As a GM, if there's a rule in question and I don't know it for sure, I usually tend to lean on the side of the players until I confirm later. I then tell them the findings, and they all know it's fair game next time.
If I do know the ruling and they still contest it(which, to their credit, almost never happens) I will shoot them a link and carry on with the game. They can sift through the info when it's not their turn.
@RD-Are you using some sort of weird variant/houseruled Rot Grubs or a non-PF rot grub? Cuz none of the stuff you're saying about them makes a lick of sense. Immune because of dr 1/-? Why, they do 1d6+3 damage. Also you can get rid of them all with 5 points of energy damage to the victim, what's this surgery malarky?
@RD-Are you using some sort of weird variant/houseruled Rot Grubs or a non-PF rot grub? Cuz none of the stuff you're saying about them makes a lick of sense. Immune because of dr 1/-? Why, they do 1d6+3 damage. Also you can get rid of them all with 5 points of energy damage to the victim, what's this surgery malarky?
Actually, the description of Rot Grubs that RD gave is exactly correct, according to the PRD - and I quote:
Rot Grubs (CR 4)
Infestations Parasites such as ear seekers or rot grubs cause infestations, a type of affliction similar to diseases. Infestations can only be cured through specific means; no matter how many saving throws are made, the infestation continues to afflict the target. While a remove disease spell (or similar effect) instantly halts an infestation, immunity to disease offers no protection, as the infestation itself is caused by parasites.Rot grubs are nauseating parasites that feed on flesh and nest in corpses. Generally, a handful of the grubs infest a single corpse at a time, and a DC 15 Perception check is enough to notice and avoid the grubs. Otherwise, 1d6 grubs swiftly burst from the carcass to burrow into the creature, which can attempt a DC 15 Reflex save to avoid the grubs (but only if the creature is aware of the grubs' presence). Any amount of damage reduction is enough to provide immunity to infestation.
Once rot grubs have infested a living body, they burrow toward the host's heart, brain, and other key internal organs, eventually causing death. On the first round of infestation, applying flame to the point of entry can kill the grubs and save the host, but this inflicts 1d6 points of fire damage to the victim. Cutting the grubs out also works, but the longer the grubs remain in a host, the more damage this method does. Cutting them out requires a slashing weapon and a DC 20 Heal check, and inflicts 1d6 points of damage per round that the host has been infested. If the Heal check is successful, one grub is removed. Remove disease kills any rot grubs in or on a host.
Bolding is mine, to show the appropriate places where RD's description reflects the Rot Grub's description.
See that will show me, I looked at the actual monster description, which is flatly different.
WTF?
If I plan an encounter with rules I am unfamiliar with, then I read up on it before the session ever starts.
If an encounter I did not plan happens to occur with rules I am unfamiliar with, then I pause the game and look up the relevant rules and keep them tabbed, then begin the encounter. Yes, there is a break in gameplay, but combat usually flows smoothly, and usually the players can socialize or roleplay while I find out what I need.
If something comes up mid-encounter that I don't know the rules for, then I will err on the side of the players. I do keep that ruling consistent, though - if the players land in a spot where the same ruling would hurt them, and I haven't had time to look it up, then they face the same results. After I read up on it, I let the players know what's going on.
That all being said... Sometimes I do things that are not RAW/RAI. For example:
I was GMing a module, and the module called for an ambush. Now, due to some poor perception rolls, the party got RIGHT up on the ambush before any of them realized what was going on.
The last batch of rolls I was willing to give them, all the party members succeeded, except one (who rolled a natural 1 - we don't play botch (or crit) rules for skills, but to explain just how badly he did).
I went ahead and called for initiative, and that same player ended up at the bottom.
Per RAW, I wasn't sure if there should be a surprise round in which all except the one party member were allowed to act in, then into regular combat. If this were the case, then the party member in question would miss out on the surprise round (the only person involved who would), then take go at the very end of the first round of regular combat. Considering the location and layout of the two groups, he would have been a prime target for a charge and then full attack back to back, before he could do anything.
I decided that instead, combat would start regularly, and he would be treated as flatfooted for the first round of combat.
I caught so much hell from my players for this. We debated on it for like twenty minutes before I finally caved and just let him keep the 2 points to AC (especially since I had already done attack rolls and the difference wouldn't have mattered).
My point is that a GM needs to understand what his group wants. In my example in the spoiler above, I misread my group - I lightly twisted the rules in favor of the party, and they didn't want that. They wanted RAW only, even I wasn't exactly sure what that was and made a ruling in their favor.
See that will show me, I looked at the actual monster description, which is flatly different.
WTF?
I think that's the giant rot grub monster, rather than a rot grub hazard (or a rot grub swarm).
"Grub". It's such a funny-looking word.
I posted the link to the hazard hoping to avoid that kind of confusion.
Range is not worthy of a dispute. Check it up, it should be listed on any ranged character/npc/opponent.
Now a good dm would say the giant throws it, but as it sails realises you are too far out.
|
The whole original post comes down to deciding which is more valuable, game time or being right. My group plays every two weeks for 4 hours. Game time is very precious. So we are more concerned about play time than rules. Rules issues get tabled for later.
My previous group played for 6-10 hours every two weeks. Game time was not as much of a concern so we took the time to look up rules right there. The game ground to a halt but we solved the rules discussion. If it went on too long we just tabled it.
Neither approach is wrong it just depends on what you value more.
Part of trusting the GM to make rules calls without unnecessary arguments is trusting the GM to be fair--and the GM trusting the players to also equally play fair.
If you cannot trust the GM to be fair, or the GM cannot trust the players, your gaming group has bigger problems than a message board discussion is likely to resolve.
@Quaker/Shadowcat/zrandrews
I think I see the point shadowcat was making with your post quaker. For me it wasn't about not trusting the DM, but more that everyone will make a mistake eventually, and that mistake will end up likely being unfair.
I don't know, I'm pretty sure most of the mistakes I've made as a GM were generally very much in favor of the players. :) (Most of them revolve around forgetting to use half of my monsters' special abilities.)
Jezai, GMs are people. People make mistakes. The thing about mistakes is that the best thing we can do is learn from them, and try not to do it again. That's all you can reasonably expect from anyone.
Then Zrandrews brings up the good point that the DM making calls doesn't always lead to people feeling cheated. This is absolutely 100% true. Some groups may never feel cheated, regardless of what the DM calls. However, that is not true for all groups. And I believe that for those groups where it does happen we should find a solution to fix the problem.
The solution you seek is simple.
Talk to your GM.
"GM, I know last session was really hard, and we hit a wall trying to figure out what was the right way to resolve whether a Zark Maneuver is a move or standard action when the Paladin has activated his Aura of Snuggly Softness. I get why you made the call you did, but I feel cheated because the Aura of Snuggly Softness is the coolest thing our party can do, and this really affects our party tactics in the future. I am frustrated and I am not having fun. Can we please talk about these rules calls in group and make sure we can get some consistent rulings we all can feel good about?"
Good GMs will sit down with the players and work it out. They will take note of the mistakes they made, and do their best not to make them next time. They will do their best to be consistent in their rulings and make sure players are informed of and accepting of their decisions. (And good players will accept that even good GMs have bad days and mess up sometimes, and when they happens, they'll discuss it like mature individuals capable of handling a mistake in a game for what it is.)
Bad GMs will say, "You're wrong! And what I say goes! And I am supreme overlord of the universe! And if you don't like it, leave!"
And that's when you take them up on their offer, leave, and find a good GM.
That is your solution.
|
|
@Karkon
That actually isn't the point of my OP. My solution takes just as much time as if the DM were to make all of the calls and I have repeatedly stated that it is a manner of taking the less of two evils, a big bad dying unfairly (at worst) or a pc dying (at worst).
I can make a call in as much time as it take me to speak. To find the rule you sometimes need to go looking through several books or in some cases search forums. It takes at least a few minutes. Then there are the times when you have conflicting abilities or spells and you need to figure out which one has priority or effect. Those are fun as you spend and hour reenacting a forum argument, parsing words and meanings, to try to find what you are supposed to do. With only 4 hours every two weeks I don't even want to spend a minute on it. Your solution does not take as much time it takes much much more time.
If a player wants to look up the rule between his turns he is welcome to do it but don't grind the game to a halt for everyone. If I am wrong I adjust for it. Maybe I give the player an extra turn. Maybe the cleric happens to heal him for full points on a cure moderate. I'll make it up later. I can't make up that time later. Poof, its gone in an argument about the rules. It is not the lesser of two evils it is the right choice for my group.
If being right is more important to you than the extra play time then bully for you. Argue to your heart's content. I hope you enjoy yourself.
|
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...If we want to be that anal, how is the giant seeing the wizard then? :P
Yup.
The whole point is that if you have a good GM, you know it will be fine because like Bob Ross, the mistakes become happy accidents that they work into the plot. If you don't you have a good GM, you have bigger problems than one rules mistake.