strive for. I have run a series of games where characters wer from different rules system, one upping Dave on it by not converting the base systems to a common one. It was wildly successful, but after doing it at 3 conventions, the effort involved paled the novelty for me. Having a Chivalry and Sorcery Necromancer(?) and an Arduin Rune-Singer stop and, awestruck, ask the Rune-Priestess of Humakt, "You just Asked your God to directly (Divine) Intervene, and he just turned off the Demon's regeneration, and made him stay dead throughout the multiverses?" Answer back, "Of course he did, I have earned the Right to ask, he is the True God of Death, and I payed the heavy price of the request."

The reason non-Rule games often seem funner, is that more interesting things can happen when you aren't so focused on the rules. Still just a matter of taste though.


When I GM, I try to quickly look up anything we're not sure of, but I don't like to grind the game to a halt to do so. In that case, I make a quick ruling, so we can continue playing and then I research anything I had questions about between sessions.


If it is a rule about a player character ability both the GM and the player should already be familiar with the rule. If you are playing a class it is your responsibility as a player to know your class. I can understand cutting a new player some slack, but a player that does not bother to learn his abilities should not be playing a character with that ability.

As a GM you have a limited number of PC’s and it is not that hard to look up the rules for what they can do. This is assuming that the GM knows what the players are playing. For the most part the GM should have a copy of any character in a campaign he is running. The exception is of course for PFS play, but this is not a PFS forum .

If it is for something outside the abilities of the character the GM should make a temporary ruling and then look into the matter between sessions.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It's quite possibly to like to richness of the ruleset without agreeing with every single rule! So we change the rules that we don't like, while keeping those (most of them) that we do like. If there are any problems this causes, we deal with them and move on. I find this far better than assuming the inerrancy of Paizo.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Lack of communication is the biggest cause of problems in RPGs. Second is lack of maturity to handle communication.

Lack of rules mastery is like, way down on the list.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Our group adopted the policy of make a quick ruling then look it up at the end of the session or between sessions.

This has been my policy since I was playing AD&D back in the '80s...


PK the Dragon wrote:

Lack of communication is the biggest cause of problems in RPGs. Second is lack of maturity to handle communication.

Lack of rules mastery is like, way down on the list.

I had been thinking of this, trying to enumerate the failure states that are possible for a tabletop roleplaying game and I'm pretty much just coming back to-

"The players and the GM did not have a good time with the game"

as representative of all of them, and trying to enumerate all the reasons someone might not be having fun seems foolish. Since things like "It is too cold in the room you are playing in" or "a car plowed into the living room of the house you were playing in" (this happened to me once, everyone was okay) are sort of beyond your control.

It seems like most cases where insufficient rules mastery might cause someone to have a bad time when they otherwise would not have are mostly people problems (person A knows the rule, person B does not believe them, and clash occurs).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The past year or so, my IRL gaming has mostly been with the rules-light systems Fate Accelerated and various Apocalypse Engine games (mostly Dungeon World).

While playing Pathfinder in PbP is fun, I've been missing the D&D family of games at an actual table with people I actually know (and can cook for). Last week, I emailed all of my local gamer friends to try to put together a new D&D group. I specifically said that I wanted to run something in the D&D/OGL family of games, and while I would prefer running Pathfinder, I'd be willing to run the game in D&D 5e, Swords & Wizardry, or True 20 if that's what a majority of players wanted.

One of my friends suggested, "Anything but Pathfinder."

Her actual quote was: "I'm interested, but based on my past experience I can't say I was thrilled with the Pathfinder system. We seemed to spend more time looking up rules than actually role playing. I would rather use a system where we spent the majority of game time role playing."


PossibleCabbage wrote:
PK the Dragon wrote:

Lack of communication is the biggest cause of problems in RPGs. Second is lack of maturity to handle communication.

Lack of rules mastery is like, way down on the list.

I had been thinking of this, trying to enumerate the failure states that are possible for a tabletop roleplaying game and I'm pretty much just coming back to-

"The players and the GM did not have a good time with the game"

as representative of all of them, and trying to enumerate all the reasons someone might not be having fun seems foolish. Since things like "It is too cold in the room you are playing in" or "a car plowed into the living room of the house you were playing in" (this happened to me once, everyone was okay) are sort of beyond your control.

It seems like most cases where insufficient rules mastery might cause someone to have a bad time when they otherwise would not have are mostly people problems (person A knows the rule, person B does not believe them, and clash occurs).

To the last, I've had at least one case where insufficient rules mastery on the GM's part led to a ridiculously long drawn out fight and nearly to the deaths of several PCs. No actual personal clashes, since it was all on how the villain's powers worked, which we didn't know and thus couldn't correct. (Champions game: An enemy with high ED/PD and Damage Reduction. The GM was applying Damage Reduction first, then the PD, making almost impossible to hurt him. It was as much a math failure as anything. He didn't see until shown afterwards that it should make a difference, but 40/2-20 is a lot different than (40-20)/2.)

More broadly, "Did not have a good time" is the end state I guess, but it's not very useful for figuring out how to have a good time unless you can talk about Why you didn't have a good time.
Not having a car plow into the living room would be pretty high on the list, but you're not likely to be able to avoid that by changing game systems. :)

I'm not sure about anyone else, but the title of this thread seems right to me, while the actual post does not. "Operator Error" is a lot broader than "Look up the rule" or even any kind of rules misunderstanding. Probably so broad as to be essentially useless. :)


IME the problem occurs with rushed sessions.... th best sessions I feel are about 6 hours with a couple of short breaks.

Ive been to meet ups where the sessions were only about 3 1/2 hours and its just not enough to get into things properly.

Also most PFS players are a real pain in non-PFS games...


The more years I game, the more I'm in favor of the GM making a ruling and moving on. I will add to that though:

-Of course we should improve our rules knowledge and make doing so unneccesary! Know your character's abilities and research how they work. When you have an idea to use an old ability is a new way, do the research. When you think the GM misunderstands how something should have played out in-game, have a conversation afterwards or send an e-mail so it can be resolved before the next session.

-A keen player can anticipate when something fishy is happening or is about to happen and then look up an obscure rule while the other players take their turns, so that time loss is minimized. If you have the book opened to the relevant section and can read the important part quickly, the GM should allow it so the game can proceed

-Some situations can have more critical results when a ruling falls one way or the other. Even if the GM prefers to rule and move on, he or she should be willing to halt play to figure things out depending on the situation. If he or she doesn't want to halt play, then he or she should be willing to err on the side or ruling in the character's favor.


doc roc wrote:

IME the problem occurs with rushed sessions.... th best sessions I feel are about 6 hours with a couple of short breaks.

Ive been to meet ups where the sessions were only about 3 1/2 hours and its just not enough to get into things properly.

Ah, 6-hour gaming sessions. I remember those.

With a number of exceptions I can count on two hands, I've not had the luxury of playing in a 6-hour game session since the '90s.

As a gamer in his late 40s (and the only gamer in his household), 6-hour sessions are practically impossible for me to do. Weekends are family time.

My group games on a weeknight, from 7-11 PM (a 4-hour slot). It's rare for everyone to assemble before 7:30, and the 11:00 end-time is a hard stop. (I have a 30-minute drive home, and I get up at 5 AM.) Between chit-chat and food, we're lucky to get 3 hours of play in a given session... and 2 1/2 is more likely.

Consequently, my group does not have the luxury of wasting any time looking up rules at the table. When in doubt, the GM makes a table ruling and we carry on. We can look stuff up between sessions. If we got it wrong, we'll use the right rule in the future... unless we liked the table ruling better!

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Operator Error is The Biggest Cause of Problems in RPGs All Messageboards

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