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.
Home rule was supposed to take care of everything. But now they're trying to take our part of the land, too, the bloody bastards!
|
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 **
IBTL! :D
And I agree with you. One of the "problems" with 3.0/3.5's bloat was the fact that people wanted official rules on everything in the game. If it's not in the book (or you disagree with the book), write up your home-rule, stick it on the wall for your gamers to see and move along.
Short swords can deal Slashing damage, dangit!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not this again. Either your position is badly written or you are badly mistaken.
I don't know of any poster claiming that not knowing what a rule was has stopped their game.
It is also mostly GM's that come here asking for clarification since they don't want to cheat the players.
If you have any link to these "I won't play without a ruling" threads I would like to read them though.
I always saw it as "make a decision for now, but try to find the correct answer before the next session."
Not this again. Either your position is badly written or you are badly mistaken.
I don't know of any poster claiming that not knowing what a rule was has stopped their game.
It is also mostly GM's that come here asking for clarification since they don't want to cheat the players.If you have any link to these "I won't play without a ruling" threads I would like to read them though.
I always saw it as "make a decision for now, but try to find the correct answer before the next session."
Your comment would be fine without the "Not this again" snark.
You must be one lucky gamer. If what you describe is true, then you have found the perfect gaming group, and should hold to them as long as you can.
For the rest of us, your comment reads like idealized hopes and dreams. In my experience, it's never been about a game stopping "without a ruling", it's been about the players/DM never agreeing on the ruling, which leads to an entire sessions wasted on whether or not that barrel could hold X or Y item on a wagon.
Not this again. Either your position is badly written or you are badly mistaken.
I don't know of any poster claiming that not knowing what a rule was has stopped their game.
It is also mostly GM's that come here asking for clarification since they don't want to cheat the players.If you have any link to these "I won't play without a ruling" threads I would like to read them though.
I always saw it as "make a decision for now, but try to find the correct answer before the next session."
Your comment would be fine without the "Not this again" snark.
You must be one lucky gamer. If what you describe is true, then you have found the perfect gaming group, and should hold to them as long as you can.
For the rest of us, your comment reads like idealized hopes and dreams. In my experience, it's never been about a game stopping "without a ruling", it's been about the players/DM never agreeing on the ruling, which leads to an entire sessions wasted on whether or not that barrel could hold X or Y item on a wagon.
That was not snark. It was aggravation, and me avoiding a long rant.
Even with a houserule that does not mean people really agree. It just means they don't want to waste time debating the issue, and are willing to let it go until an answer is found.
How did I describe the perfect gaming group? All I did was describe a group willing to put the discussion aside, and find the answer after the session. It is either that or kill the session. The only way in which I consider myself lucky was that our rules disputes were not life threatening for a character, not yet anyway.
Do these sorts of rules issues happen more frequently in a gamist environment? I have had plenty of rules disputes on both sides of the screen, but I have been lucky in that they have rarely been contentious.
Do these sorts of rules issues happen more frequently in a gamist environment? I have had plenty of rules disputes on both sides of the screen, but I have been lucky in that they have rarely been contentious.
I am more gamist than not myself and I don't have these issues. I just leave it up to the DM if it goes past 1 minute or so. If he is right then good, but if not I shoot an email with a quote that I somehow could not find at the time. He then decides if he goes with the book version or house rules it. None of us(my group) have an issue with house rules. We just don't like being surprised.
That is how the groups I have been in generally handle it. If the argument goes longer than five minutes, the GM makes a ruling and we move on. We might discuss it after game or in an e-mail.
The 'surprises' thing worries me. There is no way for a GM to know that one of their players is going to interrupt a certain rule differently than them. I have seen players design a character around a particular rule specifically to exploit their interpretation of it. Then they get angry when a GM does interpret it the same way.
I feel if you are going to build a PC that way, you should run it by the GM first. If you want to hide it as some kind of ace up your sleeve, then I think there are deeper issues than rule interpretations that need to be addressed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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 **
But, but...arguing on teh interwebz ad nauseum is an innate human right.
Not this again. Either your position is badly written or you are badly mistaken.
I don't know of any poster claiming that not knowing what a rule was has stopped their game.
It is also mostly GM's that come here asking for clarification since they don't want to cheat the players.If you have any link to these "I won't play without a ruling" threads I would like to read them though.
I always saw it as "make a decision for now, but try to find the correct answer before the next session."
Your comment would be fine without the "Not this again" snark.
You must be one lucky gamer. If what you describe is true, then you have found the perfect gaming group, and should hold to them as long as you can.
For the rest of us, your comment reads like idealized hopes and dreams. In my experience, it's never been about a game stopping "without a ruling", it's been about the players/DM never agreeing on the ruling, which leads to an entire sessions wasted on whether or not that barrel could hold X or Y item on a wagon.
That was not snark. It was aggravation, and me avoiding a long rant.
Even with a houserule that does not mean people really agree. It just means they don't want to waste time debating the issue, and are willing to let it go until an answer is found.
How did I describe the perfect gaming group? All I did was describe a group willing to put the discussion aside, and find the answer after the session. It is either that or kill the session. The only way in which I consider myself lucky was that our rules disputes were not life threatening for a character, not yet anyway.
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.
Do these sorts of rules issues happen more frequently in a gamist environment? I have had plenty of rules disputes on both sides of the screen, but I have been lucky in that they have rarely been contentious.
Really it depends. When I started play 3.5 I was new but given the DM chair with a couple of players that had already played. Unfortunately several rules had been taught incorrectly (not houserules, just incorrect knowledge) and it caused a few rough spots at the beginning. We were pretty ridiculous about arguing till we were blue in the face back then.
Nowadays for the most part we may stop for 5 minutes to look something up if it's obscure. Luckily we don't try to kill each other anymore :p
EDIT: Also this just makes me think of this... comic
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not this again. Either your position is badly written or you are badly mistaken.
I don't know of any poster claiming that not knowing what a rule was has stopped their game.
It is also mostly GM's that come here asking for clarification since they don't want to cheat the players.If you have any link to these "I won't play without a ruling" threads I would like to read them though.
I always saw it as "make a decision for now, but try to find the correct answer before the next session."
Your comment would be fine without the "Not this again" snark.
You must be one lucky gamer. If what you describe is true, then you have found the perfect gaming group, and should hold to them as long as you can.
For the rest of us, your comment reads like idealized hopes and dreams. In my experience, it's never been about a game stopping "without a ruling", it's been about the players/DM never agreeing on the ruling, which leads to an entire sessions wasted on whether or not that barrel could hold X or Y item on a wagon.
That was not snark. It was aggravation, and me avoiding a long rant.
Even with a houserule that does not mean people really agree. It just means they don't want to waste time debating the issue, and are willing to let it go until an answer is found.
How did I describe the perfect gaming group? All I did was describe a group willing to put the discussion aside, and find the answer after the session. It is either that or kill the session. The only way in which I consider myself lucky was that our rules disputes were not life threatening for a character, not yet anyway.
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...
See?! Arguing! Interwebz! Ad nauseum!
Do these sorts of rules issues happen more frequently in a gamist environment? I have had plenty of rules disputes on both sides of the screen, but I have been lucky in that they have rarely been contentious.
Jandrem will attest to this absurd scenario where we did try to homerule it and forget it, but the player - admittedly he's still new to role playing - took umbrage with the rule that the GM fabricated on gambling (as we were doing a session that involved gladiatorial combat) and the player went on a whole rant about how it's done in Vegas and I swear we wasted the last 90 minutes on the discussion. Nevermind the fact that he yet to own the PHB at the time -- I don't think he'd like how it'd be adjudicated in there either.
Homerule it. And get over it.
It's my new mantra.
EDIT: Also this just makes me think of this... comic
The battle cry of the Paizo boards!
But, but...arguing on teh interwebz ad nauseum is an innate human right.
TL;DL
;-)
EDIT: Also this just makes me think of this... comic
Ninja'ed me as I was about to do that. Inception.
EDIT: Also this just makes me think of this... comicNinja'ed me as I was about to do that. Inception.
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... comicThere is a certain, sparkly pony on the other end of that screen.
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.
Do these sorts of rules issues happen more frequently in a gamist environment? I have had plenty of rules disputes on both sides of the screen, but I have been lucky in that they have rarely been contentious.
There's a certain type of player who believes that everything that's not explicitly banned in the rules is implicitly permitted. I call those people "INTJ"s. ;-)
Having said that, sometimes it's just fun to argue about games. There's a whole industry devoted to it called "sports radio", I hear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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!
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.
I occasionally post in my Taoism thread too. :P
When did people start calling it "home rule"? It's house rule, g$!@##n it!
My group has a house rule that they are called home rules.
When did people start calling it "home rule"? It's house rule, g$!@##n it!My group has a house rule that they are called home rules.
Great! Now my Feat that gives me a +1 in all House Rules situations is totally nerfed! Why didn't you tell us about that before hand?!
When did people start calling it "home rule"? It's house rule, g+%$~*n it!
The difference is what makes a house, a home. *cue sappy music*
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.
Drinking hemlock would have been the suitable alternative. Or calculating the mass of navel lint. I reserve my nerd rage for other things. ;)
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.
Like this one! Internet is serious business.
There's a certain type of player who believes that everything that's not explicitly banned in the rules is implicitly permitted. I call those people "INTJ"s. ;-)
Having said that, sometimes it's just fun to argue about games. There's a whole industry devoted to it called "sports radio", I hear.
So close. <wipes a brow> I'm INTP.
As for the other industry, thank goodness I'm hearing impaired. And do not drink beer. And refrain from fantasy sports teams. ;-)
When did people start calling it "home rule"? It's house rule, g&%~&%n it!
I like to call it home field advantage. Sorry. Better luck next time, legalist! ;)
4. Perhaps, most importantly to Paizo, how could a company create great things like the Adventure Paths if everyone was playing a custom home ruled version of the game? What would be the targeted market?
The majority that's happy to adapt. Oh wait...
;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Repeat after me, gentlemen and ladies.
Homerule it. And get over it.
OM.
Repeat after me, gentlemen and ladies.
Homerule it. And get over it.
OM.
I'm house-ruling your homerule!
|
You must be one lucky gamer. If what you describe is true, then you have found the perfect gaming group, and should hold to them as long as you can.
For the rest of us, your comment reads like idealized hopes and dreams. In my experience, it's never been about a game stopping "without a ruling", it's been about the players/DM never agreeing on the ruling, which leads to an entire sessions wasted on whether or not that barrel could hold X or Y item on a wagon.
"The rest of us"?
I've never had a game session break down into an entire session arguing about rules. As a GM, or as a player it's just not worth interrupting the game and arguing over. Find a simple fast way to resolve the issue in game and resolve it then move on. Then you can debate rules out-of-session or over email.
If something is impossible to resolve then you can either come up with a compromise, or worst case, the player can make a different character that doesn't lean on contentious rules.
I value my gaming time too much to waste it away with pointless arguments.
When did people start calling it "home rule"? It's house rule, g$!@##n it!My group has a house rule that they are called home rules.
LOL EL ftw!
"The rest of us"?
I've never had a game session break down into an entire session arguing about rules. As a GM, or as a player it's just not worth interrupting the game and arguing over. Find a simple fast way to resolve the issue in game and resolve it then move on. Then you can debate rules out-of-session or over email.
If something is impossible to resolve then you can either come up with a compromise, or worst case, the player can make a different character that doesn't lean on contentious rules.
I value my gaming time too much to waste it away with pointless arguments.
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. ;-)
|
|
Three things:
1. Being a guy that went through many years of campaigning in 1E and 2E where the default answer to everything was "homerule it" 3.x was a HUGE improvement for my group. During our 1E and 2E days my group would spend hours (I mean it, HOURS) arguing over rule interpretations during a game session. When 3E came out with its all encompassing rules engine our game table arguments dropped by easily 95%. It was truly a blessing. Today, now that we are all very familiar with how 3.5 works, we almost never argue over rule interpretations and we have only a handful of home rules.
2. In the "homerule by default" days of 1E (and 2E to an extent) you could never just show up at someones game table without a long discussion on what the pertinent home rules were. It was required to do this since the rules themselves were designed primarily as guidelines. With the 3.x engine that all went away as RAW became the default. When you showed up at someones 3.x game 90% of what was going on was the same as every other 3E game you played all thanks to a robust rules engine.
3. Having a strict and standard set of rules that everyone for the most part uses allows discussions like the ones ALL OVER these boards to take place. The common rule set of 3E+ keeps this community together and gives us a common ground to discuss (and yes sometimes irrationally argue about) our games. If everyone just "homeruled" everything we would have no common ground to compare, contrast, discuss, and occasionally berate each other over.
4. Perhaps, most importantly to Paizo, how could a company create great things like the Adventure Paths if everyone was playing a custom home ruled version of the game? What would be the targeted market?
You seem to be mistaking a group having house rules for a group where each person is trying to run/play the game with a completely different system than anyone else was using.
Long arguments about HOW to resolve a situation have now been replaced with long arguments about where to find the official ruling, as well as which ruling from contradictory sources should take precedence (more a problem with 3.X than PFRPG...so far).
You also seem to be under the deluded impression that people stopped using house rules when 3.X came about. Hell, most groups I've played with have had MORE house rules under 3.X than they ever did under prior editions. 3.X's overly codified nature means that there's more stuff to just plain not function in a way that anyone in the group likes. It also means that people assume there's a rule for something, even if nobody knows what it is or where it can be found.
You also seem to be pretending that it's the common rule set of 3.X that's has made the RPG community grow closer over the past decade or so. Not even close...that's the internet. The internet would have had the same influence on the community under 0E, 1E, Basic, or 2E.
And if minor house rules prevent a company from being able to published "Adventure Paths" then how did TSR (and quite a few 3PP as well) manage to publish so damn many adventures and campaign settings?
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!
Nice meta-post Evil Lincoln!
\golfclap
And if minor house rules prevent a company from being able to published "Adventure Paths" then how did TSR (and quite a few 3PP as well) manage to publish so damn many adventures and campaign settings?
Easily. A lot of gamers are completionists. It carries over from the comic book niche. It is why we are subjected to nerd rage when a new writer or inker is brought on board and craps over their beloved super hero. Suckers! ;-)
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.
But what of the children?! </inside_joke>
Homerule it. And get over it.
OM.
You must be one lucky gamer. If what you describe is true, then you have found the perfect gaming group, and should hold to them as long as you can.
For the rest of us, your comment reads like idealized hopes and dreams. In my experience, it's never been about a game stopping "without a ruling", it's been about the players/DM never agreeing on the ruling, which leads to an entire sessions wasted on whether or not that barrel could hold X or Y item on a wagon.
"The rest of us"?
I've never had a game session break down into an entire session arguing about rules. As a GM, or as a player it's just not worth interrupting the game and arguing over. Find a simple fast way to resolve the issue in game and resolve it then move on. Then you can debate rules out-of-session or over email.
If something is impossible to resolve then you can either come up with a compromise, or worst case, the player can make a different character that doesn't lean on contentious rules.
I value my gaming time too much to waste it away with pointless arguments.
+1. Really never had a rules arguement during a game. I have seen them get nasty. Heck at my FLGS I got into a rules discussion with a guy not during a game where he started litary started to throw a tantrum like a two year old. It was funny.
I have seen people in my group start a heated arguement at which point I say,
"Lokk this is just a game and we all friends here. Just relax and make your case."
I always try to play neutral in these arguements and usualy works.
You must be one lucky gamer. If what you describe is true, then you have found the perfect gaming group, and should hold to them as long as you can.
For the rest of us, your comment reads like idealized hopes and dreams. In my experience, it's never been about a game stopping "without a ruling", it's been about the players/DM never agreeing on the ruling, which leads to an entire sessions wasted on whether or not that barrel could hold X or Y item on a wagon.
"The rest of us"?
I've never had a game session break down into an entire session arguing about rules. As a GM, or as a player it's just not worth interrupting the game and arguing over. Find a simple fast way to resolve the issue in game and resolve it then move on. Then you can debate rules out-of-session or over email.
If something is impossible to resolve then you can either come up with a compromise, or worst case, the player can make a different character that doesn't lean on contentious rules.
I value my gaming time too much to waste it away with pointless arguments.
Ok, I was "in the moment" and should not have made such a declarative statement as "the rest of us." Poor use of words on my end.
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.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
There's a certain type of player who believes that everything that's not explicitly banned in the rules is implicitly permitted. I call those people "INTJ"s. ;-)
<--INTJ. I call those kind of players, "players," as opposed to players who have spent some time behind the screen and therefore have no patience for that kind of tomfoolery.
Repeat after me, gentlemen and ladies.
Homerule it. And get over it.
OM.
Close it. And get over it.
Wait, I think I got that wrong...
I see you sticking your head. Out the closet door. Either come out, or close it.
Wait, I think I got that wrong...