| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quite often I see the argument that we shouldn't include DM fiat (or assume no DM fiat) when discussing rules balance, and generally how the game works.
Latest in the line is the Charm Person thread where it is said we cannot assume modifiers will be added to the ability check because if and what modifiers are added is DM fiat.
That doesn't work. Because the game is BASED on DM fiat. Determining a bonus or penalty on a check with an NPC a PC meets is no different than determining what class that NPC had or even determining that the PCs meet an NPC.
It simply becomes impossible to discuss if we assume the rules in a vacuum.
I: "Smite Evil is great! It's a MASSIVE amount of damage that can be used with a decent frequency.
Someone else: " That assumes DM fiat to put evil enemies in your campaign."
I: "Acrobatics isn't broken, we don't need to increase the DC - you'll get check penalties for negative terrain quite often, and on higher levels many negative circumstance modifiers based on odd terrains or forms of movement also might apply."
Someone else: "Penalties are DM fiat. I abhor DM fiat so we should ignore it when we discuss. Acrobatics DC's is super-easy to beat."
Ignoring DM fiat to discuss the game simply makes it impossible to have a meaningful conversation about it.
PLEASE, try to stay away from that awful argument. What can be useful is rather _how common_ a certain kind of DM fiat might or might not be in games in general or specific.
Footnote: Now, to some extent it depends on what people mean with DM fiat. If they mean things like roll fudging and the like that is one thing but not what I'm discussing right now.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well said. It drives me crazy that the same people who argue spells were written for maximum player flexibility then scream about GM Fiat.
Some things in the game are left open for GM flexibility. And the GM is the person who decides how much of that flexibility will be passed on to the players in a given situation.
stringburka --
If that annoys you, then stay away from ANY of the RAW threads. Someone asks a rules question, and I say, "Well, as a GM, this is how I would interpret that rule," and inevitably at least one poster shoots back, "Well you're wrong, because that's not RAW!"
And it is, quite depressingly, almost always a player and not a GM arguing that we have to play the rules EXACTLY as they're written, and not as they were meant. (I loved a previous thread where someone referred to such posters as RAWyers).
I flatter myself, but my players universally regard me as an excellent GM. But I will *never* play or GM for PFS for just that reason; I would rather tell a cooperative story than argue about the finer points of RAW.
But then, PFS has no lack of players or GMs, so they certainly won't miss me. It just depends on your 'cup of tea'.
This is a *VERY* long-winded way of saying, "Some people will play in a way that you cannot comprehend as being 'fun'. And they will post to these boards and insist that their way is the 'correct' way. Just post your say, answer direct questions about your argument, and otherwise let it go... I doubt you could get universal consensus on any statement about Pathfinder in these forums, so focus on helping the OP and don't worry about everybody else."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PFS is not RAW, but by implying that, many people, including myself, take offense to that.
PFS is a set of rules based on PF that is setup for play so that players and GMs are all on the same level to begin with. It's to introduce everybody to Golarion, to have a single place where players can meet and share with like-minded people.
It's not a religion that people follow slavishly, not understanding the concept of adjudication and insisting on "the rules says this, so you're doing it wrong".
This thread screams at me that the premise is far too contextual. I'm uncertain if this discussion can truly go anywhere because of this.
I can strongly agree and strongly disagree based upon the context of the thread at hand. Essentially, DM Fiat could or could not have any relevance to the points being used to address a rule, and can often times be used as a derailment.
It's like trying to determine how much sunscreen to use. Get a small amount, rub it in there gently and continue to apply as necessary. Too much and you come across as pasty. Too little and you burn for it.
I will say this, DM Fiat is not necessarily a bad idea and should not be dismissed without consideration. However a black and white discussion that claims that DM Fiat belongs in every rules discussion seems to be mostly an extreme response build defensively from bad experiences.
To summarize my point, only a Sith thinks in absolutes.
GM fiat is definitely part of the game. Otherwise you wouldn't need a GM at all. You could just read an adventure module, place the bad guys where directed and follow the formula for their actions.
Unfortunately I think this is sometimes exactly what GMs do. They throw down some baddies and then try to "win" the game. They move their pieces in the most advantageous method possible. If it is strategically expedient to sacrifice one piece to give another an advantage, they will do it. Regardless of the fact that the enemy moved is actually a cowardly bandit who would never sacrifice himself for anybody, and certainly not for the lowlife scum that makes up the rest of his bandit gang.
If the GM decides to give you a +2 bonus to a roll for some RP reason, that's part of the game. It is no different than if he had decided to set the DC 2 points lower in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GM fiat is particularly important to rules discussions when spell descriptions or othe rules have been left vague for the purpose of GM fiat, ie. doing what fits your game at home instead of hardlining a common rule. Everywhere else in the game it's assumed a GM will assign appropriate modifiers to a situation. Charm Person is no different.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reason why GM fiat is often ignored in debates is because it's unpredictable.
One GM will be okay with RAW as it.
One GM bans Power Attack because it "makes fighters too good".
One GM disallows magic mart because it's too unrealistic.
One GM allows magic mart because it's realistic.
One GM creates rules on how "deep" an arrow penetrates when it hits.
One GM bans all spellcasters because they are "cheesy".
One GM think Leadership is great RP tool.
One GM bans Leadership because it allows players to get "a free PC" with one feat.
Some GMs want "realistic" games.
Others scoff at "realistic" games.
That's why RAW is often hailed. It's an even level that everybody starts at, but may not choose to learn. Often, a person learns only some of the game, and then just fiats everything else. Or my personal least favorite, they "ban" things when they can't seem to understand why the players are "winning".
RAW is not better, it's just a starting point for people. I have my own house rules, but I want RAW as much as possible simply for the sake of not having to write down every little thing in my own rules, whether for balance or for "realism" (which I scoff at). I could make my own game, but I rather just use the existing rules, right/wrong, good/bad. I don't want to spend my valuable time on changing an imperfect system that is good enough for most things. I rather spend it playing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those instances aren't whats being discussed here. It's in relation to a specific rule not random 'what I allow in my game or not'.
RAW is adjuticated by a DM. That's the only way RAW functions.
Police have to enforce the law IRL or it means nothing. They use their own judgement when enforcing those RAW, and a judge is allowed to use his when assigning punishment for breaking RAW. Some laws are so bent that you have to call a lawyer or ask a policeman how it's supposed to be interpreted.
A DM is no different. He enforces and judges the RAW. His opinion is the lense through which RAW is used.
Those instances aren't whats being discussed here. It's in relation to a specific rule not random 'what I allow in my game or not'.
RAW is adjuticated by a DM. That's the only way RAW functions.
Police have to enforce the law IRL or it means nothing. They use their own judgement when enforcing those RAW, and a judge is allowed to use his when assigning punishment for breaking RAW. Some laws are so bent that you have to call a lawyer or ask a policeman how it's supposed to be interpreted.
A DM is no different. He enforces and judges the RAW. His opinion is the lense through which RAW is used.
Very true. But while a master swordsman might be able to win a duel with a spoon, that just shows how much more skilled he is, not that spoons are a great weapon. Likewise, while DM input is very important, it doesn't necessarily change the underlying problems with a rule. And understanding just how a rule might be broken without fiat helps a DM understand how fiat can fix it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hate to say this:
It's irrelevant.
The same people that are arguing that you can't add a variable, like GM Fiat, to the spell wording, are continually adding their own wording to the spell.
Example: The Charm Person spell says, "An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders..."
Which they repeatedly read as: "An affected creature never obeys suicidal or personally and physically harmful orders..."
Example #2: It goes on to say, "...but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing."
Which they repeatedly and unapologetically read as: "...but it might be convinced that anything you order it do (with a successful opposed charisma check and additional skill checks not covered in this spell description) is worth doing.
But, we can't apply GM Fiat because it's unquantifiable...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That point that is being made is that GM fiat is RAW. It is not a house rule. It is not breaking RAW when a GM decides to give someone a situational modifier to a roll or when he decides that an NPC will do something for RP reasons that is not the most tactically sound.
Edit: This was mostly in reply to BYC's post.
Very true. But while a master swordsman might be able to win a duel with a spoon, that just shows how much more skilled he is, not that spoons are a great weapon. Likewise, while DM input is very important, it doesn't necessarily change the underlying problems with a rule. And understanding just how a rule might be broken without fiat helps a DM understand how fiat can fix it.Those instances aren't whats being discussed here. It's in relation to a specific rule not random 'what I allow in my game or not'.
RAW is adjuticated by a DM. That's the only way RAW functions.
Police have to enforce the law IRL or it means nothing. They use their own judgement when enforcing those RAW, and a judge is allowed to use his when assigning punishment for breaking RAW. Some laws are so bent that you have to call a lawyer or ask a policeman how it's supposed to be interpreted.
A DM is no different. He enforces and judges the RAW. His opinion is the lense through which RAW is used.
I agree, to an extent with the spirit of what you're saying. But in the instance of the Charm Person spell what's being discussed isn't RAW, it's an interpretation of RAW on both sides.
|
|
That point that is being made is that GM fiat is RAW. It is not a house rule. It is not breaking RAW when a GM decides to give someone a situational modifier to a roll or when he decides that an NPC will do something for RP reasons that is not the most tactically sound.
Edit: This was mostly in reply to BYC's post.
Unless a GM writes down everything in his home game, it's not RAW. Because it's not written down anywhere. Players hate it when the GM pulls something out of nowhere. They can possibly accept it if it's fiat. But if a GM says it's RAW, he better show me his entire list of rules, or it's not RAW. The other argument if it there are so many changes, it's not PF. I call my home games PF homebrew, because that's what it is.
There's a difference, even if it's just a wording difference. It's better to say "I'm concerned that you may do X if I allow it" as opposed to "You're a no good cheater that abuses everything, so f$~* you".
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some areas of Pathfinder require more or less GM adjudication than others. Some things (like enchantment spells) require so much interpretation that omitting references to GM adjudication will often fail to answer the rules question being asked. The "RAW" (loathe as I am to use the term) includes GM interpretation. Other things (like a new player asking whether Weapon Finesse adds DEX to damage) are clear enough in the rules that there's no such thing as GM adjudication. To include GM fiat in the answer to such a question is to not answer the question. In such cases, the rule always functions in manner X unless changed, and you can't assume that other GMs are likely to make the same changes you do.
To fail to differentiate between clear-cut and interpretation-heavy rules is foolish, regardless of which end of the spectrum you try to push the entire game into.
To fail to differentiate between GM adjudication and actual houserules is similarly foolish: Determining how an enchantment spell works in a given situation is an interpretation; having iterative attacks taken with different weapons incur TWF penalties (as a random example) is a houserule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some areas of Pathfinder require more or less GM adjudication than others. Some things (like enchantment spells) require so much interpretation that omitting references to GM adjudication will often fail to answer the rules question being asked. The "RAW" (loathe as I am to use the term) includes GM interpretation. Other things (like a new player asking whether Weapon Finesse adds DEX to damage) are clear enough in the rules that there's no such thing as GM adjudication. To include GM fiat in the answer to such a question is to not answer the question. In such cases, the rule always functions in manner X unless changed, and you can't assume that other GMs are likely to make the same changes you do.
To fail to differentiate between clear-cut and interpretation-heavy rules is foolish, regardless of which end of the spectrum you try to push the entire game into.
To fail to differentiate between GM adjudication and actual houserules is similarly foolish: Determining how an enchantment spell works in a given situation is an interpretation; having iterative attacks taken with different weapons incur TWF penalties (as a random example) is a houserule.
I agree with this fully and see it as a well written recount of the point I was trying to make.
To refer it back to my wording, the context must be considered (differentiated).
That point that is being made is that GM fiat is RAW. It is not a house rule. It is not breaking RAW when a GM decides to give someone a situational modifier to a roll or when he decides that an NPC will do something for RP reasons that is not the most tactically sound.
Edit: This was mostly in reply to BYC's post.
Unless a GM writes down everything in his home game, it's not RAW. Because it's not written down anywhere. Players hate it when the GM pulls something out of nowhere. They can possibly accept it if it's fiat. But if a GM says it's RAW, he better show me his entire list of rules, or it's not RAW. The other argument if it there are so many changes, it's not PF. I call my home games PF homebrew, because that's what it is.
There's a difference, even if it's just a wording difference. It's better to say "I'm concerned that you may do X if I allow it" as opposed to "You're a no good cheater that abuses everything, so f&#* you".
Actually it wouldn't matter if the GM wrote down his house rules or not (at least, I think that is what you are saying). In common usage RAW means the Rules As Writen by Pazio. RAW, by accepted definition, does not include house rules of any kind.
Jiggy has probably the best explanation so far about the point being made about GM fiat and RAW.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That point that is being made is that GM fiat is RAW. It is not a house rule. It is not breaking RAW when a GM decides to give someone a situational modifier to a roll or when he decides that an NPC will do something for RP reasons that is not the most tactically sound.
Edit: This was mostly in reply to BYC's post.
Unless a GM writes down everything in his home game, it's not RAW. Because it's not written down anywhere. Players hate it when the GM pulls something out of nowhere. They can possibly accept it if it's fiat. But if a GM says it's RAW, he better show me his entire list of rules, or it's not RAW. The other argument if it there are so many changes, it's not PF. I call my home games PF homebrew, because that's what it is.
Situational modifiers are written into the rules – they even have a numerical guideline. In effect this is a codified Fiat Guideline - a DMs rule option:
One handy rule to keep under your belt is the Fiat Rule—simply grant a player a +2 or a –2 bonus or penalty to a die roll if no one at the table is precisely sure how a situation might be handled by the rules. For example, a character who attempts to trip an iron golem in a room where the floor is magnetized could gain a +2 bonus on his attempt at your discretion, since the magnetic pull exerted by the floor helps pull the golem down.
IMO I think this whole argument has been misstated.
It should be something like this:A discussion of the rules should always consider how they are commonly run by different DMs, in some cases this could be DM fiat with the rules or merely interpretation of intent of the rules. Neither of which is wrong - unless of course language use in a rule is completely falsified. Common interpretation and actual in-game rules applications should be part of any rules discussion.
Every non-player decision point is DM fiat – some players just hate to acknowledge that fact.
Ex –Theoretically I can pay out all treasures in copper pieces or objects d'art that are worth 10gp but weigh 250lbs each, and then being a Dick DM I can then have money changers in town (or anyone they interact with) charge exorbitant rates to exchange said currency. Now you say what about wealth by level - well, what if their wealth by level was exactly that: in coins? You can't throw coins at monsters and if no one is in town to enchant items then that money is pretty useless (you know what, there isn't a table to determine what is or isn't available in town - just guidelines, sorry guys!!). That or just offer up the most useless gear available to the PCs. Also if they want to enchant their own items – great! They still need the feats and levels to do so and there is no guarantee that you'll ever leave 2nd level!!!!1!!!!
A DM can easily ratchet up the encounters to make it look like the party TPK was legitimate (even if unfortunate) and well within the rules. Sure the party gets extra xp for those higher CR and more frequent encounters – they can't use it if they're dead. At one point... at many points, DM fiat and adjudication are going to come into play. Players and the player defense league need to accept this as a core feature of roleplaying games.
There are more "rules" and accepted notions that are not covered that often fall under the realm of "fiat" then everything listed in pretty much all the books. Are those rules or DM interpretation bad? No, they generally are not since they facilitate game play.
The point I'm trying to make here is that the ability and the extent of DM fiat is countermanded by the fun index of everyone at the table. It needs to be done constantlty - even in the most rules heavy systems - yet it should not be a focus of the game or serve as a great distraction. If people are paying attention to it then you are doing it wrong.
I flatter myself, but my players universally regard me as an excellent GM. But I will *never* play or GM for PFS for just that reason; I would rather tell a cooperative story than argue about the finer points of RAW.
But then, PFS has no lack of players or GMs, so they certainly won't miss me. It just depends on your 'cup of tea'.
As a PFS judge, I've never had this as a significant problem. And yes while we may have plenty of players, I've yet to see a region where the addition of another player, and especially another judge wouldn't be a major help.
Don't let the messageboards give you a skewed impression.
After reading BYC's reply, I was indeed feeling a bit sheepish, and you strike the point home quite well: I'm judging PFS by the fact that the people who most vehemently argue against my points say things like, "Well, PFS uses RAW, so you'd never get away with that there," or (my personal favorite) "RAW says wizards get *a* staff, so I can choose any staff from any of the books and I'm within RAW, so PFS has to accept it."
Believing what people post on the internet isn't exactly very bright of me, and I apologize for besmirching PFS unfairly.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAWyering is finding a way to weasel what you want out of a rule thanks to the ambiguity of the English language.
Because you can get into a long discussion of what the meaning of the word "is" is, that doesn't mean you are right.
It does probably mean that you are full of it though.
If you aren't asking yourself the intent of the rule throughout a rules discussion, you are the problem 99% of the time.
WTH? How did I miss this thread. It could have filled the terrible void left in my life when we were told we weren't allowed to talk about charm person any more.
You can't just generalize every Pathfinder rule (i.e. the ruleset as a whole) as needing to include DM fiat as a variable or not. Pathfinder did a great job of polishing up 3.5 and tying loose ends, but it still has its own "loose ends" in some cases, leaving some RAW as undecided.
In other words: most of the rules are clear and shouldn't need DM fiat as a variable, but some rules REQUIRE DM fiat to have a conclusion, either because it just isn't discussed in the rules, or the rules don't clearly adhere to a particular situation. If there's a gray area, DM fiat is necessary. If not, DM fiat doesn't even need to be brought into question (though individual DM competency might).
One point I was trying to make in the other thread was that for the sake of communication we should define the terms "DM Fiat" and "Adjudication" so we don't talk past each other.
But the point is that you can't discuss balance with just RAW, and often, not even discuss rules - because the game is based on GM fiat.
How well-balanced is Favored Enemy by RAW? You can't say without taking GM fiat into account. How does the Diplomacy skill work? Well, without DM fiat there is literally no-one in the world to use the skill on!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In groups where there exists trust between the players and dm/gm, words like fiat and adjuration need not matter. But it doesn't take much selfishness to ruin that though.
Trying out PFS recently helped me the different points of view on this and other issues. I had only played games based on trust before and never considered why the game needs to support groups where trust isn't present.
i have no problem with DM fiat, as long as it doesn't shut down an entire character. for example, i would rather that wind gave penalties to ranged attacks rather than completely negatec it. same with using slashing weapons underwater. i don't want to hear "No, you can't fire an arrow in the tornado." i'd rather here "you can fire an arrow at a -4 penalty."
The basic definition of DM Fiat in this thread is so vague as to be meaningless.
When the DM decides to have a red Mt Dew instead of a green one, that's DM fiat by these super vague definitions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes folks just have to understand that Dm Fiat is built into the game. You can hate it or dislike it- but its stil a fact.
Take the Reposition maneuver from the APG.
Its very clear that you can't reposition someone onto a square thats inherently dangerous (the Maneuver's exact wording), but also I think folks would agree that you can't then carry a cat around and "use that maneuver" to detect traps under the theory that a trap is detrimental and as such its an infalliable trap finder.
The intent of the feat is clear, but DM fiat is also required for it to work. Fiat, and players who are trying to play the game, and not game the system.
There are always going to be things that require the DM to have two brain cells actively colliding in order to work. Its part of what makes the game work.
Reposition, Diplomacy, Charm Person, they work because of DM Fiat- not in spite of it. Leaving the DM out of the equation when discussing them is leaving out alot of the rule.
-S
All of us know GM Fiat exist, but you can't really account for every GM's whims. When in the rules section or even for most other discussions it is nigh impossible to have a discussion if everyone is using a different interpretation of the same thing. All we can do is give you a general idea in many cases. From there you have to adjust as a player or a GM for how your game is ran.
As an example if the skill says add +5 to the difficulty for X when in the rules section then that is what should be used because that is the rule. We are not saying a GM can't add a circumstance modifier of -3 for ___. The issue is that another GM might use a -10 for that same ____, so it is better to use what the book gives us so we stay on the same page.
On the other hand, if an ability states that you gain a +1 to attack and damage against anything which currently has equal or less total hitpoints to yourself, its straightforward and discussion of its balance should not be done with one gm's tendency to give triple HP to all monsters taken into account: at that point he's just ignoring the rules to make things go his way.
That's not a clear rule. How does it work against large objects vs small objects? Can I use it to gain a bonus if I choose to attack just a small part of the door/wall?
How does it work if the creature's hit points change between the declaration of the attack and the taking of the damage, for example if it has a contingency set on "if I get hit", healing the target? Does only the to-hit bonus count then? What if it's a threat roll?
We do not need a legalese rules system.
EDIT: Also, on vague definitions, that's because the definition is used very vaguely in other discussions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Take the Reposition maneuver from the APG.
Its very clear that you can't reposition someone onto a square thats inherently dangerous (the Maneuver's exact wording), but also I think folks would agree that you can't then carry a cat around and "use that maneuver" to detect traps under the theory that a trap is detrimental and as such its an infalliable trap finder.
The intent of the feat is clear, but DM fiat is also required for it to work. Fiat, and players who are trying to play the game, and not game the system.
That's actually an example of an incomplete, ill-defined or badly-written rule. In that case, fiat is required because the designers screwed up.
On the other hand, if an ability states that you gain a +1 to attack and damage against anything which currently has equal or less total hitpoints to yourself, its straightforward and discussion of its balance should not be done with one gm's tendency to give triple HP to all monsters taken into account: at that point he's just ignoring the rules to make things go his way.
The rule isn't unclear at all. It just requires a DM with the stones to enforce it and players who aren't trying to *take advantage* of the wording of it to get something they aren't supposed to. And when players do that, then the DM just puts his foot down and says "no" and thats that.
Which, incidentally, is all alot of things in the game need to work jus fine. Players who aren't trying to be abusive and DM's who are willing to stand up and say the forbidden word when they try it. i.e. "No."
-S
I find that 'take advantage of the wording' is a very subjective concept.
Sometimes it is subjective, but sometimes it is not.
The dead condition never says you can no longer take actions while the rule do that paralyzed characters are no longer able to take any actions except for mental actions. A player actually tried to use that against a GM. There is difference between someone not really understanding a rule, and trying to "get over". Sometime it is hard to tell the difference, but I think Jiggy was referring to the obvious cases.Another example was a player wanting to jump(long jump) and then suddenly make a right turn, in the middle of the jump, and finish the rest of the jump in the new direction. Basically that is flying. His defense was "The rules don't say I can't".
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
His defense was "The rules don't say I can't".
Interestingly, I see GMs do this a lot without realizing it. They'll see the rules define that in situation X, you do Y. Then they'll get it in their heads that some other condition or restriction applies (either because it worked like that in a previous edition, or they drew the conclusion based on what they decided the point of the rule was, or some other non-text basis), and since the text doesn't explicitly call out their specific idea as not being the case, they think their "interpretation" is correct.
Things like "the rules don't say that taking 10 doesn't take ten times as long" or "the rules don't say you don't take TWF penalties for having a weapon in your other hand".
I have yet to encounter a GM who understood when I tried to explain that a lack of explicit contradiction does not constitute "support" of their position.
His defense was "The rules don't say I can't".Interestingly, I see GMs do this a lot without realizing it. They'll see the rules define that in situation X, you do Y. Then they'll get it in their heads that some other condition or restriction applies (either because it worked like that in a previous edition, or they drew the conclusion based on what they decided the point of the rule was, or some other non-text basis), and since the text doesn't explicitly call out their specific idea as not being the case, they think their "interpretation" is correct.
Things like "the rules don't say that taking 10 doesn't take ten times as long" or "the rules don't say you don't take TWF penalties for having a weapon in your other hand".
I have yet to encounter a GM who understood when I tried to explain that a lack of explicit contradiction does not constitute "support" of their position.
It was a GM that did that. I misremembered it. I was just an observer so I did not say anything. The take 10 rule taking 10 times as long seems to be a common error. I think you were around the TWF thread a few months ago also. :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think part of the point that most of the posters on this thread are making though, is that the rules, being part of the English language, are open to a certain amount of interpretation and have a need for adjudication. Adjudication and DM fiat are the same thing, or at least should be. Pathfinder is a gaming system that is specifically designed to leave as wide an array of options and possibilities open to its players as possible. It is nearly impossible to write a rule for every single situation that might possibly occur, and if they did write said rules, who wants to take the time to find "Table 756X: Modifiers for Swinging on Chandeliers Based on Material Used to Suspend".
No one, I would hope (or at least very few). Adjudication (or GM fiat) is necessary and expected to handle the application of unusual corner cases, or abilities intentionally left vague to maximize possible applications.
It says right in the book: "Game Master (GM): A Game Master is the person who adjudicates the rules and controls all of the elements of the story and world that the players explore. A GM's duty is to provide a fair and fun game."
GM's have a responsibility to adjudicate (see-interpret and judge) the rules, and a responsibility to make sure everyone is having fun. This includes a need for the GM to hold everyone to the same rules, which is most easily accomplished by following the rules as laid out in the product, and to come up with fair rulings on corner cases, rules/feats where the English language contains variant definitions for some portion of the language used, or ambiguously worded mechanics that will benefit the ultimate goal of everyone having a good time.
SSalarn don't confuse "open to interpretation" with "can be argued". Some people can and will find away to argue any point no matter how clear it is. Due to corner cases some things are not in the book, and we can only guess as to what dev would do if he had though of the corner case. In those cases GM Fiat makes sense, even in the rules section. In other cases it does not, well not on the boards anyway.
If a table says apply a -5 for consequence Y, and someone says "my GM uses -10", that is ok for that person's table, but don't expect it to have much weight in the rules forum where people are expected to argue from the same reference point.
In short if the book specifically says A, expect for A to be the standard.
|
|
SSalarn don't confuse "open to interpretation" with "can be argued". Some people can and will find away to argue any point no matter how clear it is. Due to corner cases some things are not in the book, and we can only guess as to what dev would do if he had though of the corner case. In those cases GM Fiat makes sense, even in the rules section. In other cases it does not, well not on the boards anyway.
If a table says apply a -5 for consequence Y, and someone says "my GM uses -10", that is ok for that person's table, but don't expect it to have much weight in the rules forum where people are expected to argue from the same reference point.
In short if the book specifically says A, expect for A to be the standard.
I don't disagree with this statement. I think if the rules state A=B+C,
then one should fairly expect that in the Rules section, discussions will always assume A=B+C.But in situations like the Charm Person and Reposition situations mentioned above, there is an expectation involved in the system of the GM making judgement calls.
It's not the GM's job to make up the rules, Paizo's got it well in hand. It is his job to adjudicate fairly and make the final call in situations where rules ambiguity exists, or in areas where the rules have been left intentionally vague to allow for situational modifiers.