| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's probably why it says in the beginning of the core rule book "these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs." There are a LOT of rules lawyers out there. I've also read much of what James Jacobs has posted and get the impression that he really doesn't care what you have to do, just have fun with it.
There are only as many rules as you and your group want to use. Look at the begginner box that is essentially pathfinder with a fair amount fo the rules removed. It works just fine. Theres no reason why you and your group cant do something similar if you want.
Abd in terms of the boards, remember we are talking across communities, languages, play styles, experiences. We all play a little different. The only thing we have in common really is the text in those books. Thats why questions get answered most of the time specific to written rules. GMs and players can still wing it if you want, but if that was the answer to most forum questions, there would be no conversation. "Can I throw a table to hit multiple foes?" could be an interestering conversation if you look through existing rules and discuss which ones might or might not apply. Saying ask your gm to come up with a penalty and go for it, makes for a very short and uninteresting conversation.
Essentially, the boards conversation isnt really representative of what the majority of people on them are playing, even those responding, its just a fact of life when communicating amongst a community as diverse as 'the people who play pathfinder'.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Keep in mind that among the many sections of these forums, there are two sections respectively titled "Rules Questions" and "Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew". What's appropriate to discuss in one is inappropriate to discuss in the other.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the thing: Once we publish it, it is no longer *our* game, it is *yours*. (There is the very big exception of organized play, which I'm going to set aside for the purposes of this statement.)
If you and your group decide to change/ignore/add/remove some element of gameplay, as long as you remember it, and you are consistent in its application, as long as everybody is having fun, then you are serving the spirit of the game, even if you don't remember about this bonus or modifier when the moon is full and the stars are right and you're facing a one-eyed dwarf wearing a red cape and wielding a warhammer.
I do not believe in "there are no rules for it so no" concept. If there are no rules for it then I use established rules as a guide line.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I ask as of late i've read a lot of threads where a majorty of answers seem to be its not in the rules so you cant do it
There are a large number of GM's that rule if it ain't in the book you can't do it. If I wanted that mentality I would go play a computer RPG.
The great thing about playing with a human GM is that you can give a nice analog description of what you are doing. The GM then breaks it down into actions and assigns the appropriate rolls.
Why limit yourself to what the developers could imagine or thought would occur frequently enough to warrant detailing in the rulebook. If movies or books were limited to just the actions covered in the rules they would be very boring.
The rules-as-written should be viewed as a framework to adjudicate your game not as a prison cage to limit your imagination.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a small grup of folks whop just can't handle the freedom RPGs really offer. They demand published rules for everything. IT is a shame really, because one fo the best parts of Pen & Paper RPGs is the freedom it offers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the thing: Once we publish it, it is no longer *our* game, it is *yours*. (There is the very big exception of organized play, which I'm going to set aside for the purposes of this statement.)
If you and your group decide to change/ignore/add/remove some element of gameplay, as long as you remember it, and you are consistent in its application, as long as everybody is having fun, then you are serving the spirit of the game, even if you don't remember about this bonus or modifier when the moon is full and the stars are right and you're facing a one-eyed dwarf wearing a red cape and wielding a warhammer.
I love you Liz. (^-^)
I honestly feel like this is a bit exaggerated. I have yet to see a post around here that was answered "Not in the rules so you can't do it." Seriously has anyone seen that even once? The common answer is "Not in the rules so it is Houserule/Homebrew territory."
Also all the bagging on people for knowing/discussing/trying to figure out the RAW is misguided and frankly uncalled for. Its pretty obvious why you see this. Because most of the questions are posted on the rules forum. That is literally what it is for. If one does not like going by RAW then they should not ask anything there.
No one is trying to force you to play in any way as its your game. But if someone ask something in the rules forum or even in the advice forum if they say they are looking for RAW then that is what they should get. It would be rude to not give them rules based advice.
Now does it bother you that some people rather make their choices based on RAW rather then winging it and that's what this is about? If so that's pretty arrogant to think your way is better. Just as it is of course your right to play your game as you wish it is theirs to play their own game closer to RAW if they wish. To each their own and its IMO not right to look down ones nose at ether.
I like rules. For me, the more rules, the better. The more potential situations are playtested and codified, the less "winging it" I have to do and the fewer "loose interpretations" players can use the break the rules wide open.
I'm not opposed to houseruling things or making rulings on unclear matters, but if it's already spelled out in a book somewhere, we at least have a point of reference to draw from. If we don't like the official rule, we can change it as we see fit.
Thanks for the input guys but i don't think i made myself clear enough in my op
What i'm trying to get at is that the rules sometimes get in the way of the game and some players have a need for there to be published rules for all situations and are unable or unwilling to make an adhoc ruling to cover the situation
Then you need to talk to your players. I've seldom seen the attitude here or in my home games that "if there's no rule for it, you can't do it."
If one were to provide a rule for EVERYTHING, the book wouldn't be a "mere" 476 pages long... it would be thousands. You can't feasibly design a game that way. You have to give the GM the authority to make a call when there isn't a clear ruling in the book, and that assumption is inherent in this and every other RPG I've played, whether rules-light or crunch-heavy.
Plus often, there really IS a rule for it, if you stop and think about it -- or rather, there is an existing rule you can apply to a current issue.
A common question I see are things like "How do I push a guy into a pit?" or "How do I throw an enemy?" or "How do I swing off a chandelier into the bad guys?"
There are rules for throwing enemies or swinging off chandeliers. But if you break down what exactly the players are trying to accomplish, you will find rules for them, e.g.,
Pushing a guy into a pit -> you want to knock an enemy into another square -> that's bull rush
Throwing an enemy -> You want to grab and hold an enemy, first, so -> Grapple the enemy. Then you want to release him and send him flying -> This is an "up to the GM thing" but you could use the bull rush rules again (for moving an enemy into another square) or you could make an attack roll, etc.
Swinging off chandelier -> You want to jump up onto a fixture (that would be Acrobatics), you want to swing (also Acrobatic move, may help you avoid AOOs), and then you want to attack or knock over enemies (attack roll or bull rush or trip). A GM should be able to make a call here that if you succeed on your Acrobatics checks (for example), you get a bonus to your attack or damage because you've gained leverage.
You still need to be able to make calls, but the rules provide good guidelines for what mechanic to use when in a weird situation.
I think Danielc got it on the head that they have this need for there to be a published rule and that nothing else will do
Now I'm probably showing my age but 30+ years ago when i started playing DM's would make rulings several times in every game and they where seldom challenged by the player's it just seems like players have lost this ability to decide for themselves with out using the rulebook
Again, talk to your players. Tell them the game has a different structure than they expect -- especially at your table. They're going to need to adapt to adaptation. Explain to them it's impossible to have a rule for everything, but it never means you can't do it--that exactly what a GM is there for.
I honestly feel like this is a bit exaggerated. I have yet to see a post around here that was answered "Not in the rules so you can't do it." Seriously has anyone seen that even once? The common answer is "Not in the rules so it is Houserule/Homebrew territory."
Yeap. I have honestly seen it here in the rules forum and seen it played at tables at conventions. I will say I don't think it would be classified as the 'majority' of GMs I've gamed with.
Also as Stome points out, there are a significant number of responses in the rules forum that say you can't do something using the rules-as-written but don't explicitly say therefore you can't do it. Many posters limit themselves strictly to the rules-as-written in the discussion and don't add how they would handle it at their table.
For some reason a post I made yesterday never made it to this thread so I'll repeat it here:
I ask as of late i've read a lot of threads where a majorty of answers seem to be its not in the rules so you cant do it
There are a number of GM's that rule if it ain't in the book you can't do it. If I wanted that mentality I would go play a computer RPG.
The great thing about playing with a human GM is that you can give a nice analog description of what you are doing. The GM then breaks it down into actions and assigns the appropriate rolls.
Why limit yourself to what the developers could imagine or thought would occur frequently enough to warrant detailing in the rulebook. If movies or books were limited to just the actions covered in the rules they would be very boring.
The rules-as-written should be viewed as a framework to adjudicate your game not as a prison cage to limit your imagination.
Thanks for the input guys but i don't think i made myself clear enough in my op
What i'm trying to get at is that the rules sometimes get in the way of the game and some players have a need for there to be published rules for all situations and are unable or unwilling to make an adhoc ruling to cover the situationThen you need to talk to your players. I've seldom seen the attitude here or in my home games that "if there's no rule for it, you can't do it."
I should add, currently, and in Pathfinder. I played a couple AD&D games where GMs had that attitude however, but not here and not recently.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now I'm probably showing my age but 30+ years ago when i started playing DM's would make rulings several times in every game and they where seldom challenged by the player's it just seems like players have lost this ability to decide for themselves with out using the rulebook
It still happens, probably more than you think. I did it just last night running Pathfinder Society.
The crux of the matter is, solid rules allow you to make consistent rulings.
I have to agree with TriOmegaZero. As a GM I make calls all the time. As a Player I expect my GM to make calls so we do not spend a lot of time searching rule books. The point of the game is the fun not the rules, but as he pointed out solid rules help me keep my rulings consistant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are many rules in Pathfinder, though I don't think there are too many. It's possible that most of the confusion comes to the presentation of those rules, not so much the number of rules, themselves. That is, attempting to find a rule for A causes you to look in places C, D, Y, and (if you know about it) Q.
There's a quote from one of Paizo's team here stating that they'd have loved to "give the Beginner Box treatment" (that is, not in terms of rules removal but in clear and clean presentation) to the CRB--there just hadn't been any time.
Doing that sort of thing to a rules-heavy and writing-mired game like the Core Rulebook is a task in itself, as well as a time-consuming one. Say, we might isolate the rule for B, yet that single line, third paragraph down inside of a compound sentence could have been the only rule for T and H...
See where this goes?
The layout of the CRB is horrible for beginners and for reference. That is not the fault of the underlying mechanics--it's reflective of the effort required to clean it up.
Anyhow, that's just my bid for hiring Evil Lincoln and a few others for the re-edition...not because the Paizo team is in any way incompetent--but because writing for clarity is a time-consuming undertaking, and folks like him would be a great asset towards letting this happen.
So just a quick question (which i'm sure has been asked before) are there to meny rules in pathfinder and i'm not on about the basic mechanics of the game but in cases that are not directly covered and are down to jugement calls on behalf of the DM
I ask as of late i've read a lot of threads where a majorty of answers seem to be its not in the rules so you cant do it
I guess what i'm saying is are we getting bogged down with rules and how they are writen
I think I know what you mean (although I see it in play, rather than on the forums where I kind of expect it).
Because PF is a rules heavy game, one expects there to be a rule subsystem or table listing modifiers for various bizarre occurrences. Consequently, when I'm running a PF game and a player wants to climb a waterfall in the dark, I try to remember where the correct section of the rules is. When we're playing dungeon crawl classics, we don't bother looking, we just make up a number.
Ultimately, I think it's more about the player than the system. The rules gurus here can probably adjudicate such a situation in PF as quickly as I can make up my number in DCC. I could also just make up a number in PF - it's a psychological thing about wanting to "do it right" rather than "do it quickly", I suspect.