|
Table variation issues and rules adjudication are generally for restricting overpowering play, not roleplaying. As an example, is a PC illegal if he uses 15 point buy? Should this PC be banned from tables for it?I had hoped that we weren't so accepting of sacrificing player excitement when the mechanical risk was negligible or non-existent. If I interpret this thread correctly, it is sobering to realize that PFS GMs are allowed to make such rulings.
Rubia
I think you can take comfort that five out six GM's supported pork, and the one who didn't, based off the description of the session came across as a bit compulsive in other ways.
There have been a battle between those who interpret the rules openly and those who who yell 'you can't do that'. As Dragnmoon put it
there is no rule in any book that allows for Re-Skinning of Companions/Mounts what have you, there for I don't allow it and would not let my PFS players back home do."
Well there are no rules saying you can't and the rules as Rubia pointed out--
3) Infer from "Reward creative solutions" that it also refers to rewarding creative (roleplaying) solutions.
4) The "table variation" section of the guide also suggests that one should not be "stiflingly oppressive", as long as the result is BOTH FUN AND FAIR. Fun should be part of your judgement call.I know that the guide also says that one should not use these ideals to violate campaign rules, but reskinning (or not) is not part of the campaign rules as far as I can find.
Obviously, there is a break here. But the rules clearly support open and FUN interpretation of the rules provided they provide no mechanical advantage. Basically, they come out of support of the pig.
Slavish loyalty to rules that don't even exist should not be supported. Creativity should be rewarded and generally is. Thank god for that.
|
Well there are no rules saying you can't ...
Actually, there are. It was ruled on by the head of the PFS at the time. I don't know if it ever made it into the FAQ threads, but here is the post:
Is it something that a GM might be unaware of, or look the other way on? Yes, of course.
Was Chris following the rules? Absolutely. AND as he pointed out in his spoiler, this was a case where the re-skinning would have provided and in-game benefit which the designer of the mod would not take into account (as most legal mounts are accounted for in the scenario).
|
|
Actually, there are. It was ruled on by the head of the PFS at the time. I don't know if it ever made it into the FAQ threads, but here is the post:
Is it something that a GM might be unaware of, or look the other way on? Yes, of course.
1) It never made the FAQ, therefore it never made the rules.
2) RAW, as Rubia pointed out, clearly favors creative solutions and not being stifling oppressive. Clearly this was stifling.
Was Chris following the rules? Absolutely. AND as he pointed out in his spoiler, this was a case where the re-skinning would have provided and in-game benefit which the designer of the mod would not take into account (as most legal mounts are accounted for in the scenario).
And as I and others have pointed out, that was easily handled. Clearly, nobody who is supporting the pig are supporting giving any mechanical advantage and this has been repeated multiple times. The anti-pig side keep bringing it up. This is clearly a false argument.
|
|
Sorry, Kerney. Josh's rulings are the rules unless they have since been changed.
And I never said that I was "Anti". I just said that Chris was within the rules, and made an understandable ruling based on the scenario.
EDIT: That probably came out more emphatic than intended.
Under the policies about messageboard posts, you are welcome to treat it as a guideline, and ignore it at your table.
At the time of posting, it was an official ruling. So Chris is doing nothing wrong by following it at his table.
No, you should not be thankful to the GM. He was being obnoxious and nit picky. Mechanically it was a Dog.
I have just finished reading the entire scenario in question. I am about to run it on Sat. I have to say that the GM was right, though I do agree that this particular scenario is not well-suited(as are many in PFS) for a cavilier of any kind.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
there is no rule in any book that allows for Re-Skinning of Companions/Mounts what have you, there for I don't allow it and would not let my PFS players back home do."Well there are no rules saying you can't and the rules as Rubia pointed out--
The whole "The rules don't say you can / the rules don't say you can't" argument is a terrible base to start a discussion from in any situation. For example, the rules don't say I fall down when hit with a sleep spell, or when I fall unconscious -- there's no mention of the prone condition in either case. For that matter, I apparently don't drop things when knocked unconscious, only when I am stunned.
So please stay away from "rules say you can/can't" arguments -- I had my fill of them with the Living Greyhawk player base, and I'm unfortunately starting to see that mentality creep into PFS judges and players as well...
|
The whole "The rules don't say you can / the rules don't say you can't" argument is a terrible base to start a discussion from in any situation. For example, the rules don't say I fall down when hit with a sleep spell, or when I fall unconscious -- there's no mention of the prone condition in either case. For that matter, I apparently don't drop things when knocked unconscious, only when I am stunned.So please stay away from "rules say you can/can't" arguments -- I had my fill of them with the Living Greyhawk player base, and I'm unfortunately starting to see that mentality creep into PFS judges and players as well...
Unfortunately, when the "rules don't say you can / the rules don't say you can't" you have a situation where we are all arguing RAI. You cannot escape the inevitable back and forth as to what rules, if any, support your interpretation of the game. If there was a specified rule, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Unfortunately, when the "rules don't say you can / the rules don't say you can't" you have a situation where we are all arguing RAI. You cannot escape the inevitable back and forth as to what rules, if any, support your interpretation of the game. If there was a specified rule, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
And that is when we as GMs make a ruleing, stick too it, and come on the forums to discuss it later. As the OP did. What I do not like is a player from that session coming on to a GM forum, and trying to bash him. Things like that make people not want to GM. Based on the Ipod incident alone I would have banned that player anyway, though I make it clear before anyone sits down where I stand on that sort of thing.
|
And that is when we as GMs make a ruleing, stick too it, and come on the forums to discuss it later. As the OP did. What I do not like is a player from that session coming on to a GM forum, and trying to bash him. Things like that make people not want to GM. Based on the Ipod incident alone I would have banned that player anyway, though I make it clear before anyone sits down where I stand on that sort of thing.
Unfortunately, when the "rules don't say you can / the rules don't say you can't" you have a situation where we are all arguing RAI. You cannot escape the inevitable back and forth as to what rules, if any, support your interpretation of the game. If there was a specified rule, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I think I understand what your saying about Ipads; I have the same issues with electronic devices, however, as GMs we also have to realize that that is the way that the community is moving to more of the electronic reference guides then toting bags of heavy books. I've given serious thought to converting all my game resources to a digital format of some sort and paring down to just a backpack for the majority of the con vs. a rolling duffle.
My caveat on this is that if I know someone is doing more than just referencing game material on their device I ask them to put it away out of respect for me and the other players.
My personal beef is with electronic dice rollers.. I hate them, hate hate hate them. I would rather hand a player a set of my own dice than have them use an electronic dice roller.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The whole "The rules don't say you can / the rules don't say you can't" argument is a terrible base to start a discussion from in any situation.there is no rule in any book that allows for Re-Skinning of Companions/Mounts what have you, there for I don't allow it and would not let my PFS players back home do."Well there are no rules saying you can't and the rules as Rubia pointed out--
This. So let's take the whole skinning thing to the extreme. My character looks like a very young bronze dragon with the Draconic sorcerer bloodline. Mechanically, he's a human, but he looks like a bronze dragon.
Taking an earlier example, he also uses a quarterstaff re-skinned to look like Darth Maul's double-ended lightsaber. It still works like a quarterstaff, but I always say, "I attack with my lightsaber with a 15 to hit. Did I hit?"
Additionally when I cast Color Spray with my sorcerer, it actually looks like there are My Little Ponies shooting out from my hands. "I call forth Pinkie Pie and Rainbow Dash to stun my foes!" (Yes, I have a daughter;)
If you're another player at the table, are you still enjoying your RP experience in Golarion or are we playing something else? The slope gets slippery really fast.
Allowing re-skinning is not just a singular player's experience, especially in a shared campaign setting like PFS. If you do something for your own fun that stretches the concept of the setting or the spirit of the rules via "the rules don't say you can't", you are expecting the other players and GMs to accept it for their fun, too. In a shared campaign setting where you GM and co-players can change from game to game, it just doesn't work well.
|
|
Additionally when I cast Color Spray with my sorcerer, it actually looks like there are My Little Ponies shooting out from my hands. "I call forth Pinkie Pie and Rainbow Dash to stun my foes!" (Yes, I have a daughter;)
Actually I thought I read that re-skinning spell effects was allowed? I know I allow my players to flavor their spells to fit their character. An Ice Sorceror who wants her Magic Missile to look like icicles hitting her opponent doesn't strike me as game breaking, especially if Spellcraft still identifies the spell as Magic Missile.
|
|
Actually I thought I read that re-skinning spell effects was allowed? I know I allow my players to flavor their spells to fit their character. An Ice Sorceror who wants her Magic Missile to look like icicles hitting her opponent doesn't strike me as game breaking, especially if Spellcraft still identifies the spell as Magic Missile.
It's been stated, but not in the Guide or in the FAQ apparently. Would I allow it in a non-PFS game? Almost certainly, but not in PFS.
There's a many other nuances to making Magic Missile into icicles than just the Spellcraft. What about cover? What about cold resistance? What about armor? Unless the player is always saying they cast Magic Missile, as a PFS GM that might only encounter that player once I may not allow it (even without the re-skinning statements by Mark). It gets even more confusing when some of their other spells actually DO change their energy type.
|
|
Third, there is the issue that players are not necessarily empowered to do anything (at that time, anyway) other than leave a dissatisfying table. As I've posted earlier, this does not address any potential problems, may carry real-life consequences for that character and/or player, and may require a player willing to go the distance with campaign administration for corrective action over what was supposed to be a fun event.
Using "fun" as the justification is a weak one because everyone is going to have their own variations on what's "fun". If not being able to have a character look like a dragon even though it's really a human destroys a player's fun, then organized play is not the environment for that player because organized play implies a level of standards and rules that are unbendable.
You're allowing mechanical differences if you're thinking about cover or cold resistance or armor. No one is advocating that. Please read the thread carefully. This has been emphasized many times.
I have, but in the given example, the person made mention of Spellcraft only. If that's the statement to the GM at the table, then the questions of cover and such are ones that potentially come up as the game moves forward as the GM is working to keep track of all the other details of running the game and to try to enable everyone at the table to have fun. We're only talking about one example. What if re-skinning became the norm where every character had a few things that did not appear the same as the things they utilize mechanically?
Here's one last concept for you: Paizo runs PFS as an advertising campaign (pun!), as far as I know. If players have bad experiences that *seem* arbitrary (and players drop), Paizo has no incentive to continue PFS.
If you're going to be arbitrary as a player ("Nothing in the rules says I can't reskin, so I'm going to reskin"), you had better be willing to accept the GM being arbitrary. Even in the example that started the whole thread, it sounds like the player actually was less concerned with the pig issue than with other things.
|
|
You're allowing mechanical differences if you're thinking about cover or cold resistance or armor. No one is advocating that.
But sometimes, you cannot ignore the reskin without ruining suspension of disbelief. If the character has been reskinned to represent a draconic background, even without mechanic changes, what happens when it encounters a ranger with favored enemy dragon? Realistically it should impact their social interaction and perhaps influence decisions to enter combat. Granted there will not be a bonus applied, but the damage is already done.
The question is once you open pandora's box for re-skinning, where does it stop? There are a lot of factors to consider. In a home game where the GM has 100% control and can bend the rules to suit their game, it's a great way to add flavor. But in organized play where a GM's control is somewhat nerfed, we should err on the side of caution.
I think the best way is to rule against reskinning. I know that there will be players who will do it anyway. The GM will have the right to review it and decide it s/he can work with it. If so, great, game on! If not, the player should be prepared for it, accept the GM's decision, un-skin(?), and game on!
|
|
For Org play we need to stick to the rules so we all know exactly what we will be dealing with and we need to stop making up rules!I agree 100%. Don't try and tell me my character can't do stuff just because he's gained the dead condition, that's not in the rules! /sarcasm
This seems to be an example where a person came up with a concept and made a character based around the concept, then found out it was illegal. Not a case where they read the rules, discovered they couldn't do X, then decided they wanted to do it anyway.
The most important rule of PFS is PLAY! PLAY! PLAY! The most important rule of Pathfinder is Have Fun. Neither of those rules, either as written or the intention, were followed in this case.
As a point to note: PLAY PLAY PLAY is not a guideline to arbitrarily circumvent the rules so that you can make a wild character. The original intention (as I understand it) was to ensure that everyone could play. This ruling has been modified a lot and is no longer listed in the newest guide release as the PLAY PLAY PLAY rule.
|
|
My bad in that case. Have they removed "have fun" from the pathfinder rule books?The most important rule of PFS is PLAY! PLAY! PLAY! The most important rule of Pathfinder is Have Fun. Neither of those rules, either as written or the intention, were followed in this case.As a point to note: PLAY PLAY PLAY is not a guideline to arbitrarily circumvent the rules so that you can make a wild character. The original intention (as I understand it) was to ensure that everyone could play. This ruling has been modified a lot and is no longer listed in the newest guide release as the PLAY PLAY PLAY rule.
No need to be snarky
|
|
I can't help but notice that many people arguing against the pig are using logical fallacies to do so. Logical fallacies have no place in a decent discussion so I'm going to point them out.
While I agree that in regards to technical writing or debate, you are correct, it is naive to think that we cannot take past experience and extrapolate the escalation of player's actions. In every OP campaign I have been involved in, there were players, even a small percentage that pushed the "cheese" to a level that no one enjoyed playing with them. I see no reason to think it won't happen again and I would hate to see that happen to PFS anymore than it already is.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well I can see that this thread has pretty much run its course. There are two sides to this issue and I can see where people stand but ultimately, there needs to be some transparency.
I come down on the side of no reskinning.
Simply for the sake of fun. Fun for the GM. It's hard enough to try and keep a game going at a Con with all the combinations of archetypes and the like when someone throughs a curveball with a re skinned creature. Witch familiars aside, has been prevented in the past, I don't see why it should be allowed now.
People often forget that the GM running the game is a volunteer and its just as much a game for him too. That person has just as much imagination vested in his/her game, if not more so, not to mention the obligation of keeping all the players entertained at the table.
GMs aren't in the position to cater to a player, they are here to facilitate a game for a group of players.
Lets drop the comments about slippery slope, if we want to have a ethical argument thread we can take that somewhere else. We're about one step away from Godwin's Law from being invoked.
Sorry if anyone feels like I stepped on anyones toes.
|
As the VC in question at a table full of VCs (and Kyle Baird) I would have preferred that you said something at the time vs. bringing it up as an issue for you months after the fact.To be clear my PC animal companion in this game was an ape. The PC in character called it a Charua-Ka. It’s the wrong size, looks completely different and to anyone with any knowledge in game is not an ethnic Charua-Ka. Perhaps I did not make this clear enough at the time.
I am sorry that this bothered you so much Dragonmoon and I really realy wish you had said something at the time.One thing that this thread has made me realize is that I stand firmly in the camp of “Let’s all have a good time sharing a story” vs. “Let’s make everything absolutely consistent for all players in all instances”. I do not believe that the latter is even something that can be achieved. It is something that we should strive but not to the extent that it causes us lose focus on nurturing the shared experience of a game. One thing that tends to get lost as we spend more and more time in an organized play environment is remembering that we started playing because it was fun. It we don’t continually and consistently nurture, grow and spread that sense of joy to other gamers then it is my belief that our little hobby will wither on the vine. This does not mean that players get carte blanche but rather that actions in support of a good story should be encouraged.
I’d much rather make a table ruling that defines how a PC can swing from a chandelier and kick an opponent in the face...
I guess the Very Strong Hints I left in the Thread when we planned the game where not obvious enough, And just like I said, as you quoted me, "I neither have the time or want to start an argument with strangers at Cons so mostly I ignore it at Cons even though my Brain is screaming to do otherwise".
I do not agree with everything you said, I fully believe we can have consistent rules without making up our own that have no basis in the system and Still tell a great story and Have fun.
In other words, you don't have to make up rules to have fun.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lets look at one example why I am against "Making - up" rules like this.
Player one: Yay they finally have an Cavalier archetype that fit my concept of a character I want and the Mount I always wanted for that concept!
Player Two: Oh? I always had that "Place animal here" as a Mount by re-skinning "Place mount here".
Player One: wait what? Where in the APG or Core does it say I can Re-Skin an animal?
Player Two: Oh there is no such rule, but I like being "cool" *Over exaggeration* and really want the "Place animal here" instead of "Place mount here", so I thought for my "Idea" of fun I could just make it up an re-skin it, who does it hurt?
Player One: It hurts me! I was following the rules why should I get punished for that?
So and this story can pretty much fit for any out of the no where rules that people make up that have no basis in the rules but think they need to do it to have fun.
I Do not in the vast majority of cases except "Fun" as a reason for breaking or making up rules, because you can still have fun with out doing so.
|
|
I'd argue this is allowed by RAW. "Have Fun!" Its the most generic rule, and there's no more specific rule against what she did (since specific trumps generic). This specific instance could have been resolved in about 5 seconds with a quick "Hey, everyone. Does anyone object to her reskinning her wolf mount as a pig?" (Ignoring the ever dubious "and other animals at gm's discretion since this wasn't a case of actually using another animal.)
I can't believe I had to read 130+ posts before someone mentioned what about the other players at the table. The goal should be to have fun. Do you think the other four players enjoyed having players get up and walk away from their table? I'm just sorry the parties involved couldn't work out their problems at the table. Based on their postings, their both intelligent and mature, kudos for being able to discuss it rationally after the fact.
I've had people re-skin things in PFS. I'm fine with that (note I don't say I like it, I just accept that its fun for some people). I'm fine with it until that re-skinning ruins someone else's fun. If someone re-skinned their mount so the table could be bombarded with bacon jokes and 'squeal like a pig' references for four hours then there is no way in heck I would have let 'em play that. If someone re-skinned their mount to be a pig so they could have the 'same' mount when they hit fourth level and it becomes a boar, great, they are investing in their character and if they get fun from that, who am I to say no.
I'd make sure the player gets no mechanical advantage from it. As long as it didn't bother any other player, I would definitely try to use the re-skinning in the fluff and roleplay. It will likely be more fun and memorable for everyone involved.
I'd also like to point out that Josh didn't say "ABSOLUTELY NO SKINNING WHATSOEVER!!!1!!" He said: "So if you say, 'My mount is a boar but uses the horse stats' any GM would be within their rights to say, 'No, dude, that's a horse. You can't pretend it's a boar.' and you'd have to follow that."
That means if you show up to a table with a re-skinned whatever don't expect that the GM has to allow it. Don't expect other players at the table to accept it either. Your gnome on a pig might be fun to you but it might be too cutesy and spoil someone else's gritty Pathfinder quest.
Be mindful of the other players. Play nice. Have fun.
|
|
[...] Player One: It hurts me! I was following the rules why should I get punished for that? [...]
Except there is no actual harm to Player One -- his character is not affected, his rewards are not affected, etc. -- and Player One is not being punished in any way.
It's the same imagined harm that occurs when Player Two has a boon he got by attending GenCon and Player One complains that that's not fair because he can't afford to attend GenCon for whatever reason, and so misses out on having the same boon.
|
|
[...] Player One: It hurts me! I was following the rules why should I get punished for that? [...]Except there is no actual harm to Player One -- his character is not affected, his rewards are not affected, etc. -- and Player One is not being punished in any way.
It's the same imagined harm that occurs when Player Two has a boon he got by attending GenCon and Player One complains that that's not fair because he can't afford to attend GenCon for whatever reason, and so misses out on having the same boon.
He sure is... He has wanted to play that concept for a long time but could not because he followed the rules... I would call that harm.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately, when the "rules don't say you can / the rules don't say you can't" you have a situation where we are all arguing RAI. You cannot escape the inevitable back and forth as to what rules, if any, support your interpretation of the game. If there was a specified rule, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Really?
Let's look at the actual rule, shall we? It's been posted twice in this thread and has been almost ENTIRELY ignored by those who are engaging in what might be described as sophistry to support a decision which resulted in people walking out on a game during their vacation -- the very purpose of which vacation was (in whole or in part) to play Pathfinder Society. (And that's not a small paint, either).
The RULEA Small cavalier can select a pony or wolf, but can also select a boar or a dog if he is at least 4th level. The GM might approve other animals as suitable mounts.
In this case, at least THREE other GMs not only MIGHT approve the use of the pig mount, they, in fact, DID approve the use of the pig as a mount by the small cavalier.
So let's stop going back and forth about the hidebound nature of the Cavalier class, the rule, and what it can use and what it can't. The rule can and does permit it. The discretion to permit the use of another animal is NOT implied, it is EXPRESSLY contained within the rule itself.
Some of you seem to think that discretion includes the result "never"; but if that's your definition of "discretion" then may I be so bold as to say that's not discretion at all. You are outright confused about what discretion means and what it doesn't mean.
Now, some of you may be content with a ruling that PFS play will not permit discretionary rulings of this kind because of the inherent nature of Organized Play. If you are in that camp, might I be so bold to remind you that position IGNORES the central fact that a couple walked away from a PFS game session on their vacation, in part, because of that very ruling.
That central fact is highly persuasive evidence that points to the need, upon reflection, to reconsider. To do otherwise it to stick your head in the sand.
And to be perfectly honest, this more than anything else, bugs me. There are posters in this thread who should be ambassadors for this game and the very people who should be able to exercise their discretion in a balanced and sensible way to give effect to the purpose and goal of Organized Play. But I'm not seeing as much of that here as I would reasonably have expected to see. That bugs me more than a little.
The question isn't about whether "reskinning" is allowed in PFS or not. The question is whether the discretion which is expressly permitted a GM to permit another animal to be used as an alternative mount by a cavalier was properly exercised. That discretion is not implied -- it is explicitly stated in the rule upon which you seek to rely.
So we're not talking about reskinning this, that and the other thing to the end of time. Nor, when discretion is required by the text of a rule, is a GM to engage in a hypothetical airing of all their hopes and fears in how a rule might be abused.
That's not for you to decide; that's for Jason Bulmahn to decide.
What's up for you to decide is whether the actual choice proposed by the player is reasonable or not in all the circumstances of the case at hand. It isn't up for you to weigh whether or not some other choice, on some other day, at some other time, might produce a different result. If you engage in that kind of consideration, you will be paralyzed like a deer in the headlights. That's not exercising discretion; that's abdicating from the very exercise of discretion that the rule imposes.
With respect to "reskinning" what we are talking about is using the base mechanical stats of a expressly permitted creature as a guideline so that we can determine that no unfair advantage is being provided to the player by permitting an alternative animal mount to the cavalier. In this case, none mechanical advantage was sought. In fact, taking the pig as a mount was providing the player LESS of an advantage than was available to her if she took a wolf.
So how do you handle the pig? Call it a medium sized pig, give it the stats of a pony and move on. The matter is resolved.
As for the supposed "benefit" that a pig provided over the wolf in this specific situation? NONSENSE. Are you seriously suggesting that a goblin will eat a horse or a dog but not a pig? Are you so hidebound by the module text that you cannot see that the intention of the author was to keep mounts out of the goblin area? Just include the pig in the same warning to the players by the VC and move on. All is well.
Really, this thing was SO EASY to handle and was instead, handled SO POORLY that I am flabbergast that so many of the posters here (and a few Venture Captains, too) cannot see the plain and obvious truth of this. The point of Organized Play, most especially at a convention, is to act as a venue to market this game.
How ever could this ruling rationally accomplish that objective?
The explicit text of the rule permits it, the spirit of the game allows it and the exercise of common sense towards the very purpose of Pathfinder Organized Play required it.
The couple who were the ones affected by this must be just shaking their heads in sheer amazement at the discussion here -- and sadly, I expect that they will do so for many years to come.
I know my own wife sat in her chair with jaw agape as I described what happened, the ruling, and this ensuing thread. Her reaction?: "If that's the sort of attitude down there, I will never play PFS at Gencon with you, EVER."
I highly doubt that my own wife's reaction to this whole fracas was unique.