RAW are useless until they're interpreted by someone.
This is true of all communication, written or spoken. A message written, or spoken is useless until it is interpreted by someone. Interpretation is the problem with all written communication.
If I write or say: "I love you," there are myriad ways it can be interpreted, and part of the interpretation will be based off of the person who is receiving it. Since "love" can mean a lot of different things, it is my job to make sure that my connotation is interpreted correctly, or social awkwardness might follow.
Basically you have to either accept that chain binding is within the rules and all the consequences of that in regards to D&D economy or you go that's a bridge to far and you nerf the hell out of it.
Personally I think 3.x made a mistake in giving baseline genies wish instead of just limiting wish to noble genies which dramatically limits the utility of abusing the genies for their wish abilities.
Otherwise you have to implement all sorts of restrictions if you don't want the wish economy to screw up your precious pseudo medieval fantasy world. Almost all of these revolve around world building restrictions like genies getting pissed that you are abusing them and ganging up and beating you into the ground (or deities intervening).
Wishes were an integral part of the game back in the day (1e period) but I think they are less and less relevant all the time. Personally I'd prefer to see an easier methodology for boosting inherent ability scores than wishes but if you use the RAW you can pretty much assume that anyone over a certain level or wealth level is going to have +5 to every stat which kinda screws up the math hardcore.
Carry over from another thread. I said the following.
"On the one hand you have people who view the game as a puzzle to be solved. How can I make the best X to win all of the things. The rules, to them, are the game.
On the other hand you have the people who view the game as an interactive story that they expect to not be a simple "win" or "lose" kind of proposition. The rules, to them, serve the setting.
Obviously with people who fall in the grey area in between.
When I hear about someone trying to argue for bound genies with no risk granting bonuses, I want to throw a book at them. You are, to me manipulating the rules to break the setting.
When someone else hears me say "You can't do that" to something they think is RAW, to them, I am cheating and being cruel.
I fall very strongly on the side of the rules serve the setting, rather than the setting serving the rules."
1. Do you agree that this is a fair dividing line (with lots of people who fall into grey areas between on various issues)
2. Which side of the debate are you generally on. In other words, do you believe the rules serve the setting or that the setting serves the rules.
I'll try and answer you best I can. In order of importance...
The GM serves the players.
The setting serves the GM.
The rules serve the setting.
So the rules have to make sense in the world (if the world has no Elves, no-one can play an Elf or Half-Elf), the world has to be workable for the GM to make a campaign out of, and the GM has to serve his players as best he can.
That being said, you don't necessarily need all of this to play. My friends and I have played perfectly fun adventures in "relatively normal mostly human country." No real setting, so to speak, just rules, expectations, and some friends. We still expect reality to make sense.
Our worlds are fairly tame. Gravity works. The world is round. Bipedal, sentient humanoids with mostly good alignments rule the world. Few bad eggs in positions of power here and there. Goblins and the like run amok outside towns. Nothing crazy.
If some weird rule simply doesn't make sense (as much as PF can make sense), we tend to ignore and make a houserule for it. If someone is kinda adamant - "I need this on my character" - I try to find a compromise that works while maintaining game balance and some semblance of realism.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Basically you have to either accept that chain binding is within the rules and all the consequences of that in regards to D&D economy or you go that's a bridge to far and you nerf the hell out of it.
Personally I think 3.x made a mistake in giving baseline genies wish instead of just limiting wish to noble genies which dramatically limits the utility of abusing the genies for their wish abilities.
Otherwise you have to implement all sorts of restrictions if you don't want the wish economy to screw up your precious pseudo medieval fantasy world. Almost all of these revolve around world building restrictions like genies getting pissed that you are abusing them and ganging up and beating you into the ground (or deities intervening).
Wishes were an integral part of the game back in the day (1e period) but I think they are less and less relevant all the time. Personally I'd prefer to see an easier methodology for boosting inherent ability scores than wishes but if you use the RAW you can pretty much assume that anyone over a certain level or wealth level is going to have +5 to every stat which kinda screws up the math hardcore.
I think they had a choice. You can either make these things largely inaccessible to the majority of games, since most games don't go to high levels. Or they could trust players and GMs to not abuse loopholes.
Genies and wishes are a huge trope, so they went with trust.
Some people can't handle it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It depends on what you hope to get out of a game.
If you play the game as a tactical game where you try to win by following the rules better, then you have to play as close to RAW as possible, or with established house rules.
If you play because you enjoy story telling and immersion, then the rules are only there to help the players make predictions and to give some framework, but the second that the rules go against the clear picture of what is being described, you have to throw them out.
For example, I was playing this stupid game where two mindless undead are following my character. I declare my action to "move back as they come forward, keeping distance to draw them away," so the GM moves the first monster towards me, moves mine back, and then moves the second monster with the same speed score all the way up to me. When I complained, he says, "you can't move twice."
So later I try the same thing after we figure out the problem, and again he moves the second monster up to me. Instead of following the path we took, it takes the shortest path to where I currently am on the board. When I complain, the kid has the nerve to call me "gamist."
We were clearly not there for the same thing and I'd sure as hell never play with him again. I personally can not stand playing this game RAW.
I have to appear in court very often for my job, and there was a public defender I used to work with who would always try to make very technical arguments about legal wording and would constantly lose and get pissed off.
What he never got was that there is intent behind laws, just as there is intent behind rules. No matter how technical your argument is, if it is absurd most reasonable judges are going with the clear intent.
I take the same approach at the table, and have the same contempt for technicality based arguments.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad that the administrators allow threads where the intent is to bash a poster for personal reasons.
:)
I'm glad that the administrators allow threads where the intent is to bash a poster for personal reasons.
:)
I stopped reading this thread awhile ago, but if someone's really doing that, then please flag it.
|
|
Isn't that a little hypocritical?
Shouldn't that be a TOZ post? I'm trying not to flag, but you both are taking personal shots that are off base in this thread.
EDIT: This thread is about a playstyle, not a person. I actually created the thread to not derail another conversation, because I thought it was an interesting way to identify the divide on the boards between people who read the rules as the setting and people who read the rules as a way to create the setting.
I'm not sure of the mass of any specific person on the board, but I can assure you the world does not revolved around anyone on here.
|
|
I'm trying not to flag, but you both are taking personal shots that are off base in this thread.Again, aren't you being a little hypocritical?
No, I'm not.
Rather than derail another thread, I created a new thread. The thread had nothing to do with Ashiel, which was the clear implication of Tels post. Tels is wrong.
So I, as the OP, asked him to leave if he couldn't stay on topic or was going to take shots at the OP.
This post is about a playstyle, not a person. I would like to discuss the topic, which is why I posted the thread.
Personal shots are different than playstyle shots. Criticizing how someone plays a roleplaying game and critcizing a person are very different things, and the lack of separation seems to be a problem for some people on here.
I like you TOZ, but you are wrong here.
|
|
Very well then.
Since we are derailed at this point and the actual discussion of the thread is dead, let's deal with this once and for all. I said this in another thread.
"I have to appear in court very often for my job, and there was a public defender I used to work with who would always try to make very technical arguments about legal wording and would constantly lose and get pissed off.
What he never got was that there is intent behind laws, just as there is intent behind rules. No matter how technical your argument is, if it is absurd most reasonable judges are going with the clear intent.
I take the same approach at the table, and have the same contempt for technicality based arguments."
I am very, very tired of arguments I am making about general points being read as being about Ashiel personally, and therefore seemingly tossed aside. Ashiel personally may be Mother Theresa for all I know, and nothing I am saying is about him. But I disagree with theorycraft leeching over into actual play, and that is a topic to discuss and debate on a messageboard for the game.
Ashiel is one of several posters who subscribes to a style of play I disagree with. And unlike most of the others who subscribe to this style, he additionally advocates that this style is the "right" way to play, and advocates addressing rules issues through this lens.
We come into conflict on the boards quite often not because it is "Ashiel" or "Ciretose" but because we disagree on a fundimental point and both of us post a lot.
I have no idea why so many people feel the need to "defend" Ashiel from me. Ashiel seems perfectly capable of "defending" himself and his positions.
But it would be nice, in this thread and in all future threads, to understand it ain't personal. It is about two people who know that rules are changed based on the discussions in this messageboard, and two people who know that things posted on this board end up at tables we both could be sitting at in the future.
If Tels wants to defend Ashiel, regardless of the topic, that is very different than defending a topic.
That makes it personal.
I have attacked the same people I've defended on here when I thought they were wrong.
Because it ain't personal.
Perhaps the reason people feel the need to defend me (thank you for your efforts) is because you actually do what TriOmegaZero and Tels describe. You've done it in your most recent post even. For example:
Ashiel is one of several posters who subscribes to a style of play I disagree with. And unlike most of the others who subscribe to this style, he additionally advocates that this style is the "right" way to play, and advocates addressing rules issues through this lens.
I've never advocated this, but you intentionally misrepresent me and my position. The only apparent reason you would go out of your way to constantly try to drudge up old things in unrelated threads (something that enough people have noticed to call you on at multiple points, including this thread, and I don't mean Tels) would be due to personal bias. For example Gignere on page one:
I get it this isn't a philosophical debate on rules interactions with setting but your beef with Ashiel. You can ignore my posts.
I can see stories where Ashiel's abuse would be no problem but I can see stories where the abuse can be problematic.
If Ashiel played at my table I will make it clear which type of story I intend to GM for and ask him to play nicely.
An example of an unrelated poster who realizes its happening again. Your response to him was about me, and asserting something that you invented.
No, it is a philosophical debate on rules. Ashiel I feel is a strong advocate of the "RAW is the setting" side of the debate.
Which isn't based on anything I said in the thread, or elsewhere. You picked me up and put me on a side of your choosing, when frankly I wouldn't ascribe to either side because I think there is more to it than that.
In the quote at the top of this post, you declare that I subscribe to a style of play you disagree with and thus there is this apparent divide and how I supposedly assert a one true way to play; despite the fact you declare that you disagree with this opposed method of play after already saying:
I am honestly not trying to assign "Wrongbadfun" to this, as I have no doubt that that side of divide do enjoy the way that they play.
To me, this seems hypocritical, because you seem to be placing me (and perhaps others, but you're very careful mention others apparently don't fall into this "one true wayism" that you ascribe to me) in a category that you do see as badwrongfun, and you seem to get up in arms about it and misrepresent me.
Even when I clearly spelled out what I believe is the "right" way to play (as in what I believe should be the case for everyone) in this very thread has nothing to do with a gaming style, nor theorycrafting, nor power gaming, nor settings, or anything else beyond that, but emphasis on group communication so that everyone is on the same page and is getting what they want out of the game.
The method I've always found most appealing and most fruitful has always been to talk it over with your whole group, express your concerns, listen to theirs (emphasis on listen). Group communication is a good thing and can work out some surprising things. I think it's good for the GM and their players. And while on this topic, this sort of discussion (GM and players) should have no insults. No implying someone is stupid, or believes something is stupid. Or implying they are bad, wrong, or should feel bad, for not necessarily agreeing with you. That never helps anything, in a group, or out in the wild.
Limiting ourselves to the imaginations of a handful of writers would mean not being able to enjoy the most wondrous part of the game. Freedom. That thing that makes it not like a video game, or a book that you just read, or a film that follows a set plot and script. I mean, someone mentioned dual-shields. One of the devs said he thought that sounded silly and it wasn't intended even if you could do it since he didn't know of any basis in reality. Then someone showed him a martial art that...what do you know, focused on using two shields offensively and defensively.
The only thing that matters at the end of the day, as best as I can tell, is...
1) You and your group are having fun.
2) It doesn't destroy the gameplay portion of your game.
But this is all neither here nor there. What IS here and there is GM/Player interaction. Ciretose seems to be overwhelming hung up on this genie thing lately (it's actually kind of funny, and I've been giggling about it all day :P) but in all seriousness of the topic, it varies from group to group, like pretty much everything. We can see what we can do in the rules and we stick to that for sake of everyone's sanity (because even things like how you make attack rolls or roll critical hits can vary from table to table). If we want to discuss things outside of what is possible within the rules (say because our individual GM does not allow X/Y/Z option or that one splatbook, etc) then we can say so ("Assuming X isn't available, I would do this...").
But when it comes to you and your group, it's important to talk with your players. Listen, and discuss. Avoid dismissing outright. If you have reservations or concerns, talk them over. A lot of things need to be dealt with on a case by case basis, and sometimes house ruled. A great example is simulacrum. Now I've personally never had a real problem with this spell as written because it's never become disruptive in my game (but I can see cases where it definitely could be disruptive) so I hadn't bothered to change it or re-write it because there was not a need. Later, my buddy (well, I like him so I'm gonna call him my buddy even if the feeling isn't reciprocated) Wraithstrike here felt that it was problematic, and so I wrote a new simulacrum for him that was easier to avoid issues with (even if your players wanted to make copies of truly amazing creatures like Solars, Pit Fiends, or Tarrasques).
** RE-WRITE OF SIMULACRUM **
This is the sort of thing I would consider if one of my players legitimately wanted to use simulacrum to make the Fighter a tarrasque to ride on (something I have playfully joked about on the boards in the past). I'd use this version 'cause the result is pretty much guaranteed to be less goofy or problematic. But that's ultimately for my group and I to decide.
Coming to the end of this post, I find myself thinking about a lot of things. As a result, I believe I have come to a conclusion I can get behind, and believe at my core.
The setting, the game, the rules. None of these things exist to serve the one another. They exist to serve you and your group.
What I said is that it did not disrupt my game, the world didn't implode, it makes sense to me, I listened and looked at what it did and most importantly talked it over with my players. It's very do-able within the rules, as are many other things that are often unusual or even quite powerful (more powerful than this actually, at least in practice).
Lemme point something out here. Nothing in this game is a sure thing. I mean check it out. In This Thread there are people who demand that a Ring of Sustenance is gamebreaking, too cheap, overpowered, etc. It's not suitable for their games, and some of them outright ban the ring entirely (while I don't think the ring is a problem, for it has never been a problem at my tables, I can see how it could affect gameplay in a major way {perhaps moreso than even +2.5 to your base statistics} but I think that's a good thing). Meanwhile in That Thread another guy cannot fathom that people (including the devs) expect people to buy magic items and/or that it would be something that is common in peoples' games (even when the Gamemastering section in the core rulebook says the biggest reason to get gold and treasures is to buy magic items you want).
These are things you can do in the game. Not everyone is going to be comfortable with it. Some people may even view it as being akin to cheating (which I don't agree with but there you have it). I don't see the point in getting worked up over it though, or trying to pick a fight about it with someone in every thread you post in. If that's not cool in your game then good for you. Trying to divide the community on variations of certain fallacies that shall not be named because it offends you solves nothing. Even posters in this thread have seen that even this thread and/or survey is merely a thinly disguised attempt at going down that road again (as is especially evident by how insistent you are on discussing planar binding and wish despite it having very little to do with your topic in regards to settings).
I'm going to take a moment to not talk about Planar Binding (I feel like I've said enough on the subject, and honestly it's getting done to death). At the end of the day, the rules allow you to do some very powerful and very impressive things. The rules can allow you to produce infinite money, or create entire castles out of thin air (well before 9th level spells are available). It's trivially easy to do so. At the end of the day it is up to each group to decide which portions of the rules are not for them, and which are (and on the forums stick to the rules unless it is noted otherwise).
Once again, the most important thing is communication with your players. Not hostility, not ignoring them, nor bending to their will, but sheer honest communication. See what they want, look at why they want it, see if it makes some sense, is there a mechanical problem with it, will you need homebrew to help it work, and so forth. Not everything that exists in the game is appropriate to every group's play, but the game offers many things should they be.
For example, some people don't even want players to be able to purchase magic items in stores. To them, that's cheesy. Other people would have things like the lyre of building not exist in their worlds because they don't like how useful the thing is at influencing the world instead of combat.
And then others are not going to bat an eyelash when someone uses wall of stone spells to produce tons and tons and tons of stone, makes an intelligent lyre of building with a +10 bonus to Preform (string instruments) to play itself endlessly (or an undead, or construct, or some other thing who can play continuously without getting fatigued) and erect a castle in less than a week. Said group may think it's just part of the game, or they might think it's really super cool that they're awesome enough to build a castle like that.
I won't say any of them are wrong as long as they are having fun.
I think my position is pretty clear. On the forums I stick to what you can legally do within the rules when discussing what is legal to do within the rules. How far that survives contact with an individual group varies. If I'm talking about something outside of a rule discussion, such as when long ago in the days of yore Bob_Loblaw commented that his party in an epic level adventure was really suffering in the healing department by being composed heavily of martials vs very powerful enemies. I suggested that, if he and his group were comfortable with it, that he could use simulacrum to create mini-solar to heal the epic level party. Even there, I said:
Very true. I believe the rules exist for a reason. I think it's good to play within the rules. I myself and very tolerant of stuff people do as long as they are within those rules, because I feel that the rules work both ways. It's like a bond between player and GM, for their mutual benefit. If something truly becomes disruptive, then you can work it out as a group and come up with something that does work. Communication is a good thing. Working together as a team is a good thing. My players trust me, and I trust them. It's one of the reasons I neither panicked nor blew a gasket when one of them asked to call up some efreeti and play Aladdin for a while. I talked it over with them, addressed any special changes in expectations to be considered, realized it wasn't going to break my game, and learned how far the bubble can go without breaking. I feel like I'm a better GM than I was before for the experience.
Advocating player/GM relations, working things out, and working out our comfort zonies. But anyone can look at the thread and see who was bashing playstyles or harassing people.
When you can't play the game as intended....
I talked it over with them, addressed any special changes in expectations to be considered, realized it wasn't going to break my game, and learned how far the bubble can go without breaking. I feel like I'm a better GM than I was before for the experience.You can't break something already broken.
So you admit you are abusing it, and that you will continue to do so unless the devs spell it out better?
Because that line of reasoning is my entire argument against your style of play, spelled out more clearly that I myself have been able to do so far.
No, I'm saying it could be abuse-able. Not that it is being abused. There's a big difference. If you want to make sure something is less likely to get abused, spell it out better. It's what I do when I'm writing mechanics/rules. The devs didn't wanna tackle trying to balance it and just gave it to us like it was in 3.x (slightly buffed even), and presumably let us rule 0 it if it gets screwy. Not the best designing philosophy when you're writing mechanics but it's not like it's a trend so I don't mind it much.
If it disrupts my game, then I might sit and talk with the players about it and come to a compromise. Nobody's ever played a Pun-Pun in our group, but we all know that Pun-Pun is technically legal in 3.x, which we were playing before Pathfinder. When it actually comes down to it, I run a milder (in powergaming/rule shenanigans) game than most of the other GMs I know online.
I think that pretty much covers most of it, I think. Perhaps history's evidence will speak for itself, but I'm not telling other people how to play (beyond asking other people to stick to the rules when discussing rules), I'm not in whatever camp you're trying to stuff me in, I've never claimed my way was the right way to play, and I can't recall once that my position on anything was what you claimed it to be while trying to stuff me into a "camp" that is opposed to "your position", whatever it may be.
On a side note, we do have a quote saying you're not trying to declare anyone's games "badwrongfun" and a legion of posts doing pretty much that. To quote the holy scriptures of the exalted TriOmegaZero.
Isn't that a little hypocritical?
On a side note, you're right about one thing. I can defend myself if needed, and it often is, since the mods haven't do anything about your harassment already, I figure they won't do anything about it in the future.
PS: Here's some RAW for you.
The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We're...we're going to need a bigger monitor.
We're...we're going to need a bigger monitor.
I think what we need is to give an ignore button to Ashiel, that can only be used for Ciretose's posts.
They're not worth his time anyway. Also, we might need more patience so we can actually read Ashiel's posts from start to end.
|
|
Despite the volume of the posts, the world does not revolve around them.
This is a discussion of rules serving the setting or setting serving the rules.
My argument is that where the RAW don't make sense in the setting, for whatever reason, the rules are wrong. In another thread someone pointed out that if an immovable rod were truly immovable, the rotation of the earth, or just the sheer velocity of the earth would cause problems.
But that would make it not work as it was intended in the game, so you ignore it.
Similarly we don't have peasent rail guns, magic genie wish machines, etc...
The question the GM asks is "What was the intent of the rule." not "How can I get around this rule that is in my way."
If when I say I am against "How can I get around this rule that is in my way." and you say I am attacking anyone, it can only be because that person comes to mind when I describe that trait.
If anyone argues for a loophole, I call them on it. I have argued for and against most posters I have argued with on here. I believe I currently thejeff is agreeing strongly with me in this thread and strongly disagreeing with me in another thread.
Because they are about two different issues.
Philosophically I find it objectionable when people try to find loopholes. Not when people trying to create powerful characters, not even when they "min/max" or "power game" to create a more combat effective classes.
When they try to wedge into loopholes.
If you are a person who I believe does this, and I've read it, I have argued with you on these messageboards about it.
Being the person I've argued with the most doesn't make you a target, it makes you someone who does it the most.
And the fact that apparently someone read the original post and a specific poster popped to mind as an example of what I described probably is a result of the beliefs of the poster matching the description.
So if you want to argue for your position, feel free. But it seems like since that hasn't been going well so far, rather than dealing with the consensus not agreeing with your position, we are shifting to some discussion of personality. Style rather than substance.
The bolded word is the key here, and it is not synonymous with "written."That is false. GM's don't decide RAW. They interpret RAW to get RAI.But their interpretation is still within the rules.When you turn RAI to mean "Read as Interpreted", things make a lot more sense :DBut there is no such thing as playing RAW then. The text always needs interpretation. The rules are not self-executing. They do not play or enforce themselves.
Sometimes, most of the time, the interpretation is obvious and everyone understands the same thing from the text. Sometimes it's less clear and people differ and we get 500+ post threads on what the RAW actually is. Sometimes most people read it one way until someone points out a subtlety and they then agree it doesn't mean what they originally thought.RAW are useless until they're interpreted by someone.
That is incorrect. If I say I am 5 feet 4 inches tall, that is exactly what I mean. If anyone gets anything different from that sentence...
The rules are the same way for many occasions.
The bolded word is the key here, and it is not synonymous with "written."That is false. GM's don't decide RAW. They interpret RAW to get RAI.But their interpretation is still within the rules.Doesn't have to be. It still falls within the rules.
If it didn't, it would be against the rules.
That has nothing to do with whether or not it is RAW. RAW(the most literal interpretation) is often not how the rule was intended to be used. That is why they are different.
|
|
That has nothing to do with whether or not it is RAW. RAW(the most literal interpretation) is often not how the rule was intended to be used. That is why they are different.
Agree 100%.
RAI should always win over RAW. The goal should be trying to figure out what the RAI is, and reverting to RAW only when it is unclear and you need to make a firm decision.
Not the other way around.
|
|
You did specifically mention one of Ashiel's signature arguments: the genie binding/wish thing, in the OP. It would be hard for anyone who'd seen the other thread not to have Ashiel pop to mind when he read that.
I suggested early on in this thread that you might want to avoid bringing up examples from Ashiel, just to keep the thread from devolving like this. There are plenty of other examples to work from.
In response to Ashiel directly, posting in this thread, saying he never varied from setting.
Of course when talking to Ashiel, it would be interpreted that I am talking about Ashiel.
Then I pulled out peasent railgun and other examples, as you did as well. There are plenty of other examples of theorycraft ridiculousness to choose from. The only reason the Genie cheese became a focus was that Ashiel came into the thread, and posted:
"Oddly, I haven't had this happen frequently. I've been doing this sort of thing for more than a decade, and I can't recall the last time I felt the rules and the setting were at war with one another. Or even in a bad mood with each other, for that matter."
to which I replied.
"You also find ways to manipulate the rules to acheive outcomes and have a setting where you can't get +3 items but you can buy attributes from Genie binders, neither of which seems consistent with any published setting I've read."
Snarky? Yes. But I felt (and feel) that the statement was disingenuious given the fact Ashiel was arguing for spending 18k to get +3 to all stats at the exact same time as this post, which was one of the scenarios described in the original post, and then saying "I haven't had this happen frequently"
The fact that it is one of someones "signature arguments" doesn't make it off limits to discuss and criticize. If anything it raises it to a level of greater scrutiny.
|
|
That has nothing to do with whether or not it is RAW.Because I'm not saying it is or is not. I'm saying the GM is operating within the rules when he does so.
The GM is operating within the rules as long as he is making judgements that are reasonable in the setting and holding both sides to the same "phyics" of how the world works.
The question is if the RAW don't fit the setting, do you as a GM you follow the RAW and change the setting or ignore the RAW and follow the setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@thejeff - I said that.
Ashiel said she didn't see something happen often despite the original post describing something he specifically said was allowed in his game.
That was what was disingenuious to me.
Again, please don't misrepresent me. Here is the actual post you are quoting.
But if you have a conflict where the rules and the setting depart (which happens frequently) which one holds higher value at your table.Oddly, I haven't had this happen frequently. I've been doing this sort of thing for more than a decade, and I can't recall the last time I felt the rules and the setting were at war with one another. Or even in a bad mood with each other, for that matter.
So you lie. You said "if you have a conflict where the rules and the setting depart (which happens frequently) which one holds higher value at your table". You can't just take my response and say it was talking about planar binding. I said, quite clearly, that I haven't had the settings I've ran depart from the rules, and that I couldn't recall the last time I felt the rules and the setting were at war.
You need help. If that was "disingenuous" to you then you're clearly not reading what is written, you're reading what you want to. This has gone on enough. Stop misquoting me, stop misrepresenting me, stop taking my posts out of context. It just makes you look bad and it's rather irritating to me.
So basically it could be said that by RAW the genie binding could work and it could not work depending all on how the GM decides to interpret it.
So in this situation genie binding needs to stay out of builds and arguments because it could go either way.
By RAW anything could, unless you take GM fiat out of it and look at what the rules do allow you to do. When discussing stuff, we stick to the RAW with the assumption that things are on the table. I freaking hate Antagonize with a burning passion, it does not exist in my game (which by RAW I can deny), but I'm not going to whine and start mock-threads to rehash arguments over it (nay, I wouldn't have even started the argument to begin with) because I dislike it. Antagonize works a certain way by RAW. It allows you to do certain things by RAW. Things that make no sense, take control of other peoples' characters on a primal level (actually choosing what they want to do), and so forth, but it's RAW. If someone wants to include that option in their build, it is not my business to tell them they cannot do it on a forum where we come together with the RAW.
I could, at my table, say antagonize is not available, pick something else. We must however have the standard that is RAW or else we will never get anywhere during discussions for having to trudge through hundreds of pages of individual house rules. I'd much rather have a conversation that discusses what you can do within the rules with a "YMMV, check with your GM" disclaimer.
|
|
I thought that you were claiming you didn't bring it up until Ashiel responded to this thread. Since you did mention it as an example in the first post, it's no great surprise someone might think the thread was aimed at him.@thejeff - I said that.
Ashiel said she didn't see something happen often despite the original post describing something he specifically said was allowed in his game.
That was what was disingenuious to me.
I actually don't think Genie Binding is Ashiel (or anyone's) signature move. I think either it or the Peasent railgun are the best example of RAW arguments gone crazy.
I would actually be fairly offended if I were Ashiel and someone said that was my "signature" argument. And to say if anyone mentioned it, immediate reference to Ashiel was inferred is equally...I wouldn't want my philosophy to be based on having to defend that argument. And it would be unfair to latch that to Ashiel or anyone.
But it is a RAW argument that goes against setting, which is why I used it.
|
So basically it could be said that by RAW the genie binding could work and it could not work depending all on how the GM decides to interpret it.
So in this situation genie binding needs to stay out of builds and arguments because it could go either way.
By RAW anything could, unless you take GM fiat out of it and look at what the rules do allow you to do. When discussing stuff, we stick to the RAW with the assumption that things are on the table. I freaking hate Antagonize with a burning passion, it does not exist in my game (which by RAW I can deny), but I'm not going to whine and start mock-threads to rehash arguments over it (nay, I wouldn't have even started the argument to begin with) because I dislike it. Antagonize works a certain way by RAW. It allows you to do certain things by RAW. Things that make no sense, take control of other peoples' characters on a primal level (actually choosing what they want to do), and so forth, but it's RAW. If someone wants to include that option in their build, it is not my business to tell them they cannot do it on a forum where we come together with the RAW.
I could, at my table, say antagonize is not available, pick something else. We must however have the standard that is RAW or else we will never get anywhere during discussions for having to trudge through hundreds of pages of individual house rules. I'd much rather have a conversation that discusses what you can do within the rules with a "YMMV, check with your GM" disclaimer.
And by RAW it could go either way. Now since it can go either way, we could ask ourselves this question. "Which way would the designers favor as the right way.
Since it can go either way then it needs to stay out of builds on this board.
|
|
@thejeff - I said that.
Ashiel said she didn't see something happen often despite the original post describing something he specifically said was allowed in his game.
That was what was disingenuious to me.
Again, please don't misrepresent me. Here is the actual post you are quoting.
But if you have a conflict where the rules and the setting depart (which happens frequently) which one holds higher value at your table.Oddly, I haven't had this happen frequently. I've been doing this sort of thing for more than a decade, and I can't recall the last time I felt the rules and the setting were at war with one another. Or even in a bad mood with each other, for that matter.So you lie. You said "if you have a conflict where the rules and the setting depart (which happens frequently) which one holds higher value at your table". You can't just take my response and say it was talking about planar binding. I said, quite clearly, that I haven't had the settings I've ran depart from the rules, and that I couldn't recall the last time I felt the rules and the setting were at war.
You need help. If that was "disingenuous" to you then you're clearly not reading what is written, you're reading what you want to. This has gone on enough. Stop misquoting me, stop misrepresenting me, stop taking my posts out of context. It just makes you look bad and it's rather irritating to me.
I included your full quote in the post...so...
Nah, I'll just stop there. I included your full quote in the post. We are in the same thread as the post. Everyone can go read for themselves, I'm not getting any more meta and I'm tired of yet another thread being about you rather than the topic.
|
|
And by RAW it could go either way. Now since it can go either way, we could ask ourselves this question. "Which way would the designers favor as the right way.Since it can go either way then it needs to stay out of builds on this board.
That is really a whole separate fight, one which I agree with but is kind of beside the point.
I assume any build you post is one you would allow in your game, meaning for all intents and purposes it is in your game.
The question at hand in this thread is if you are allowing RAW ways to get around the logic of the setting come into the game, and if so are you then changing the setting to fit the rules.
When you post a build, it should be a build you would allow in your game.
The builds you post speak for the type of game you play in. Which is why I think posting builds is the best tool we have for these discussions.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I think it has been mentioned up thread, setting and rules are intricately linked.
Where a setting deviates from the "core rule book" it is often mentioned in the introduction.
The dichotomy I usually see is between those that think the story is bound by the rules and must be shaped by them, and others who think the rules are there to help support the story and should be bent should they get in the way of the story.
As a GM in a home game, i think the rules are there to support the story, but should never get in the way of the story.
but that is my opinion.
I actually don't think Genie Binding is Ashiel (or anyone's) signature move.
That's right. My signature move is the Hadouken, because I'm down right fierce!
But it is a RAW argument that goes against setting, which is why I used it.
As I said in my first post: Whose setting? You responded with:
Well we have Golarion as the published setting for one. We could go Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk...but I suspect if you are on the rules side you probably have your own setting to conform to the rules, as you read them, which would mean the setting serves the rules.
(Check out that this hot new trend of not-misquoting)
As I noted before, I'm not really seeing what getting efreeti to grant you wishes has anything to do with the setting of the world, other than you're getting wishes from efreeti in that world. I suppose if there are no efreeti in the world then, well, it would be weird to summon them, unless it was understood that you were summoning from the efreeti world, which might be relevant if you're doing plane-hopping (such as mega-campaigns where you have multiple campaign settings with different material planes, so you might have a Golarion plane, Eberron Plane, Rokugan Plane, etc).
Since you mentioned the Forgotten Realms though, it was actually in a Forgotten Realms campaign that the first wish granting got involved, and humorously I have this quote from the Forgotten Realms Wiki:
Efreets are born traders, always looking to acquire more: more wealth, more power, and most of all more honor. They use their magical skills to further these goals. The efreet known as Kimzahn reportedly explained the concept of honor as follows:
“The concept of honor to beings such as I is sure to be alien to you, and hard to understand. For example, when my kind decides to grant one of yours a wish, it is our way of amassing honor for our race. When we grant a human a wish, it shows that the things you desire most are things that we can freely discard. Thus, we feel our race has gained honor. What else would an efreet need?”
In the Forgotten Realms game Baldur's Gate II, there is an enslaved genie in the first dungeon that you can help remove the bonds from to grant his freedom. That Forgotten Realms game also has an efreeti bottle that allows you to call on the aid of an efreeti 1/day, if I recall correctly.
So in the Forgotten Realms at least, it's not even a valid argument. I still don't see what calling up efreeti has anything to do with any other setting either, other than you saying it does. It seems more or less a simple matter of what you and your group are comfortable with (and in the original campaign it occurred in we were playing 3.5, and wish was way more powerful back then, so we discussed what would and would not be on the table as as group; today wish is so nerfed it doesn't even concern me anymore).
Again, my position is pretty irrelevant to the planar binding issue, and the planar binding issue is pretty irrelevant to the topic you insist you're bringing up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just in response to rules serving setting etc.
I see the rule-set more as...say...resin and the setting is the mould. On its own I don't find the rule-set horribly interesting but when its injected into a setting, taking on a new shape and invariably some bits being left out, does it start to be interesting and fun to explore for me.
In my own worlds I viciously rewrite the core rules. In my current most played one, for example, I rewrite druids entirely, change divine magic on a fundemental level, change/add various rules and mechanics and so on and so on.
I do this to match the ruleset to the logic and physics of MY setting, not the other way around.
This is what I took to be the OP's question.
|
|
It isn't a planar binding issue, it was Genie Wish Machine in all of it's forms.
If you want to argue the Devs intended the setting to include the ability to buy +3 to all stats for 18k, which you posted, in a build, feel free.
That would be on topic.
I argue that wasn't intended to be part of any setting. I argue that if you included it in your setting, it is because you bent the setting to fit the rule.
Which is the topic of this thread. If the setting or the rule is more important.
You can do that. It is your game. And you can argue philosophically that is the way to view rules, as that is the topic.
But don't act like RA Salvatore or James Jacobs thought that the economy of the world included buying +3 permantent attributes for 18k.
You changed the setting to fit the rule.
|
|
Just in response to rules serving setting etc.
I see the rule-set more as...say...resin and the setting is the mould. On its own I don't find the rule-set horribly interesting but when its injected into a setting, taking on a new shape and invariably some bits being left out, does it start to be interesting and fun to explore for me.
In my own worlds I viciously rewrite the core rules. In my current most played one, for example, I rewrite druids entirely, change divine magic on a fundemental level, change/add various rules and mechanics and so on and so on.
I do this to match the ruleset to the logic and physics of MY setting, not the other way around.This is what I took to be the OP's question.
Exactly.
This really isn't a right or wrong kind of discussion. I think theorycraft is fun, and if you have an entire theorycraft world like someone mentioned Frank Trollman is creating, that is kind of awesome.
But at the end of the day it is an either or thing. Either you have a vision of the world that is more important than the rules, or you are going to adapt the vision of the world to fit the rules.
If you allow something like the peasent railgun or an economy exploit into the game, you are changing the setting. Which is fine, it is your setting to change.
But don't tell me you started from envisioning a world with peasent railguns and economy exploints. That is BS. You changed the vision to fit the rules.
Personally I am not tied to a setting, i am concerned with the story. For me the rules are there to help me and my group tell a certain story. I care less if a certain rule makes the setting as a whole logically inconcistent, so long as it serves the story.
Lets take the genie binding as an example (though it is rather extreme). If it serves the story I am telling to have the players have access to a bound genie (ala aladin) i'll do it, i might even make it simple (magic lamp). And I'm perfectly willing to handwave the fact that the rest of the world has not also bound genies to magic lamps to get loads of wishes even though my xth level party managed it to achieve their end of the story.
Why didnt the 20th level guys bind the genies? They didnt think of it, couldnt find a genie, doesnt matter. Just because i've included it in my game doesnt mean everyone who by RaW could do it, did do it.
That doesnt mean i wont shoot down things like the peasant railgun, it just means i am not beholden to raw or to my setting, im beholden to my story.
|
|
There is genie binding (singular) and there is the genie market for wishes.
I think the whole reason some spells like Simulacrum and Planar Binding are so open is to allow story choices. The trapped Genie in a bottle is a classic trope, if you create a rule set that doesn't allow for a classic trope, that is a bigger problem than a rule set that is too open to exploit.
It is good something very unusual and powerful "could" happen, under rare circumstances. It is bad when it "must" happen to the point that the setting no longer makes logical sense.
It isn't a planar binding issue, it was Genie Wish Machine in all of it's forms.
If you want to argue the Devs intended the setting to include the ability to buy +3 to all stats for 18k, which you posted, in a build, feel free.
That would be on topic.
No it wouldn't. :\
I argue that wasn't intended to be part of any setting. I argue that if you included it in your setting, it is because you bent the setting to fit the rule.
You're the one who is now changing the setting based on mechanics. Even when confronted with evidence specific to the setting (wish granting outsiders of relatively low power) who also in the setting consider it to their honor to grant wishes to mortals, you assert that it's wrong because of mechanics. At least, based on your commentary about arguing whether or not the game mechanics developers (game mechanics have little to nothing to do with a setting as they are setting neutral) intended it based on statistical values vs gp expenditure.
Which is the topic of this thread. If the setting or the rule is more important.
Both are equally important. Concerns should be settled as a group on a case by case basis.
You can do that. It is your game. And you can argue philosophically that is the way to view rules, as that is the topic.
I'm having a hard time actually seeing what the topic is. You seem very vague about it. You say one thing, then another that contradicts it. You say you're for setting trumps rules, but then when shown that a published setting expects wish granting genies to grant wishes (imagine that) you seem to fall back to a mechanical frustration as to why that must not be. Seems contradictory and inconsistent with the picture you're trying to pain here, at least to me.
But don't act like RA Salvatore or James Jacobs thought that the economy of the world included buying +3 permantent attributes for 18k.
I didn't say it did. I imagine that R.A. Salvatore thought very little as to the economy of the Forgotten Realms when he has Drizzt just randomly take an item off a shelf in a school that was worth more than 10,000 gp (a figurine of wondrous power) before he was out of high school. I imagine James Jacobs does what he wants when he wants to (he is more generous with treasure when writing, from what I've seen with his published works than the core books recommend) as long as he thinks it'll work out.
You changed the setting to fit the rule.
What grounds do you have to say I changed anything? I didn't do anything to the setting. We just played D&D in the Forgotten Realms. I didn't rip up the pantheon and replace it, I didn't declare all orcs everywhere extinct, I didn't change around the cities, states, and powers. We just played Forgotten Realms and somebody got a genie to grant them some wishes. You're not even making sense anymore.
You can do that. It is your game. And you can argue philosophically that is the way to view rules, as that is the topic.I'm having a hard time actually seeing what the topic is. You seem very vague about it. You say one thing, then another that contradicts it. You say you're for setting trumps rules, but then when shown that a published setting expects wish granting genies to grant wishes (imagine that) you seem to fall back to a mechanical frustration as to why that must not be. Seems contradictory and inconsistent with the picture you're trying to pain here, at least to me.
Psst. TheJeff...you have the wrong name on your quote. (0~0)