The game has a DM for a reason. There have been a few ridiculous arguments on these boards regarding what creatures or characters can or cannot do by the rules versus what they should or should not be able to do based on the laws of physics. The common sense of the Dungeon Master should be enough for people to adjudicate these types of things effectively. Common sense is a tool that the DM is certainly allowed to use and apply in a game. It's also up to the DM (in MY personal opinion, of course) to alert the player when there's something that their common sense doesn't flag as a Bad Idea but their character might be able to discern as such.
Does every single bit of common sense ruling have to be portrayed somewhere in the rules for these folks to be happy?
I think that it's a testament to the Pathfinder rules, actually, that such trivial "oversights" are being highlighted. They're so ridiculous as to be amusing.
So, did you experience a recent issue with a literalist Rulius Magisterius? And after you killed him, where did you bury the body?
:P
Does every single bit of common sense ruling have to be portrayed somewhere in the rules for these folks to be happy?
I think that rule is on page 241, third paragraph.
I resolve such matters swiftly.
B*tches leave.
Are Eric and his friends still smoking pot in your basement?I resolve such matters swiftly.
B*tches leave.
Not anymore. Got me a Cobra Assault Cannon, state of the art, bang bang!
Is it necessary to be condescending *EDIT* to people that just want to present their views on the rules?
Does playing all 'freestylin' make you more hip simply because you couldn't bother being able to figure out the rules?
Is wanting to have precision that much of a burden on your table when it's not even at your table? Maybe if the player is bring it up to you (as a dm) then it is something he actually cares about and has an issue with?
Is common sense as common as you think? Is it the same as what you would claim it is?
And why put this in the rules forum instead of the general discussion forum, since it's not actually a rules based thread?
In an actual game, the rules in the book matter less then you think. When talking to other gamers about the game on a message board...well rules suddenly become very important as that is what is the common point.
Anyone who has played GURPS knows there is only one rule that matters: the GM must CHEAT!
If the GM does not cheat sometimes (either in favor or against the players) then verisimilitude can not be maintained, and a truly compelling story can not be told.
Discussing the rules and the balance of simulationism vs. gamism is a useful tool for becoming a better GM and player. The discussions may become heated and silly, but often amongst the BS you can find that gem that makes sense to you and can help you run/play a better game.
Unless you know everything like houstonderek and have no need of 'lesser' opinions. :-p
|
The game has a DM for a reason. There have been a few ridiculous arguments on these boards regarding what creatures or characters can or cannot do by the rules versus what they should or should not be able to do based on the laws of physics. The common sense of the Dungeon Master should be enough for people to adjudicate these types of things effectively. Common sense is a tool that the DM is certainly allowed to use and apply in a game. It's also up to the DM (in MY personal opinion, of course) to alert the player when there's something that their common sense doesn't flag as a Bad Idea but their character might be able to discern as such.
Does every single bit of common sense ruling have to be portrayed somewhere in the rules for these folks to be happy?
I think that it's a testament to the Pathfinder rules, actually, that such trivial "oversights" are being highlighted. They're so ridiculous as to be amusing.
It would be nice if there were a "how to run the game" forum separate from the Rules forum where people could discuss running the game with a more practical POV.
The game has a DM for a reason. There have been a few ridiculous arguments on these boards regarding what creatures or characters can or cannot do by the rules versus what they should or should not be able to do based on the laws of physics. The common sense of the Dungeon Master should be enough for people to adjudicate these types of things effectively.
Are you suggesting that every DM, past present and future, has common sense?
If so, consider yourself truly blessed, and move on with your life.
Others aren't so lucky.
Is it necessary to be condensing to people that just want to present their views on the rules?
Condensing people is a very naughty thing to do; lots of laws against that. Unless you want shrink their post, condensing the entire post to one specific sentence.
However, being condescending to people is something entirely different, and won't likely get you arrested, even in the Paizo rules forum.
Hey, it's a rules forum, and I'm illustrating rules. Spelling instead of Pathfinder, but still . . . .
|
Discussing the rules and the balance of simulationism vs. gamism is a useful tool for becoming a better GM and player. The discussions may become heated and silly, but often amongst the BS you can find that gem that makes sense to you and can help you run/play a better game.
Unless you know everything like houstonderek and have no need of 'lesser' opinions. :-p
Admit it, you had fun when I was spanking y'all Sunday ;)
Is it necessary to be condensing to people that just want to present their views on the rules?
Condensing people is a very naughty thing to do; lots of laws against that. Unless you want shrink their post, condensing the entire post to one specific sentence.
However, being condescending to people is something entirely different, and won't likely get you arrested, even in the Paizo rules forum.
Hey, it's a rules forum, and I'm illustrating rules. Spelling instead of Pathfinder, but still . . . .
The spelling was fine, the grammer... worked, the idea was ill presented I do agree. That's what I get for posting fast.
|
See this really just devolves into a Law vs Chaos thread. I am a Lawful type DM. I tell my players read the rules first, if you have a question after that let me know. I tend to go by the book, letter of the rule. However in every set of rules there are grey areas where you just gotta make a command decision and play it one way.
Then there are people who use the rules as guidelines or suggestions, which is a completely legitimate playstyle. Fast and loose, if it's cool it's good... not my cup of tea, but to each their own.
--Vrock and Key
The spelling was fine, the grammar... worked, the idea was ill presented I do agree. That's what I get for posting fast.
Fixed.
Admit it, you had fun when I was spanking y'all Sunday ;)Discussing the rules and the balance of simulationism vs. gamism is a useful tool for becoming a better GM and player. The discussions may become heated and silly, but often amongst the BS you can find that gem that makes sense to you and can help you run/play a better game.
Unless you know everything like houstonderek and have no need of 'lesser' opinions. :-p
I had a blast. Not sure about Scott...
|
|
I had a blast. Not sure about Scott...Admit it, you had fun when I was spanking y'all Sunday ;)Discussing the rules and the balance of simulationism vs. gamism is a useful tool for becoming a better GM and player. The discussions may become heated and silly, but often amongst the BS you can find that gem that makes sense to you and can help you run/play a better game.
Unless you know everything like houstonderek and have no need of 'lesser' opinions. :-p
I think Scott enjoyed being challenged, actually. He seemed to really be into the combat, knowing he was in real danger.
:)
The game has a DM for a reason. There have been a few ridiculous arguments on these boards regarding what creatures or characters can or cannot do by the rules versus what they should or should not be able to do based on the laws of physics. The common sense of the Dungeon Master should be enough for people to adjudicate these types of things effectively.Are you suggesting that every DM, past present and future, has common sense?
If so, consider yourself truly blessed, and move on with your life.
Others aren't so lucky.
A DM without the ability to make on-the-fly rulings based on common sense (such as, say, not letting a regular everyday elephant climb a vertical rope regardless of what the rules have to say or don't have to say about the matter) is NOT a very good DM at all, in my opinion. They should pass the torch.
A DM without the ability to make on-the-fly rulings based on common sense (such as, say, not letting an elephant climb a rope regardless of what the rules have to say or don't have to say about the matter) is NOT a very good DM at all, in my opinion. They should pass the torch.
I agree. Such people should be advisers behind the scenes, like me. I GMd for years, but the more rules I learned the less fun the games were for others. After a while, I became a hardcor rules lawyer. Eventually I stepped down as a GM, passed the torch, so to speak, and kept the rules out of it unless somebody specifically asked for clarification (which happens ALL THE TIME).
As a result, our games as a whole are much more fun. We have GMs whose imagination wasn't destroyed by the forums, and we still have the rules lawyers to help get through the gray areas. That's what roleplaying is about: freaking teamwork.
The game has a DM for a reason. There have been a few ridiculous arguments on these boards regarding what creatures or characters can or cannot do by the rules versus what they should or should not be able to do based on the laws of physics. The common sense of the Dungeon Master should be enough for people to adjudicate these types of things effectively. Common sense is a tool that the DM is certainly allowed to use and apply in a game. It's also up to the DM (in MY personal opinion, of course) to alert the player when there's something that their common sense doesn't flag as a Bad Idea but their character might be able to discern as such.
Does every single bit of common sense ruling have to be portrayed somewhere in the rules for these folks to be happy?
You're completely missing the point.
No one is telling you how you have to run the game at your own table. However, just saying "Just rule however you want, you're the DM" is useless at the best in a discussion in the Rules Questions Forum. "Rule however you want" can be applied to any rule at any time and is thus assumed to be present in all discussions. It's not worth mentioning.
The reasons I personally argue the rules as written so strenuously is are twofold:
PS. This is both in the wrong forum and flamebait. Bad form.
A DM without the ability to make on-the-fly rulings based on common sense (such as, say, not letting an elephant climb a rope regardless of what the rules have to say or don't have to say about the matter) is NOT a very good DM at all, in my opinion. They should pass the torch.I agree. Such people should be advisers behind the scenes, like me. I GMd for years, but the more rules I learned the less fun the games were for others. After a while, I became a hardcor rules lawyer. Eventually I stepped down as a GM, passed the torch, so to speak, and kept the rules out of it unless somebody specifically asked for clarification (which happens ALL THE TIME).
As a result, our games as a whole are much more fun. We have GMs whose imagination wasn't destroyed by the forums, and we still have the rules lawyers to help get through the gray areas. That's what roleplaying is about: freaking teamwork.
I agree that those of us that devour the rulebooks as if they were nurishment are often not the best dms, but really it is just a matter of other factors. A rules lawyer with all the other factors that make a good dm is still a good dm.
Personally I like rule, I like disecting them, i even like arguing them. Because in the end something is added to the community as a whole. Do you think all of the changes from pathfinder came about simply because of the designers? No, rules lawyers came on these and other boards, and they b$*$+ed and they argued and they theorized about what was wrong/right/arbitrary about the rule system. And slowly (very slowly) you get a knowledge base that leads to what I think is a better system.
Does that behavior belong at the table? Of course not. At mine it usually isnt. If i dont know a rule i tell someone to look it up. If the rule doesnt really fit the situation i make one up on the spot and then house rule it later. But coming on here and arguing them extensively helps me with this. If gives me perspectives other then my own that help balance out my own biases (at least some of the time). It also prepares me for situations that may come up in my game.
For instance the other day i decided to throw a pair of spider swarms at a level 2 party. If i hadnt seen MIB's thread a while back about how crazy dangerous they were, I wouldnt have thought to include both an escape route for the party (a body of water they could jump across) and provide materials useful for dealing with them (a couple alchemist fires in treasure before hand). Because of these two things the fight was hard, but not a serious threat for a party wipe. It turned out to be a fun encounter, where the same one, without the rules argument before hand could have been disastrous.
|
|
The game has a DM for a reason. There have been a few ridiculous arguments on these boards regarding what creatures or characters can or cannot do by the rules versus what they should or should not be able to do based on the laws of physics. The common sense of the Dungeon Master should be enough for people to adjudicate these types of things effectively. Common sense is a tool that the DM is certainly allowed to use and apply in a game. It's also up to the DM (in MY personal opinion, of course) to alert the player when there's something that their common sense doesn't flag as a Bad Idea but their character might be able to discern as such.
Does every single bit of common sense ruling have to be portrayed somewhere in the rules for these folks to be happy?
You're completely missing the point.
No one is telling you how you have to run the game at your own table. However, just saying "Just rule however you want, you're the DM" is useless at the best in a discussion in the Rules Questions Forum. "Rule however you want" can be applied to any rule at any time and is thus assumed to be present in all discussions. It's not worth mentioning.
The reasons I personally argue the rules as written so strenuously is are twofold:
The rules as written are the only common ground we have. If everyone discussed the rules-as-houseruled-at-my-table, this entire forum would be quite worthless.
You shouldn't make house rules without understanding the rule that you're changing and why it exists, as well as having at least some idea of the consequences of changing the rule. Thus, knowing what the rules actually say is invaluable for the creation of house rules. PS. This is both in the wrong forum and flamebait. Bad form.
+1
I wholeheartedly agree.
--Vrock and Tackle
PS. This is both in the wrong forum and flamebait. Bad form.
I feel so... admonished. It's kind of exciting.
Besides, I think it's actually a very valid topic of conversation. Should the rules truly hold our hands at every step of the way? Should they actually have to spell every darn thing out?
Besides, I think it's actually a very valid topic of conversation. Should the rules truly hold our hands at every step of the way? Should they actually have to spell every darn thing out?
1. I never said it was an invalid topic of conversation. I said it was in the wrong forum. This forum is for specific rules questions, not questions about whether we should ignore the rules. That's what the General Discussions forum is for.
2. No one is arguing for the rules "holding our hands at every step of the way" and "spelling every darn thing out".|
|
- If you're not using the rules of the game, how can you claim to be playing the game?Whoa, dude. That's like, deep. My mind is totally, like, blown. :):P
You know what I mean, hopefully. If you play chess by seeing who can throw the pieces the farthest away, you're not playing chess. Now, if you determine the amount of money you get by passing go in monopoly, by a round of darts... you could still claim to be playing monopoly.You can change things a lot and still claim to be playing a d20 game. you can't change the rules all that much and still claim to be playing PFRPG or DND.
Why not? WotC totally changed the entire game and still claim to be playing D&D...
*ducks*
;)
Many players have certain expectations as to how the game will happen, and the rules are their basis for making these judgements. When you change the rules as a DM, primarily and especially after the game has started, then the players becoming increasingly less able to predict what they can do and what the world around them can do. In a way, calling it D&D and then playing loose with the rules means you're disingenuous at best; extreme cases can almost feel like you're playing a tyrannical version of Calvinball...or video-game level railroading.
Besides, I think it's actually a very valid topic of conversation. Should the rules truly hold our hands at every step of the way? Should they actually have to spell every darn thing out?
Yes. The rules are there so that Bob from S.C., Joe from Miami, and Tim, from Texas can all sit down and play. If Bob from S.C. is a munchkin or really just does not understand the rules then someone can have a way to deny him a request by the book. I don't think it means we have to follow them to a T, but I have seen many people on these boards and in real life with no concept of game balance try to modify things that should be left alone. At least with things spelled out I have been able to prevent some bad decisions in real life. Even as detailed as the rules are now some people still don't get it. A lot of the time in my experience they mentally block out certain things. I am guilty of doing that with the archery rules for a good while.
edit: ninja'd by virgil, and with less words.
1. I never said it was an invalid topic of conversation. I said it was in the wrong forum. This forum is for specific rules questions, not questions about whether we should ignore the rules. That's what the General Discussions forum is for.
I was responding to the flamebait comment. Very rude.
2. No one is arguing for the rules "holding our hands at every step of the way" and "spelling every darn thing out".
That's not a response to anything people are saying in this thread, its a defense of my own argument. For instance, in my opinion, that's what the threads discussing the one-handed holding of a quarterstaff and the elephant climbing the ladder are doing.
Edit: extrapolation.
Not only are some people anal retentive about the rules, they're also anal retentive about whether or not you're posting this in the correct forum. ;)
Grammar nazis can leave with the other b*tches.
As long as the grammar nazis don't show up, we'll fine.
Also:
Does every single bit of common sense ruling have to be portrayed somewhere in the rules for these folks to be happy?
I think that rule is on page 241, third paragraph.
** spoiler omitted **
¨Any enlarged item that leaves the enlarged creature's possession instantly returns to its normal size.¨?
and
2 + 2 = 5*
Humbly,
Yawar
*Only for very large values of 2.
|
I suspect he's critiquing your use of the present tense, and a contraction to boot, when the future is gramatically more correct. Of course, in his eagerness he missed out hte word 'be' but that's now been fixed.What is this I don't evenAs long as the grammar nazis don't show up, we'll be fine.
Now it make sense. Before, this sentence no verb.
I suspect he's critiquing your use of the present tense, and a contraction to boot, when the future is gramatically more correct. Of course, in his eagerness he missed out hte word 'be' but that's now been fixed.What is this I don't evenAs long as the grammar nazis don't show up, we'll be fine.
No, it was my intention to miss correct a technically correct sentence. Trying to produce, as a humoristic effort, a Strawman Grammar Nazi and cause mild brain damage to TOZ.
Apparently, I failed the first.
Humbly,
Yawar