I think that is a great system if you as a GM feel comfortable with it, and your players are interested in having a fun game and not getting pleasure from "getting one over" on you. It engenders a great level of trust with your players, and eliminates any feeling that some players get that their GM is trying to "beat" them. I do think that in situations that you are confident that you know the rules, but the players disagree, it is time to put their feet to the fire and insist that they find the rule they are disputing before their version goes into effect - so this round it is done your way, but if they can look up and find the rule by next round, then it is done in the way that you have both agreed that the book says.
I have been in situations where, as a player, the GM has designed an encounter which is based on an erroneous interpretation on the rules. As a player, I have learned to wait till the end of the session to bring the issue up, but there have definitely been a few times where enemies have ended up with abilities that are multiple times more powerful than intended in the rules. I have also learned, that when the GM has made a mistake like that, and the mistake they are making creates a huge power inequity, there is just no dishonor in running away, if at all possible. Sometimes the GM doesn't realize that he has made a mistake which makes an enemy nigh-invincible, and ends up just as disappointed as the players when it results in party death.
In short, I approve, but I am not going to fault GM's who have a less trusting philosophy, mostly because I have played with exploitative players. There have been many a session where I have ended the night feeling very sorry for the GM and the nonsense he has to put up with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue with not looking into the disputes isn't so much NPCs dying unfairly as the session getting held up. It's really an issue of fun vs. rules. That being said, when not looking up the rules results in less fun, it gets gray. My rule of thumb is generally to let things wait unless they're important. Five damage? We'll look it up later. Dead PC? We look it up now. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread title was really misleading dangit.
Yea, but 95% of the time. Due to the sheer amount of time I spend on the system. I'm right, and the players are wrong. Though, I tell them to look it up when it's not their turn, and we'll take a quick 1-2 minute break to go over the rule during the session once they have it.And I think that's why it says in almost every roleplaying game that the DM (or its equivalent) is the rules referee, because most likely they know the rules the best. This isn't always the case however, how would you feel about your system if all your players knew as much as you did?
I do have a player who knows the rules about as much as I do. He is also the other GM. We normally take 1 minute or so to look it up if we disagree.
Depending on the situation we may or may not agree with the point that favors the players. Luckily it has never occurred when a player might die.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Woah there, when did wizards using 5' steps be indicative of a DM who is trying to game the system? If he uses a barbarian with a two-hander and power attack is he gaming the system then? Personally I try and follow the rules because following the rules will give players the most-fair experience. Not to say I don't allow things that are not in the rules, but allowing other stuff often affects game balance greatly.
For example, the javelin example. If the DM did say "rules be damned!" and took away the hard limit on ranged weapons then the archer would suddenly be able to snipe dragons from miles away. THAT would break the game. Heck, just look at the AM BARBARIAN discussion. Much of what that battle consists of is who sees who first and being able to attack once you see them.
Forget the 5' step then. Lets say a player is playing a paladin who is standing 10' in front of a princess he is trying to defend. On the monsters turn, he takes a XX' movement, walks in a big circle around the paladin and attacks the princess in the back. The paladin can't move to get in the way because it isn't his turn. Very stupid, but legal by RAW.
Well it the Paladin where trying to protect the princess he would have set up a readied action to intercept the monster if it got within X feet of the princess. Very smart, and legal by RAW.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I think it is the rules adherent GMs that are trying to beat the players more often, at least in my experience.
That's one of the most ridiculous things I've heard. DMs that play by the rules, otherwise known as 'the ones playing the actual unmodified game' are the ones that screw the players? And the ones that make things up on the fly are always looking out for the players?
Completely wrong. A DM out to screw the players has nothing to do with how closely they follow the rules. They can screw them within or without, and nothing indicates one or the other.
IMO, the GM in the example is a prick. He was unwilling to allow the players to benefit from a tactical advantage (long range spell vs. thrown weapon) and disallowed a check for a simple rule (it's not as if weapon ranges are as complicated as counterspelling).
A GM is allowed to break/change the rules, but IMO should only do so on rare occasions for story reasons or before the start of the campaign as part of creating the setting. In addition, this should happen in the background as much as possible. Otherwise, the GM will make the players feel helpless, because their choices and the actions of their characters seem meaningless in comparison to the whims of the GM.
Been there, done that. That was one thing I don't miss from the 1st/2nd Ed AD&D days: GMs changing the rules in the middle of combat to make things "more challenging" when the players got the upper hand on the monsters. Good GMs allow the players the successes that would result from their actions; poor GMs disallow player successes that would occur because of arrogance ("I didn't think of that! Well, I make it fail anyway by GM-fiat; I can't let the players 'beat' me that easily.") or a misplaced sense of drama ("If I let them get away with this, then the climactic fight with the BBEG will be a cakewalk... Well, I'll just make it fail; I can't let the players ruin the 'fun' of an exciting showdown.").
I'm pro GM here, I would have said "yes, it flew 700 feet, you don't know everything", then after the fight look up the rules and judge that my giant have a "far throw" feat, and the javelin had such an enchantment that stacked. I assume that noone did an awesome knowledge check, or I would have to have said that before, and I wouldn't use it. Same for detect magic on the javelin.
If I want my giant to take revenge for that fireball, he will. I will find a way that doesn't break RAW (monster statistics are not known to players unless by knowledge checks and thus can deviate from bestiary) and doesn't break continuity in the story.
This being said, I would listen to what my players have to say when I'm not sure and I don't mind the rules going either way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From the title I thought this thread was going to be about a campaign that ended by GM fiat and everyone thought it was awesome.
Instead it's yet another debate about how rules should be dealt with.
All this boils down to is "here's how I play and my players love/hate/don't care about it."
I always try to deal with things from first principles. It's hard because first principles aren't always obvious, and many people don't understand the concept of first principles.
The first principle here is that "we are all sitting at this table to enjoy a good game."
"We will follow the rules exactly" is not a first principle.
"The GM is always right" is not a first principle.
In order for my games to run as smoothly as possible, with as few rules debates as possible, I typically ask if one of the players wants to be the rules lawyer for the game. I tell them that this is an important role because as the GM I have a ton of things to keep track of and simply looking up a rule can cause me to lose track of a situation causing multiple delays as I first have to decide a ruling, then have to remember where we were, then have to reorganize my approach to the situation.
I do that because the first principle is "have fun" and long game delays and confusion over what is happening reduce fun.
For the same reason if my internal GM fun alarm goes off because the rules lawyer is not able to find the ruling quickly enough, then I will mandate a GM fiat solution for the situation, again because the first principle is "have fun" not "hang around and check email while the rules lawyer and GM search frantically through a bunch of books".
So, what happens when the rules lawyer is the one debating the rules? Honestly that almost never happens. The rules lawyers generally know the rules that apply to their characters best and it is rare that they haven't examined all the rules implications in detail before the game begins.
This has been working for me for almost 30 years. It is a rare, rare thing for one of my games to be sidetracked for rules debates, rules arguments or long downtime trying to work out things.
When there is a GM fiat ruling, the rules lawyer and I will usually check in over email and hash out a ruling for future situations.
@AD - Although your solution is different from the OP's, it is similar in that you are recruiting the player most likely to get into rules arguments with you to play a GM-assistant role, and trusting his rules obsession to aid in your job. I also approve of this, and think it is a nice creative solution for nipping the rules debate game delays in the bud. I am happy to see GM's who come up with ways to use the rules to create player trust instead of turning a gaming session into a rock-paper-scissors competition of rules-sparring.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pro GM here, I would have said "yes, it flew 700 feet, you don't know everything", then after the fight look up the rules and judge that my giant have a "far throw" feat, and the javelin had such an enchantment that stacked. I assume that noone did an awesome knowledge check, or I would have to have said that before, and I wouldn't use it. Same for detect magic on the javelin.
If I want my giant to take revenge for that fireball, he will. I will find a way that doesn't break RAW (monster statistics are not known to players unless by knowledge checks and thus can deviate from bestiary) and doesn't break continuity in the story.This being said, I would listen to what my players have to say when I'm not sure and I don't mind the rules going either way.
Any player with decent system mastery would just know you were making stuff up. People are not stupid. Being pro GM has nothing to do with it. If you(general statement) messed up then just admit you messed up. Trying to sell me on the javelin having some mystical enchantment won't work nor will you telling me the monster was really strong because strength has no impact on the distance limit of a ranged weapon. Some things just can't be done by RAW.
I'd certainly call shenanigans on a 700ft. javelin throw.
Inorite?
My 2cp: I try as hard as possible to play by RAW, and the only times I've not is when the question was of the level of "I'll get on my laptop and see if there's a FAQ/errata about it", and I usually err in the players' favor.
I give my players lots of time, lots of treasure, and lots of leeway as far as what resources/feats/etc. they have. Heck, right now I have one player who is a Swordsage, one player who started at Old Age to get mental attribute bonuses, and a third who contracted lycanthropy without any XP penalty. I also give them action points which can essentially be a get out of death free system. I expect a level of system mastery, and am usually willing to HELP my players attain the build they're after.
That all being said, I play BRUTALLY, using every tool at my disposal for NPCs to win the fight...fairly. If I'm going to set up an ambush I let the PCs make Perception checks, that kind of thing. Multiple monsters use teamwork and tactics, play to win, play their intelligence, and press the advantage when able.
What I've found is that, when both sides are equal in skill (in this case, rules mastery and level of strategic thinking) and evenly matched in CR, the fights are usually interesting and not too short. Also the players still usually win. The problem comes when the DM fiats in order to win, or when the players are all new to the game, or if the DM is inexperienced.
|
This is why I play 3.5. I know most of the pertinent rules, so I don't often get them wrong. If it takes more than a minute or two, I just say how we'll run it and we can look it up after the game for next time. By the end of the game, we've usually forgotten about it completely. So we had fun, and didn't waste game time with something that ultimately doesn't matter.
Sometimes it really does matter, like it's going to be a TPK or something "DM: No, I'm certain that Circle of Death has no saving throw." In which case, like I said, I tend to err in favor of the players.
My problem is that I know the rules so much better than my players sometimes that I catch their little mistakes they didn't even know were wrong. Like, how in the crap do you have an AC of 34 at level 8? You're a cleric FFS. Oh you added you Dexterity SCORE. Problem solved. It stops a lot of shenanigans before it can start, but it also means I'm paranoid that my players are doing stuff correctly and periodically stop the game to redo their math for them.
@Jezai, would you feel cheated if I modified the monster beforehand, would have written it down and once the wizard says "no way he can throw that far" have shown him the piece of paper to prove that I didn't invent it on the spot?
With the wizard and his spells ... well .. *smirk* if you were my player I wouldn't answer that question. I love my big fat GM screen and my pokerface.
For the rest I don't think it's cheating if you do something ad hoc in a manner that nobody can prove it was ad hoc. It's like Schroedingers Cat, the only time it matters is the first time you look in, and if the players think they don't need knowledge checks because their characters know RAW, and they don't need detect magic because they know the equipment of a giant by heart, well then they are in for a surprise.
Till now I only had a player complain once about something like this, that was when I told him that his turn undead "didn't work" and he knew that something that did this didn't exist. After the session I told him it was because it was in a special pocket universe where positive/negative energy functoned differently (intelligent undead). He understood and I also admitted that it was an on the spot solution to not blow a whole storyline.
Also, once I invent something like that, and a player would want to take/craft it, I would of course let him (as a feat it would have some Str requirement however).
Edit: @Wraithstrike, I wouldn't change how Str and distance work, but inventing a new feat and give my players the opportunity to take that feat as a reward seems fair to me. Of course they know it's not RAW, but that's the same for a lot of other stuff I do. I understand if I'm not the kind of GM you would like, and that's okay, after a longer campaign, after the last session with a group I asked them if they felt I was making stuff up on the spot, and they said "no, well sometimes, but not often". As long as my players are happy with what I make up, I'm happy as a GM.
|
The OP's idea is very good, but you need the GM to really trust his players. Easier said than done, I am afraid.
I will try to do it when I will be GMing Jade Regent. Except when I am sure to be right of course ;-) Then I will get the rules out and show them to the players.
EDIT : Also a GM should be aware that players (and especially rules-lawyers) have a very good memory. If you make a ruling in your NPCs' favor once, you will need to make the same ruling in the PCs' favor forever ;-)
For the rest I don't think it's cheating if you do something ad hoc in a manner that nobody can prove it was ad hoc.
Oh I got ya. It's not cheating if you don't get caught.
*eyeroll*
If I tell you I'm a girl, you might see me in Reallife, so it's a lie, even if it's unlikely that you will find out.
If I tell you I'm thinking about unicorns right now, it's not a lie, because for you to know that it isn't the truth, I would have to tell you.
You can roll your eyes and think it's a fu**ed up logic, and I can't blame you, it is.
Before you DM, you should have a decent understanding of the rules. Before you play under a DM, make sure he has a decent understanding of the rules.
Still, your "interpretation" of events in your post is better than:
Player: A javelin can't fly 700 feet.
DM: Prove it.
Player: Ok. Give me a minute. . .
3 hours later.
Player: Here! Ha! I found it.
DM: Ok. congrats, you don't take 1d8 + 4 points of damage. I'm calling it a night. Bye.
I just ran an experiment on that. Took me 45 seconds to find it (would probably have been about 5 seconds but I checked Combat first). Looking up a rule is usually not the monumental task you're making it out to be.
@Jezai, would you feel cheated if I modified the monster beforehand, would have written it down and once the wizard says "no way he can throw that far" have shown him the piece of paper to prove that I didn't invent it on the spot?
With the wizard and his spells ... well .. *smirk* if you were my player I wouldn't answer that question. I love my big fat GM screen and my pokerface.
For the rest I don't think it's cheating if you do something ad hoc in a manner that nobody can prove it was ad hoc. It's like Schroedingers Cat, the only time it matters is the first time you look in, and if the players think they don't need knowledge checks because their characters know RAW, and they don't need detect magic because they know the equipment of a giant by heart, well then they are in for a surprise.Till now I only had a player complain once about something like this, that was when I told him that his turn undead "didn't work" and he knew that something that did this didn't exist. After the session I told him it was because it was in a special pocket universe where positive/negative energy functoned differently (intelligent undead). He understood and I also admitted that it was an on the spot solution to not blow a whole storyline.
Also, once I invent something like that, and a player would want to take/craft it, I would of course let him (as a feat it would have some Str requirement however).
Edit: @Wraithstrike, I wouldn't change how Str and distance work, but inventing a new feat and give my players the opportunity to take that feat as a reward seems fair to me. Of course they know it's not RAW, but that's the same for a lot of other stuff I do. I understand if I'm not the kind of GM you would like, and that's okay, after a longer campaign, after the last session with a group I asked them if they felt I was making stuff up on the spot, and they said "no, well sometimes, but not often". As long as my players are happy with what I make up, I'm happy as a GM.
If the players are fine with a GM just making things up, that is fine. I thought you were advocating that trying to trick the players after the GM made a mistake is ok.
Before you DM, you should have a decent understanding of the rules. Before you play under a DM, make sure he has a decent understanding of the rules.
Still, your "interpretation" of events in your post is better than:
Player: A javelin can't fly 700 feet.
DM: Prove it.
Player: Ok. Give me a minute. . .
3 hours later.
Player: Here! Ha! I found it.
DM: Ok. congrats, you don't take 1d8 + 4 points of damage. I'm calling it a night. Bye.
If it takes 3 hours to find the equipment section, and the feat or special ability that can handle that then the player should not be questioning anyone, and the GM that allows him 3 hours should give up his spot as a GM.
@Jezai, as I said, I asked them (after I quit as GM) and they didn't notice for the most part and didn't mind at all. They liked my sandbox GMing style, loved the campaign and I wouldn't want to GM any other way. The happyness of my players is the most important for me as a GM, and I would have changed something (probably quit before I had to) if they minded.
Anyhow, to everyone his style, and I can understand players that dislike non-RAW and GM-screens because they can't get the feeling that their actions matter.
On the other hand I had a GM once that applied the rules as they should, paused to look them up, always threw the dice in front of us, mostly telling us the ennemy stats, and giving us Elminster, Kelemvor and a few other soon to be 3.5 gods at our side, rendering our fights mostly useless (my sorcerer that couldn't cast a single spell due to global thaumaturgic events jumped on Banes back to keep his eyes shut as Elminster casted a stairway to haven).
Yeah, I know, RAW doesn't imply deus ex machina, as long as everyone is happy, the game works.
|
|
If you have a good GM, the players trust them enough to go with it because they know they aren't going to get screwed.
If you don't they don't.
Players can't run the table, as the players don't know what is going on behind the curtain. If you have a good GM that you trust, you don't ask why weird things are happening. You go with it, because it is a magical world of illusion and mystery where odd things happen.
For all you know, the Giant throwing the rock is an illusion, and if you want to be that anal, how are you seeing the giant 700 feet away with the perception rules...
Many people feel that the DM should have absolute power when it comes to the rules. That in order to prevent arguments from getting in the way of playing the DM should have the final say on everything.
This idea has created a policy that many groups follow concerning arguments about rules. Let me illustrate with an example of play.
DM: OK, the hill giant turns towards the wizard who just casted fireball on him and throws one of his javelins.
Player: But I'm 700 feet away, he can't throw it at me. That's too far.
DM: I disagree. But I don't want to waste the session looking up rules. We'll say it works this way for now and look it up afterwards.
After the session.
DM: Well look at that! Javelins CANT fly 700 feet. I guess I was wrong. Well at least now we know for next time.
This is almost always how it goes down when I'm acting as a player. Drives me insane as I often know the GM is doing something wrong, but I don't always know precisely what. What's more, when I do know precisely the problem, and speak up about it, I become the bad guy for disrupting the game (not just in the eyes of the GM, but the other players as well). This is particularly frustrating as I'm often the one getting screwed, and told to "sit down and shut up" what's more.
For example, our GM recently through rot grubs at the party. Despite reading the rot grub rules 4 or 5 times before and during the encounter, he made the following mistakes:
1) His claimed that we could make Perception checks to spot the rot grubs. If we succeeded, we got a Reflex save negate them for the time being. If we failed, we didn't get a save at all, as they devoured our flesh. It was also made clear that we could not spot the hazard until we had stumbled into it.
The reality: If you make your Perception check (which some party members would have made on a "1"), you can avoid the hazard entirely by simply keeping your distance. If you don't spot them, you risk having them leap onto you (Reflex negates). If spotted, they are a COMPLETE non-issue unless an enemy forces you into their area or you are determined to get through them (such as in a narrow hallway).
2) Our barbarian got hit the hardest, taking over 16 points of Constitution damage. Considering he had mummy rot as well, we had little hope of curing the damage.
The reality: The barbarian should have been completely immune as the rot grubs are wholly unable to effect anything with any amount of DR (our barbarian had DR 1/-).
3) Our GM allowed us to surgically remove all the rot grubs with a DC 20 heal check and a slashing weapon. Doing so caused Xd6 damage, where X is the number of rounds the grubs have already been burrowing into your body.
The reality: As the above, but success only removes a single grub, not all of them. This means that certain party members should have taken far more damage.
Despite the fact that our characters were getting absolutely creamed by the rot grubs, I did not speak up about my feeling that "something was most certainly off about the encounter" during the game.
Afterwards, however, I approached the GM and informed him of his error. All he had to say was "Then they were meaner, scarier rot grubs."
I told him that upgrading monsters was perfectly fine, provided we received an amount of XP appropriate for their new CR. I'm not sure that we ever got it.