|
My standard answer is 'this is how we're running it. we can figure out the rule after the game'. The best part is, by the end of the game, the players have forgotten the argument.
If I was in your group, you would have gotten 500-ish emails from me on the subject ahead of the next session.
"Calistria does not forgive, she does not forget, and any evidence otherwise is part of her plan to sting you in the most painful way possible when you least expect it."
(That last bit was added for dramatic effect.)
I don't understand the problem. If there's a legitimate question on rules, I ask someone to look it up. If it's ambiguous, I make a ruling and we keep playing. After the game we can discuss it. Our sessions have never been destroyed by rules arguments.
Then again, I play with LOTS of houserules -- hundreds of pages of them. On which the players are allowed to VOTE, with me (as the author) abstaining in the vote except to break a tie. Indeed, any number of those houserules are player-driven -- for example, TOZ contributed heavily to the evolution of our Weapon Finesse (and by extension, a number of like feats), and also paved the way for monster classes; Jess Door provided an awesome fix for detect magic, added some needed feats, and provided invaluable feedback on what things weren't working well; houstonderek was instrumental in proposing a lot of the changes to the combat chassis we made; Silverhair provided an entire panteon of dwarven gods.
If you can't cooperate with your players, and if they don't learn to trust you in return, then you can't have a good game. It's as simple as that.
See? Even Kirth "gets it".
Repeat after me.
See? Even Kirth "gets it".
Repeat after me.
My only gripe is when someone starts a thread on how best to houserule things, and it's immediately drowned in a sea of "it's fine," "don't change anything ever," and "my group likes it as-is and yours should, too" comments.
You obviously didn't spend enough time in the edition war threads. That link was tossed around more than hand grenades.EDIT: Also this just makes me think of this... comicNinja'ed me as I was about to do that. Inception.
You fought in the edition wars against the empire?
It turns out arguing about rules is way easier to do than discussing creative adventure ideas.
If you don't like the threads about rules stuff, don't read them. Start some threads about what you do want to talk about.
I think what Deinol is trying to say is that we need more ENFPs posting. Agreed!
What a charming subset of the Pathfinder population we are. We're so obsessed that we spend our free time posting about how other people post about the game.
Or in my case... posting about posting about posting.
Play more, complain less!
People should also discuss more important stuff, like how I was totally framed by those bastard Tudors.
|
But just as with Wraithstrike's comment, what you say sounds lovely. If every gaming group ran that smoothly then this would be a much more popular hobby. IF your group indeed runs just that smooth, then you are a lucky, lucky ogre.
Unfortunately, just as Urizen pointed out above, when someone is hard-set on getting their point across(kinda like I sound now) it doesn't end with "just a house rule and move on." In the case he mentioned with the player referring to Vegas gambling, everyone at the table was pleading to just "house-rule it and move on." He wouldn't budge. This stopped the game in it's tracks. Thankfully by the time his tirade was over, it was time to end the session anyway, so we left it at that.
This sounds un-fun. I have uninvited people from my game who made it un-fun. I have likewise left games that are un-fun.
If it were a one off I could deal with it, if it happened more than once someone would be leaving, either me or one of the participants in these endless rules debates.
My time is too precious to engage in that kind of BS.
Homerule it and get over it.
I think Jason should get this tattooed on body. Maybe a nice big back piece, with flames.
Hahahaha! Awesome, Sutter.
I have uninvited people from my game who made it un-fun. I have likewise left games that are un-fun.
Yes to both -- especially the second. And people have left my home game, which I consider a legitimate and proper thing to do if it wasn't the kind of game they were looking for or if other aspects of life got in the way or whatever.
My only gripe is when someone starts a thread on how best to houserule things, and it's immediately drowned in a sea of "it's fine," "don't change anything ever," and "my group likes it as-is and yours should, too" comments.See? Even Kirth "gets it".
Repeat after me.
But is IS fine!
It's fine.
|
|
Well, duh. You're an 0gre, D. Who in their right mind is going to argue with you at the table? I've been at the opposite end of those crits and let me tell you, they're not pretty. It's worse than Gallagher taking a sledgehammer to a ripe watermelon.
Of course, using the declarative 'never', you've angered karma and she will reward you with one of those players at an upcoming con. You've ran away from the inevitability long enough, sir. ;-)
:D
I don't go to a lot of cons. I do go to local game shops for PFS though and I have had some of 'those players'. Ultimately the disruption in the game caused by character XXX doing munchkiny thing YYYY is less than any argument. So I cave on a fair number of issues simply because being right is less important than having fun.
My only gripe is when someone starts a thread on how best to houserule things, and it's immediately drowned in a sea of "it's fine," "don't change anything ever," and "my group likes it as-is and yours should, too" comments.See? Even Kirth "gets it".
Repeat after me.
But is IS fine!
It's fine.
I feel fine. (May be it's just because we are finally to MY AP.)
|
But, but...arguing on teh interwebz ad nauseum is an inane human right.My eyes are bleeding right now reading some of the threads on the board and instead of just cutting into the middle of the thread to say what I'm thinking a hundred times over because of the distress of one little rule ret-con change, I'm going to say it here:
Homerule it. And get over it.
Feel free to voice or rant a situation you ran into where one player or GM went berserk on a rule and wouldn't let it go despite you could easily homerule it and continue on with the game. Because those type of players, the Rulius Magisterius, needs these changes to be codified as the only means to satisfy him.
** spoiler omitted **
FIFY
:)
|
My only gripe is when someone starts a thread on how best to houserule things, and it's immediately drowned in a sea of "it's fine," "don't change anything ever," and "my group likes it as-is and yours should, too" comments.See? Even Kirth "gets it".
Repeat after me.
But is IS fine!
It's fine.
WOOO +8 AC bonus!
.
.ah... rules lawyering... isn't it the second most favorite pastime of gamers?
.
We have a pretty competitive group (but let's not get into a discussion about "winning" D&D, please). When I GM I have three other GMs as players in our rather large group of six to seven players.
Everyone has an opinion. I am willing to admit when I'm wrong and I have been wrong in the past. That's the great thing about my group is that they have shown me things about the rules of this game that I didn't know or interpreted wrong even though I've been playing for ages. I am grateful to them for this.
However, I found that arguments over the rules tend to happen later in the evening, when people start to get tired.
I am starting to suggest we take more breaks every two or three hours.
As the GM I feel it is my job to present a fair and fun gaming environment.
I want everyone to have fun. That's why we're gaming, remember? However, sometimes you do have to make a ruling and just move on. If your player has a problem, discuss it with them in private later.
I'd rather focus more on the story and moving the plot along than arguing over stealth for the umpteenth time. If you the GM believes something is clearly broken, discuss it with your player outside of the game, and move on.
P.S. on a side note, I'm looking forward to the day when we move my campaign to a Pathfinder only (no 3.5 stuff) because I suspect it will further decrease any confusion/disagreement over the rules.
P.S. on a side note, I'm looking forward to the day when we move my campaign to a Pathfinder only (no 3.5 stuff) because I suspect it will further decrease any confusion/disagreement over the rules.
After playing in a PF only game for the better part of 2 years I can only say that dosent help. Eeven so, I still encourage you to transition to an all PF setup.
Yar!
Sorry, but I'm a bit confused. The OP started off by saying this:
My eyes are bleeding right now reading some of the threads on the board and instead of just cutting into the middle of the thread to say what I'm thinking a hundred times over because of the distress of one little rule ret-con change, I'm going to say it here: ...
Then wraithstrike posted specifically about why there are long, detailed, and sometimes even heated rules discussion threads in the rules forum, with a legitimate point about how frustrating it is when trying to discuss the rules in the rules forum, usually for the explicit purpose of helping someone find clarification in a confusing situation, to have someone come in and say "just house rule it and move on", because often, that is EXACTLY what happened in real life, and the GM then came here to get a clarification on what should have happened so that in future games, he can make a more educated and rules accurate call.
And then he gets jumped on for it, the main argument against him being "you're so lucky you have a group that does that" when he was not talking about his group, but the threads posted on this forum in direct response to the first paragraph of the OP.
To me, the OP sounded like he was getting sick of seeing long rules discussions in the rules forum. I say that because of this line: My eyes are bleeding right now reading some of the threads on the board. Am I wrong?
The second paragraph of the OP is completely different. THAT one is talking about real life blow ups, and wanting to discuss them. This isn’t what Wraith was responding to. Also, if this does happen all the time for someone, then I am truly sorry or your situation. It's happened to me a few times, long ago when we were young and immature, but my RL group have learned from those terrible experiences and now follow more closely to the proposed "house rule and move on", except, as wraith and some others have mentioned, we do more of a "house rule for now to keep the game moving, go to the rules forum on the boards to find out a clear answer as to what should have happened, and adjust accordingly for future games".
I hope that more groups do this as well (and from what I've seen in the rules forum and from some of the posts here, it is true).
Sorry, I was just really confused by why people were jumping on someone as if they were responding to the second part of the OP when he was in fact responding to the first part of the OP.
~P
Homerule it and get over it.
I think Jason should get this tattooed on body. Maybe a nice big back piece, with flames.
I approve of this. Commission an artist. At once!
I don't go to a lot of cons. I do go to local game shops for PFS though and I have had some of 'those players'. Ultimately the disruption in the game caused by character XXX doing munchkiny thing YYYY is less than any argument. So I cave on a fair number of issues simply because being right is less important than having fun.
Shall you be attending PaizoCon? There might be one lurking there. o.O
valid points
The OP is known to be satirical and tends to obfuscate the real versus the imagined. But above all of that, the OP generally gets annoyed when certain individuals use the rules as a crutch and cannot improvise accordingly and move on. And finally, the OP desire a mantra to become a meme so it may circulate when dealing with such individuals. We can agree to disagree, but let's move on and continue to enjoy the game. Alas, some people do "NOT get it."
And a hearty ale-soaked to ye, matey!
Now all together now:
You're getting close, Tozzy Tozbourne.
The thing is, if I houserule something for clarity, or to make it work better, maybe I'm just doing it to be doing it. But just maybe, in some cases, I might actually be doing it because some things are totally unclear in the actual rules. Or maybe other things actually don't work without a lot of rule zero. And if I'm going to pay $40 for a rulebook, I'd expect most of those issues to be ironed out by the publisher, not by me.
|
|
I don't go to a lot of cons. I do go to local game shops for PFS though and I have had some of 'those players'. Ultimately the disruption in the game caused by character XXX doing munchkiny thing YYYY is less than any argument. So I cave on a fair number of issues simply because being right is less important than having fun.Shall you be attending PaizoCon? There might be one lurking there. o.O
I will be. I've GMed at the last two Paizocons, last year I GMed 4 sessions. No problems yet.
Maybe I need a big sign that says "Ogre's Rules, no debates" ;)
Homerule it and get over it.
I think Jason should get this tattooed on body. Maybe a nice big back piece, with flames.
Should we make a collection?
IBTL!
Weak. The puffin already played that card.
He gave you Mark Wahlberg. I give you Ozzy Osbourne. He demeans you with the guy who starred in a movie that has a prosthetic penis. I give you America's favorite crazy rock star uncle.
C'mon. Or do you want to be Tonzi Tonzarelli? Ayyy!
The thing is, if I houserule something for clarity, or to make it work better, maybe I'm just doing it to be doing it. But just maybe, in some cases, I might actually be doing it because some things are totally unclear in the actual rules. Or maybe other things actually don't work without a lot of rule zero. And if I'm going to pay $40 for a rulebook, I'd expect most of those issues to be ironed out by the publisher, not by me.
How much longer will we be introduced to the KSL offshoot of the OGL and be licensed accordingly? "KSL it, and get over it."
I'll take royalties.
I think maybe a more all-encompassing piece of friendly advice--though likely to be as unheeded by those who need it most :) -- would be "use common sense."
Followed by, "Trust your GM, or if you can't trust your GM, find a better one."
Finally, and most importantly, "If you think a question someone asks is inane, then ignore it, and they'll stop asking stupid questions." :)
Also: the blessing and curse of this board is that the staff frequently makes responses. Ultimately, this is a good thing. But it also means a lot of rules questions are going to be asked out of the hope that one of the game designers will respond and give a definitive answer. Yes, the GM can and should learn to make the call, but it is awfully tempting to throw a question out there to get an "authoritative" response when there is a decent chance of that actually happening.
Whether spell-like abilities can be counterspelled comes to mind. Maybe the issue's actually been fixed, but I know at one point there were two different places in the core rules directly and clearly contradicted each other on the matter. Should the GM make his own call until if and when the issue is errataed? Yes. (And does the GM have the right to stick to his house rule if the errata ends up disagreeing? Yes.) Is there harm in trying to find out from the Paizo staff what they meant to say? No. Might it even be a help to gamers in the long run? Yes.
I'm not sure of the thread which sparked this off, but yes, sometimes people do take rules questions to the extreme. The game cannot reasonably make rules for every single contingency on the planet. And I think there's a big difference between asking for advice--"Hi, I'm inexperienced, and looking for some perspectives on how to handle this"--and demanding rules changes for the slightest issue, or arguing what is "right" over something that is clearly a matter of interpretation. The best response is pointing to the PRD and giving the OP a friendly, "Talk to your GM" or "Talk to your players" and otherwise, leaving it be.
And obviously ridiculous questions? Ignore them, and get over it.
:)
I think maybe a more all-encompassing piece of friendly advice--though likely to be as unheeded by those who need it most :) -- would be "use common sense."
Common sense - now that's a tricky one. It all depends on who or what is defined as common. If you live in a community or surrounded by a circle of folks who view things that oppose your sensibilities as being common to them, then what you may consider to be "common sense" may not be applicable in those terms.
There's a lot of "common sense" out there that pertains to the majority that I believe is not a rational one. ;-)
How much longer will we be introduced to the KSL offshoot of the OGL and be licensed accordingly?
What is KSL?
Weak. The puffin already played that card.He gave you Mark Wahlberg. I give you Ozzy Osbourne. He demeans you with the guy who starred in a movie that has a prosthetic penis. I give you America's favorite crazy rock star uncle.
C'mon. Or do you want to be Tonzi Tonzarelli? Ayyy!
TOZy! TOZi! TOZe!
How much longer will we be introduced to the KSL offshoot of the OGL and be licensed accordingly?What is KSL?
Pardon me, Kirth. I had a derp typo derp moment. Should be KGL.
Pardon me, Kirth. I had a derp typo derp moment. Should be KGL.
Unfortunately, I'm still drawing a blank... not your fault; I seem to be getting a lot dumber with age.
|
Pardon me, Kirth. I had a derp typo derp moment. Should be KGL.Unfortunately, I'm still drawing a blank... not your fault; I seem to be getting a lot dumber with age.
I'm reading it as either Kirth Gersen License or Kirth Gaming License, taking off the OGL. Not sure what he's saying with it, though.
I'm reading it as either Kirth Gersen License or Kirth Gaming License, taking off the OGL. Not sure what he's saying with it, though.Pardon me, Kirth. I had a derp typo derp moment. Should be KGL.Unfortunately, I'm still drawing a blank... not your fault; I seem to be getting a lot dumber with age.
Winner winner chicken dinner. Blackjack, sir!
Paul, I believe you may not frequent this thread?
Paul, I believe you may not frequent this thread?
Hadn't realized you'd still been following it, Ur. I should hasten to point out that "Kirthfinder" material is specifically closed content, for personal home use only, due to potential copytright infringement issues; hence no game license for it can exist. Also, any connection of "Kirth" with the game is a nickname; the official product identity is the
S(uperior) H(ybrid) I(nteractive) T(abeltop) role-playing game.
Paul, I believe you may not frequent this thread?Hadn't realized you'd still been following it, Ur. I should hasten to point out that "Kirthfinder" material is specifically closed content, for personal home use only, due to potential copytright infringement issues; hence no game license for it can exist. Also, any connection of "Kirth" with the game is a nickname; the official product identity is the
S(uperior) H(ybrid) I(nteractive) T(abeltop) role-playing game.
Nice!
I'm fully maxed on stealth in that thread. ;-)
EDIT: There's a couple of participants in there that also crosses my mind when I first opened up this thread, but I'll leave those guesses to self-speculation.
Nice!
My favorite quote from Mrs. Gersen:
"Just how late were you up playing with Sh!+ last night?"
*contemplates his navel*
EDIT: There's a couple of participants in there that also crosses my mind when I first opened up this thread, but I'll leave those guesses to self-speculation.
Be careful. Lint golems have a crazy mad CMB.
If you don't like the original post, then why continue posting in here? Why get yourself worked up? What on earth makes you assume every DM will quietly go around a rule conflict and research it later, when many DM's, in fact, do not, and will stall games while looking for the "correct/house ruling"?
If your gaming group is so collected and civil, that any rules dispute that comes up is handled so politely, then that is why I say you found the perfect group. I'm not saying everyone needs to share my experiences either, but your attitude of "show me links to prove it" "not this again" aren't all that constructive to the conversation.
Worked up? I just said there was no snark, and I politely responded to your post. I never said every GM would check on the rules later, but I do think they should. As for stalling the game, I think it is ok to check the book for the rules, but if the rule in the book is not clear I think one should make a call and move on instead of debating at the table.
I do realize that stalling is a matter of perspective. How long does a one have to spend time looking for rule for it to be stalling in your opinion?
edit:I read your last post and I feel your pain. I would have been upset if the game stalled for that reason, and what you described fits into my definition of stalling a game also.
I do realize that stalling is a matter of perspective. How long does a one have to spend time looking for rule for it to be stalling in your opinion?
If it can't be found in less than twelve parsecs, then ...
This is liberating.