|
Recently a player asked about magic slots for animals within PFS. Mark redirected the thread to Rules Questions. However, this is an example of a game rule question for which there is no answer and which must be decided by the GM. For single action decisions that have rules variance, table variance is something that organized play must live with; it's part of the terrain. However, for rules questions such as this that have a material impact on character development and purchases, there is a requirement for organized play to make a statement about what the rule is within the campaign in order to make it a more enjoyable experience for all.
Optimizing Otto, a knowledgable player who likes to put together mechanically excellent characters, looks at the example item and says to himself, "Self, it seems reasonable that Ol' Meatshield can have all the items as a human. We'll call rings pawclips. He can have pawshoes. He can have a belt..after all he has a narrow spot below his rib cage. Armbands...hmmm...weave it into his tail? Well it doesn't matter, only a jerk would deny Meatshield his bling."
Georgie Grognard, an experienced GM who remembers white boxes, red boxes and when elves were a class, may recognize that there is variance on the matter, but also that there is a tradition in organized play of players avoiding matters of unresolvable table variance. He is comfortable in his conservative approach. He says to himself, "Self, I know there are many ways to do this, but I also think that I have a duty to maintain the integrity of the game as part of what it means to have fun. The RAW is clear to me. Since there is known variance on this, and because players won't intentionally ask a GM to do something he thinks violates the rules, I feel confident that only a jerk would put a GM on the spot like that and make him uncomfortable when he has volunteered his time."
All is well until Otto meets Georgie and the immovable mountain is faced with the irresistable force. Maybe they're skilled at dealing with conflict resolution. Maybe they aren't. Maybe they go home with a good feeling. Maybe they poison the table with the resulting ill will and 7 people go home wondering if the time would have been better spent doing something else instead of spending time with those two jerks.
Since the new regime is in the process of reviewing the campaign document for PFS, I am encouraging them to consider changing the approach about dealing with rules that have long term effects on character choices, but for which the game has no clear answers.