As I've glanced through the messageboards from time to time and as I've played with many of the gamers at my University, I have noticed an almost dogmatic need to have every action ever taken by a character defined solely by the Rules As Written. Weren't these games originally designed to cater to a group of people with a broadened sense of Imagination? Aren't the rules merely a means of smoothing over the gaps between that Imagination and the "Reality" of a fantasy world?
I have seen many debates about how "if X is not defined in the RAW, then how can X happen?" or "the RAW specifically say that Y works in this way". While I believe that the rules are highly important for the smooth functioning of any game, the fun and pleasure of any game should be drawn from the Imagination involved in Role-Playing out the story before us (hence the moniker "Role-Playing Game").
After all, if we are going to follow the RAW with such dogmatic fervor, shouldn't we pay attention to the earliest pages of the Rulebook:
"Above all, have fun. Playing the Pathfinder RPG is
supposed to be exciting and rewarding for both the Game
Master and the players. Adventure awaits!
The Most Important Rule
The rules in this book 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."
(and please note that almost every single RPG that has ever been produced begins with a similar if not nearly identical statement.)
How about we get back to letting the Imagination guide how our characters do things rather than being led by a leash of RAW to the point were we can no longer make our own decisions. RPG's should grant the mind freedom, not confine it in a cage of "fear of not following the Law".
Stuff about imagination...
Yes.
I just feel sad when someone wants to do something but can't find- or there isn't- a specific rule for it.
There are times when, for fun and realism, you just have to throw yourself on the mercy of the DM. 'I run and jump and grab the chandelier and swing across the room to kick the giant in the chest'. Sounds neat and all that but getting 10 folks to agree on what checks and their DC's should be, is nigh on impossible. Its just a DM judgment call that is made at the spur of the moment.. You roll the dice and pray for the best.
Sometimes you kick the giant, sometimes you miss the chandelier...
-S
RAW exists for the same reason we RPG instead of cowboys&indians, or do improv comedy/acting. It gives a common ground without which debate becomes meaningless, and is the only common ground that we internet strangers have regarding the game since everybody's group is different. Most of the fiercest RAW interpreters here just as intensely use fun over RAW in their games, since the group has plenty of common ground outside of the game books.
I just feel sad when someone wants to do something but can't find- or there isn't- a specific rule for it.
There are times when, for fun and realism, you just have to throw yourself on the mercy of the DM. 'I run and jump and grab the chandelier and swing across the room to kick the giant in the chest'. Sounds neat and all that but getting 10 folks to agree on what checks and their DC's should be, is nigh on impossible. Its just a DM judgment call that is made at the spur of the moment.. You roll the dice and pray for the best.
Sometimes you kick the giant, sometimes you miss the chandelier...
-S
EXACTLY!! This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about! I think too many gamers are afraid to let their charcaters take insanely heroic risks like you're talking about because nobody can give them an exact DC statistical breakdown of what their chances are. Sometimes, taking the risk has to be the reason for playing the game, not the guarantee of success.
The DM role is to arbitrate how that risk comes out in terms of rules, but the best DM's out there are more likely to lean toward a successful feat of derring-do if the PC's are entertaining and imaginative in there description of what they want to do.
Sometimes, you may end up as the bug on the windshield, but that can be just as great of a story as succeeding.
You mean there was a time you didn't have rules telling you what you could and couldn't do?
I know it sounds shocking, but there used to be a time when characters didn't even have SKILLS!! You just made it up as you went along! You used to have to have a good detailed backstory that would expalin why you could do something.
The rules are a social contract. Nothing more, nothing less. If we agree to abide by these rules then we do so knowing that by accepting this contract no one is going to pull a "I'm going home and taking my ball with me" or "Well I win because I'm the GM" or "I said I'm the king of far far away! Not you!"
The rules give us walls -- but only walls that we accept. They are a means of agreeing on the basics so one can focus on the story/characters instead of what is and isn't possible (a very funny thing to argue in a game of make believe).
Also what forums do you frequent? After all if all you look at is the rules forum... well... duh.
|
You mean there was a time you didn't have rules telling you what you could and couldn't do?I know it sounds shocking, but there used to be a time when characters didn't even have SKILLS!! You just made it up as you went along! You used to have to have a good detailed backstory that would expalin why you could do something.
Really? And you didn't have a book telling you what class you were or how quickly you could die?
"Aren't the rules merely a means of smoothing over the gaps between that Imagination and the "Reality" of a fantasy world?"
When the rules are working, then yes, that is one of their main functions.
However, some rules can have the opposite effect. I found that in 3.5 casters would seriously overshadow martial characters at the later levels of the game. There were also some aspects of play that were clearly disruptive to game balance and fun, but well within the rules. I think the game is great, but there are still some improvements to be made, and I enjoy seeing how others address these issues. But I do keep in mind that it is the internet, and things get blown out of proportion.
Also, many of us play Organized Play, where the rules are far more carved in stone then home games are required to be. And there are a few of us who have delusions of someday writing published material for these games, and we need to understand the detail of the rules, and get exposed to as many playstyles as possible.
I don't see why we can't have rules and use our great imaginations. The rules help keep things consistent and allow us to know what we should be able to accomplish. We can then use this baseline to determine how to accomplish things that aren't listed in the rules. The one thing that I can't find in Pathfinder that I liked in 3.5 is the listing of how set DCs based on difficulty. While I know how to set a DC, one of my friends who wants to DM does not do such a great job. He bases it on level and whim instead of the action itself.
I have gamed with DMs who favor certain players, classes, races, or moments in time. It is because of those DMs that I like having a consistent set of rules. I have actually had a DM tell me that the paladin in full plate mail could sneak past sleeping kobolds because he said he was going to but my gnome thief/illusionist with no metal (not even his weapon was metal) could not because I didn't say I was being sneaky. He favored the other player (it was obvious from their friendship) and acted like my gnome was doing a drum solo as he walked past the kobolds. With the addition of rules for Perception (listen in 3.5), this whole situation would have been avoided. The kobolds may have been alerted but it would have been because of the clanking metal not the quiet gnome.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Frankly, with some of the posters on here, I'm surprised that nobody has yet begged for rules on the digestive processes of various races take, so that we can be sure to use RAW to determine when the elven ranger needs to relieve himself.
* hopes valiantly but with cynical pessimism that this doesn't inspire some fool to make said topic *
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Frankly, with some of the posters on here, I'm surprised that nobody has yet begged for rules on the digestive processes of various races take, so that we can be sure to use RAW to determine when the elven ranger needs to relieve himself.
* hopes valiantly but with cynical pessimism that this doesn't inspire some fool to make said topic *
Quick, everyone FAQ this post, we must know!!!
Edit: Please, don't. Really. Don't do it.
|
|
I have actually had a DM tell me that the paladin in full plate mail could sneak past sleeping kobolds because he said he was going to but my gnome thief/illusionist with no metal (not even his weapon was metal) could not because I didn't say I was being sneaky. He favored the other player (it was obvious from their friendship) and acted like my gnome was doing a drum solo as he walked past the kobolds. With the addition of rules for Perception (listen in 3.5), this whole situation would have been avoided. The kobolds may have been alerted but it would have been because of the clanking metal not the quiet gnome.
A crappy GM is going to be crappy regardless of how over-codified or minimal the rules for the system they are running are.
I have actually had a DM tell me that the paladin in full plate mail could sneak past sleeping kobolds because he said he was going to but my gnome thief/illusionist with no metal (not even his weapon was metal) could not because I didn't say I was being sneaky. He favored the other player (it was obvious from their friendship) and acted like my gnome was doing a drum solo as he walked past the kobolds. With the addition of rules for Perception (listen in 3.5), this whole situation would have been avoided. The kobolds may have been alerted but it would have been because of the clanking metal not the quiet gnome.A crappy GM is going to be crappy regardless of how over-codified or minimal its rules are.
I don't deny that. I may have been able to get him to see some reason and let us get back to the game. In the end though, you are probably right. This was part of a long series of this crap from him. In the end, my character swallowed his own chromatic orb killing himself. I was told I wasn't welcome back to a game where I felt I should kill my character because I don't like the DM's rulings. I told him that was the message I wanted to send: I'm not going back to a game where I don't like the DM's rulings. It was the only thing we agreed on.
I don't see why we can't have rules and use our great imaginations. The rules help keep things consistent and allow us to know what we should be able to accomplish. We can then use this baseline to determine how to accomplish things that aren't listed in the rules.
This is closer to what I'm talking about. I fully agree that the rules exist to offer consistency; that's why it's a game. My issue is that too many people that I have seen playing in recent times are unable to make individualized judgments, to think their way through a situation on their own. They are paralyzed without the rules to explain it to them in agonizing detail. If someone can't make their own judgment calls in obscure situations, perhaps RPGs are not the hobby for them.
I have actually had a DM tell me that the paladin in full plate mail could sneak past sleeping kobolds because he said he was going to but my gnome thief/illusionist with no metal (not even his weapon was metal) could not because I didn't say I was being sneaky. He favored the other player (it was obvious from their friendship) and acted like my gnome was doing a drum solo as he walked past the kobolds. With the addition of rules for Perception (listen in 3.5), this whole situation would have been avoided. The kobolds may have been alerted but it would have been because of the clanking metal not the quiet gnome.
This situation was not caused by lack of rules of perception; this problem was caused by someone acting as an illogical and unfair judge. They were not holding up their end of the Social Contract that Abraham spalding pointed out earlier. People shouldn't play with those people as DMs ... then they will have to learn to uphold the spirit of the game for everyone they are responsible Dming. (But that's a whole other thread that we could dive into)
As I've glanced through the messageboards from time to time and as I've played with many of the gamers at my University, I have noticed an almost dogmatic need to have every action ever taken by a character defined solely by the Rules As Written. Weren't these games originally designed to cater to a group of people with a broadened sense of Imagination? Aren't the rules merely a means of smoothing over the gaps between that Imagination and the "Reality" of a fantasy world?
I have seen many debates about how "if X is not defined in the RAW, then how can X happen?" or "the RAW specifically say that Y works in this way". While I believe that the rules are highly important for the smooth functioning of any game, the fun and pleasure of any game should be drawn from the Imagination involved in Role-Playing out the story before us (hence the moniker "Role-Playing Game").
After all, if we are going to follow the RAW with such dogmatic fervor, shouldn't we pay attention to the earliest pages of the Rulebook:
"Above all, have fun. Playing the Pathfinder RPG is
supposed to be exciting and rewarding for both the Game
Master and the players. Adventure awaits!The Most Important Rule
The rules in this book 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."(and please note that almost every single RPG that has ever been produced begins with a similar if not nearly identical statement.)
How about we get back to letting the Imagination guide how our characters do things rather than being led by a leash of RAW to the point were we can no longer make our own decisions. RPG's should grant the mind freedom, not confine it in a cage of "fear of not following the Law".
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.
This thread which was made before yours might be a good read for you.--> click me
The one thing that I can't find in Pathfinder that I liked in 3.5 is the listing of how set DCs based on difficulty. While I know how to set a DC, one of my friends who wants to DM does not do such a great job. He bases it on level and whim instead of the action itself.
Man, I usually don't set DCs. I just say "roll Acrobatics" and if I feel the result was good enough the character succeeds.
I just feel sad when someone wants to do something but can't find- or there isn't- a specific rule for it.
There are times when, for fun and realism, you just have to throw yourself on the mercy of the DM. 'I run and jump and grab the chandelier and swing across the room to kick the giant in the chest'. Sounds neat and all that but getting 10 folks to agree on what checks and their DC's should be, is nigh on impossible. Its just a DM judgment call that is made at the spur of the moment.. You roll the dice and pray for the best.
Sometimes you kick the giant, sometimes you miss the chandelier...
-S
(First I am not bashing. You bring up many good points. But...)
So you are saying the good old days were better as they allowed more imagination. Now you have rules... and when the rules fail you have to just wing it and hope the DM lets you do it with a good dice roll?
Sorry, but that is what almost EVERY encounter was like back in the day. You were always at the mercy of the DM. Now sometimes there are good accepted rules to help guide the group and set expectations for PLAYERS on what they can do and help set guidelines for the DM in making his rulings.
Rule Zero is always there and the game is still about imagination so every group can have as much or as little flexibility as they want.
Back to your point overall. The game used to be much more simple and allow a lot of free form play. But as both players and the game matured more structure was needed by a large portion of the population playing the game. The good old days may have always had greener grass... but today is pretty good too.
I don't really think anything happened to those days. They are still here, as much as they've ever been. What you see about the 'obsessive focus on rules' is the introduction of the internet, really.
Back in the day, you just had yourself and the rest of your group as reference, now you have the entire world. Your RL friends know where you're comming from. The rest of us have no idea. The uniform language of, say, a Pathfinder forum is the Pathfinder rules themselves. So naturally a place like this will have a lot of focus on it.
But I don't think there's a significant difference between today and the 'good old days'. It's just easier to get in touch with other players around the world.
|
As I've glanced through the messageboards from time to time and as I've played with many of the gamers at my University, I have noticed an almost dogmatic need to have every action ever taken by a character defined solely by the Rules As Written. Weren't these games originally designed to cater to a group of people with a broadened sense of Imagination? Aren't the rules merely a means of smoothing over the gaps between that Imagination and the "Reality" of a fantasy world?
Brutally simplistic answer?
Play games that support that style of play better - rules lite games (Risus, FUDGE), or games that are only interested in conflict resolution rather than task resolution (Dogs in the Vinyard). Then, if you really want to scratch that burning Pathfinder itch, convince your new players to do it with you. It's what I did.
One of the things I keep seeing (on boards and irl) is the paranoia that either a DM or a Player is going to screw you or abuse the rules in a way that ruins the fun of the game. Do Not Play With Those People!!!
If you do not trust the person running your game to have their players' fun and best interests at heart, then you should not be in their game. Nobody is holding a gun to your head to play with them. Walk away!! Pick the people you game with carefully enough to avoid the ones who don't care about the greater good of the game they are involved in.
If fewer people play with the douchey gamers of the world, they will either learn that they can't be douchey and expect to play or they won't be playing anymore. It is a game that is designed for fun. No fun = no reason to play.
Also, people need to go back to the top and realize that I am not talking about just things on messageboards and forums. This is not about the online community of gaming. It is about in person, face-to-face, everyday live gaming as well.
I was amongst the very first to complain online, all those years ago - loudly and rudely, I might say - about 3.0 catering to what I considered the worst element in the game. That is to say that before its release, after we had begun to see previews of 3.0, it occurred to me that the new rules were attempting to codify every possible grumble and snicker your character might make in an attempt to placate the worst of the rules lawyers. I opined that this was probably the child of a lunkheaded notion at WoTC that having a rule and mechanism for everything would settle ages-old arguments over interpretations of vague rules or house rules that not everybody agreed upon. I also predicted that the opposite of the intent would occur: that instead of being happy with a rule for everything, this would only create more opportunity for bad interpretation and a tighter chokehold on fun by the same rules lawyers it was intended to placate.
Ten years on, I can say with no irony that my prediction was absolutely on the money. Rules lawyers dominated - rudely and wrongheadedly - nearly every attempt at reasonable communication in online forums throughout 3.X's run, and ruined many a session at the table, feeing armed to do so and even proclaiming license for same.
But going back even farther, it's important to remember that the complaint of the OP here is older than Pathfinder or the 3.x version of the game. I remember my buddy Jason being spiteful of the thickness of the Second Edition Players Handbook. He refused to read much of any of it, intent on continuing as we had with First Edition and our basic sets: using mainly our imagination and allowing the DM enough trust to ad hock through the tough spots, which also was my favorite way to play. But the point is, I think everybody has a line of demarcation where they say, "this is where it got bad and became all about the rules." With hindsight, I think that's total hogwash, like each generation of adults claiming the newest generation of kids is worse than they were: every generation does this, but it's a product of nostalgia, not some kind of real objective position.
Personally, I became quite fond of 3.X/Pathfinder over the years as I found it provided the GM a lot of tools for quieting the same rules lawyers who were so bitterly complaining. The monster build rules meant that I was almost always throwing a surprise their way - one that was well within rules parameters, yet provided tweaks they could not anticipate.
In any case, all of this said, we still run a rules-light game in my house. When a lawyer becomes too distracting, we merely start a new game without him. The point being, you do not have to follow the RAW word-for-word, so long as you have an understanding amongst your players. Or, in my case, I like to game with my wife and close friends (many female) who do not care too much about reading the rulebooks. So this is yet another instance where nobody is forcing you to do anything, and complaining about it is really just another (probably unnecessary) option. The RAW is what it is now, and no amount of complaining will stop the publishing schedule, but what you do with it in your house is entirely up to you.
Plus, really, this argument is painfully old. Like, cobwebs and aching bones old. This is not to dismiss or invalidate anybody's feelings, but really, that train has sailed.
Man, I usually don't set DCs. I just say "roll Acrobatics" and if I feel the result was good enough the character succeeds.
This is the type of judgment I am referring to. I see less and less of this than I used to. Does the task seem daunting? Yes. Was the roll outrageously good? Yes. Success!!
|
|
Man, I usually don't set DCs. I just say "roll Acrobatics" and if I feel the result was good enough the character succeeds.This is the type of judgment I am referring to. I see less and less of this than I used to. Does the task seem daunting? Yes. Was the roll outrageously good? Yes. Success!!
Then why have skills and skill points? Roll the dice, and if he rolls higher than a 10, he succeeds!
If you just fiat the results, then where the player puts his skills and feats don't matter and you should tell them so at the start.
One of the things I keep seeing (on boards and irl) is the paranoia that either a DM or a Player is going to screw you or abuse the rules in a way that ruins the fun of the game. Do Not Play With Those People!!!
If you do not trust the person running your game to have their players' fun and best interests at heart, then you should not be in their game. Nobody is holding a gun to your head to play with them. Walk away!! Pick the people you game with carefully enough to avoid the ones who don't care about the greater good of the game they are involved in.
If fewer people play with the douchey gamers of the world, they will either learn that they can't be douchey and expect to play or they won't be playing anymore. It is a game that is designed for fun. No fun = no reason to play.
Also, people need to go back to the top and realize that I am not talking about just things on messageboards and forums. This is not about the online community of gaming. It is about in person, face-to-face, everyday live gaming as well.
I play with my friends. My friends are imperfect people. We have egos, we have prejudices, and after years and years of gaming we have lots of varied opinions. The rules give us a foundation to build a game on we all can enjoy. They provide consistency that very few dm's could provide without them. That allows more members of my group to dm then would normally, which means more gaming and more fun.
I actively dislike arbitrary choices by dms and players. I've seen it alot in my time, not because the dm is trying to be a douche, but just because they let their personal opinions/wants/biases/experience drive their choices and expectations. I dont like it when players try to do things their characters have no business being able to do and get annoyed if they cant do them. Should an 8 dex character be able to jump over that wall, roll on the ground and attack the guy behind it? As a dm i can only make a relatively arbitrary call. Great dms can make those on the fly and be fair about it. Most cant. I very much dislike it when a dm says roll some dice and we'll see if it 'feels' high enough, because the next week someone could try to do the same thing and get a different result.
Adherence to the rules (and i dont just mean raw, house rules too) removes the arbitrary choices from the game. Which many people prefer. It makes the game easier to play, and takes pressure off the dm to make choices he or she may or may not be able to make fairly.
One of the things I keep seeing (on boards and irl) is the paranoia that either a DM or a Player is going to screw you or abuse the rules in a way that ruins the fun of the game. Do Not Play With Those People!!!
If you do not trust the person running your game to have their players' fun and best interests at heart, then you should not be in their game. Nobody is holding a gun to your head to play with them. Walk away!! Pick the people you game with carefully enough to avoid the ones who don't care about the greater good of the game they are involved in.
If fewer people play with the douchey gamers of the world, they will either learn that they can't be douchey and expect to play or they won't be playing anymore. It is a game that is designed for fun. No fun = no reason to play.
Also, people need to go back to the top and realize that I am not talking about just things on messageboards and forums. This is not about the online community of gaming. It is about in person, face-to-face, everyday live gaming as well.
Personally I want consistency and I think that is what a lot of people want. It is not just in my games, but between different DM's if I am in someone else's game also. Arbitrary "you fails" just don't do it for me. If I roll a 10 and I succeed in a task one week then I expect the same thing the next week assuming all things are equal.
It is hard to make a character that can thrive if in the rules are always difference.
Man, I usually don't set DCs. I just say "roll Acrobatics" and if I feel the result was good enough the character succeeds.This is the type of judgment I am referring to. I see less and less of this than I used to. Does the task seem daunting? Yes. Was the roll outrageously good? Yes. Success!!
Sometimes your best just isn't good enough and I think set DC's help represent that.
Man, I usually don't set DCs. I just say "roll Acrobatics" and if I feel the result was good enough the character succeeds.This is the type of judgment I am referring to. I see less and less of this than I used to. Does the task seem daunting? Yes. Was the roll outrageously good? Yes. Success!!Then why have skills and skill points? Roll the dice, and if he rolls higher than a 10, he succeeds!
If you just fiat the results, then where the player puts his skills and feats don't matter and you should tell them so at the start.
This is what my friends and I mockingly refer to as the D2 system. Just flip a coin, no matter how outrageous or mundane the attempt. Swim up a waterfall? 50% chance of success. Walking from the bed to the door? 50% chance of success.
I absolutely LOATHE that kind of playstyle and I get it in buckets from one of my current GMs. Basically you can do anything if you manage to roll a natural 20. Of course, that means that you can never spot a trap, convince an NPC to do something rational, or jump across a chasm with a 5 even if you have a ludicrous skill bonus.
In short, OP, the rules are there because if they weren't it wouldn't be a GAME. It would just be a bunch of guys hanging out, which is cool, but without rules and goals the players don't have the tools with which to solve the logic puzzles inherent in the game. They will not be challenged.
|
|
Shoulda taken 10.Bob the Cleric: I take a piss behind the tree.
GM: Roll a CON check.
Bob rolls a natural 1.
GM: You have failed to urinate, and your bladder ruptures. Take 1d6 CON damage and then make a Fort save vs infection.
Bob: Damn you, Pelor! Why must I always fumble urination checks?!?
Taking 10: When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10.
It's very distracting when you have to pee. At the point where your bladder is on the verge of bursting, I would imagine it goes well beyond distracting. Probably counts as immediate danger as well.
LAWYERED!!!
|
|
Shoulda taken 10.Bob the Cleric: I take a piss behind the tree.
GM: Roll a CON check.
Bob rolls a natural 1.
GM: You have failed to urinate, and your bladder ruptures. Take 1d6 CON damage and then make a Fort save vs infection.
Bob: Damn you, Pelor! Why must I always fumble urination checks?!?Taking 10: When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10.It's very distracting when you have to pee. At the point where your bladder is on the verge of bursting, I would imagine it goes well beyond distracting.
LAWYERED!!!
No, see, you have to be distracted by something else, otherwise you're not distracted because you're focused on your bladder. Your bladder has your full attention and so doesn't gain the benefit of the distracted condition against you. Other creatures would gain it because you're distracted by your bladder.
Do Not Play With Those People!!!
That should be a big warning label on the front of all games.
Compared to many of the people on these boards I'm just a young buck as I started playing just when 3.5 came out, so I don't have experience with less rules intensive editions. However I cannot recall a time when my imagination was being repressed or stifled and felt that an overabundance of rules was the source of that. Intractable, insufferable, hateful and annoying Dungeon Masters and other players have always been the cause of me not enjoying a game.
As others have already spoke of, I find that a strong rules base provides a needed sense of consistency and stability. It is my experience that when everyone is well versed with the rules and willing to accept them, the rules slide into the background like the individual letters of the words that comprise a good story. Most people would rather read a book with proper grammar and spelling than one where the author is making it up as he goes along.
Of course I am far from a voice of neutrality on the subject as I consider my-self pretty hard line about playing the game Rules as Written. Yes, yes, I know that some of the rules don't make the best sense and that there are loophole to be abused, but when ever possible I want to play with the rules in book, both as a Dungeon Master and as a player. If a rule don't work or someone wants to do something they don't happen to cover than either I modify an existing rule to fit or I open the problem up to the group for discussion. I like play with the absolutely bare minimum of house rules or fiat (which I find are basically the same thing.)
In my not-so-long experience I've found that no rule will hinder a great group, no rule will help a poor group, and that only rule I consider completely broken is Rule 0. That being said, to each their own and if you're enjoying the game then you're doing it right.
However I paid good money for these rulebook and I'm going to use them.
(Also on the subject of things not covered by the rules: if I never have another player whine about not being able to make called shots I might well die happy.)
|
|
Luckily for players (and gamemasters!) everywhere, the rules of the game are nowadays much more well defined, if you see people posting many things about rules is because this is the common ground for players to speak.
Seriously I dont see my games as less imaginative than in other editions all this good old days is just nosense.
No, see, you have to be distracted by something else, otherwise you're not distracted because you're focused on your bladder. Your bladder has your full attention and so doesn't gain the benefit of the distracted condition against you. Other creatures would gain it because you're distracted by your bladder.Shoulda taken 10.Bob the Cleric: I take a piss behind the tree.
GM: Roll a CON check.
Bob rolls a natural 1.
GM: You have failed to urinate, and your bladder ruptures. Take 1d6 CON damage and then make a Fort save vs infection.
Bob: Damn you, Pelor! Why must I always fumble urination checks?!?Taking 10: When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10.It's very distracting when you have to pee. At the point where your bladder is on the verge of bursting, I would imagine it goes well beyond distracting.
LAWYERED!!!
Probably a squirrel watching him do his business. I would find that very distracting.
Also I would worry about provoking an attack of opportunity from said squirrel, especially a vital strike.
|
Frankly, with some of the posters on here, I'm surprised that nobody has yet begged for rules on the digestive processes of various races take, so that we can be sure to use RAW to determine when the elven ranger needs to relieve himself.
* hopes valiantly but with cynical pessimism that this doesn't inspire some fool to make said topic *
I really hope that when you flag a post for the FAQ your name is recorded and associated with the flag. I also hope that people are mature enough not to waste a developer's time.
Apparently only one of these hopes is reasonable.
Shane
There are times when, for fun and realism, you just have to throw yourself on the mercy of the DM. 'I run and jump and grab the chandelier and swing across the room to kick the giant in the chest'. Sounds neat and all that but getting 10 folks to agree on what checks and their DC's should be, is nigh on impossible. Its just a DM judgment call that is made at the spur of the moment.. You roll the dice and pray for the best.
Make 2 Acrobatics checks, one to jump and one to grab the chandelier, and roll your unarmed attack as usual.
To the topic at hand: Why do we end up with ridiculous rules arguments?
Because a player will, using the example above, decree it "unfair" that I made him roll Acrobatics (or a Dexterity check, if I were running AD&D) before he could make his cool attack (and likely because he had an Acrobatics mod of -6). If I explained to him wearing half plate like his character is would make grabbing the chandelier harder, he would ask me for a rules clarification or I'm being a big fat meaniehead.
I could say "yes you just do that," but if it's something hard where there might be failure, I think it's more fair to let the dice arbitrate that then just say, "You succeed" or "you don't succeed." That's why it's a game and not just a storytelling party (not that anything is wrong with storytelling parties).
ALSO:
Look up the story of the people who fought over the 1970s White Book Monster Manual "Percent in Liar" typo and were at each other's throats about whether it was how likely a monster was to tell a falsehood, or how often the monster would be found in its lair.
People who are rules sticklers are rules sticklers; no game made them that way. These are the kids who would declare during a game of cops and robbers arbitrarily that cops got to pull their gun first before the robbers, or what have you, and then hold onto that declaration like a dog with a bone.
There are also people who can go with the flow, whether it's a heavy rules system or a light rules system. There are GMs who even in Pathfinder don't worry about looking up the rules mid game and just wing it--and it's very possible and in fact very easy to do that because there's an easily discernible backbone to the game mechanics.
The thing is, these GMs aren't going to post here because they don't need to. The people who are going to post here either have legitimate questions because they just want to make sure they understand something, or they are the same people who typed up 50 pages of house rules for Cowboys and Indians.
So on a message board that has, let's say, a "Rules Questions" subforum, there are, in fact, going to be Rules Questions for those who need them/want them/have them.
If you don't need/want/have Rules Questions, then close that subforum using the handy dandy little triangle at its side, and never let it bother you again.
How about we get back to letting the Imagination guide how our characters do things rather than being led by a leash of RAW to the point were we can no longer make our own decisions. RPG's should grant the mind freedom, not confine it in a cage of "fear of not following the Law".
How about you do that, and let those of use who prefer RAW to play that way, too. I'd rather have rules lawyers in D&D than DMs who use rule zero anytime they can't remember an official rule for something.
This is what my friends and I mockingly refer to as the D2 system. Just flip a coin, no matter how outrageous or mundane the attempt. Swim up a waterfall? 50% chance of success. Walking from the bed to the door? 50% chance of success.I absolutely LOATHE that kind of playstyle and I get it in buckets from one of my current GMs. Basically you can do anything if you manage to roll a natural 20. Of course, that means that you can never spot a trap, convince an NPC to do something rational, or jump across a chasm with a 5 even if you have a ludicrous skill bonus.
In short, OP, the rules are there because if they weren't it wouldn't be a GAME. It would just be a bunch of guys hanging out, which is cool, but without rules and goals the players don't have the tools with which to solve the logic puzzles inherent in the game. They will not be challenged.
Precisely. This is exactly the kind of philosophy that made me exit 4th edition. After a while it becomes clear that a major design goal was "keep success rate the same through all levels, and don't allow much variance unless you break the game in the process".
|
I agree that there was never a magical time where people let their imaginations define the game rather than the rules.
I just find that at some point people lean too heavily on the rules to define absolutely EVERYTHING about the world. The recent "Blink Dog Sorcerer" debate is just the latest in a long line of very silly rules questions.
As a GM I try to follow the rules fairly closely, but if something isn't defined strictly by the rules and seems nifty I'll allow it.
As for swinging from a chandelier to kick a giant in the chest?
Acrobatics check (DC equal to Running Long jump for the distance travelled, +2 circumstance bonus for the chandelier)
Followed by unarmed attack roll with +2 for charging, and +1 for higher ground, but if they want to knock the Giant down or back then it's a CMB check vs Giant's CMD for Trip or Bull Rush (with the circumstance bonuses above included). I'd probably skip the Attack of Opportunity (but I house-rule in my games Combat Manoeuvres only provoke on a failure).
I have had similiar debates about this topic with my current gaming group. BTW, I would suggest getting Uncanny Dodge vs Squirrels. That seems to help. I was attacked by squirrels at a young age due to my PB&J sandwich. I had to get Rabie shots. Anyways, i digress. I truly think it is a TRUST issue with the Player vs the GM. My one buddy is starting to understand this issue through our several debates. I think once the TRUST is established this mindset would start to be contagious and open up more. The players would see the GM has some sort of logical thought process to base extreme, daring stunts, and not just a "roll the dice and roll high". My one player always asks what the DC is to do something. He doesnt care what the number is. He only cares that he knows his target and will work every angle to get that target DC. Another example with the TRUST issue..... Just my 2cp worth
You mean there was a time you didn't have rules telling you what you could and couldn't do?I know it sounds shocking, but there used to be a time when characters didn't even have SKILLS!! You just made it up as you went along! You used to have to have a good detailed backstory that would expalin why you could do something.
It sounds very interesting and all but you have to remember that there are people like ME in the world.
Let's hear it for the rules lawyers folks.In a "free form" game like your proposeing do you have any idea how hard it is for people like me to bend,fold,spindle AND mutilate the rules when they change at the whim of a DM that has very little regaurd for the rules because they arn't written down.
I played in a game like that ONCE for awhile until the DM got so crazy and loose with the rules that it was basiclly "what he said went reguardless of the charecters abilities" so if his villians captured us then we were caught no matter what spells or skills we had, when we came up with a great idea to escape by killing half the town and fleeing in the ensueing confusion we were to we couldn't because HIS rules wouldn't allow it.
I realise that all of these things are because he was a very bad GM but because he was so fast and lose with the rules and blatantly ignored even the MOST basic of them we as players were lost.
Thats why I am a rules lawyer and thats why I prefer RAW to free form.
Don't get me wrong I'm all for a good story but when the rules say your spells work this way and your expecting them to in order to beat the challenge and they don't with NO warning because the DM doesn't like it then free form needs to be reigned in.
|
|
Frankly, with some of the posters on here, I'm surprised that nobody has yet begged for rules on the digestive processes of various races take, so that we can be sure to use RAW to determine when the elven ranger needs to relieve himself.
* hopes valiantly but with cynical pessimism that this doesn't inspire some fool to make said topic *
Someone actually flagged this post as a FAQ candidate. I weep for humanity.