|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only issue I've ever had with rules lawyers is when they develope an attitude, but that goes for non-rules lawyers equally.
Otherwise, I tend to make use of them when I can, and there is never an issue. Honestly, it tends to be more the realist RPers that disrupt the game in my experience, but that's neither here nor there.
I'd also venture that the only power a DM has is what the players give them. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Same for GMs.
Tabletop roleplaying is a team game. The moment you start seeing the GameMasters or Rules Lawyers as "them" you've already lost.
Everyone is different, everyone has their strengths and annoying habits. The trick is finding the mellow middleground in which everyone's fun can thrive.
Dictators are always bad for the game no matter who they are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, so I've been reading this thread since it started. At one point, there was an argument that got a little heated, then there were apologies, then the developers all came in and conceded that they would like to release a bit of FAQ that they didn't originally plan.
James Jacobs and SKR have thick skins. This is the internet, and as far as I've seen they both remained amiable and collected.
So, for starters, there is no Paizo apocalypse. This thread didn't "start the end" and it's not destroying the forums. Calm down people, please. I'd call the results of this thread actually quite positive and I'm glad that the FAQs were updated.
Also, all this talk about rules-lawyers versus GMs that happened after the thread was clearly over seems pointless. Yes, clarity of rules was asked for. Yes, the GM can arbitrate a game. These two things are not mutually exclusive. Having clarity of rules does not diminish creativity, the power of the rule of zero, or turn the game into "us" versus "them". Anytime you create an "us" versus "them" problem that didn't exist beforehand means that YOU are the problem.
My table is full of 3-5 people all having fun together. That's it. Some are rules lawyers, some are not. The GM doesn't need to "kill" people to fix the fun, and fun can be had by all if everybody is actually willing to work for it. The rules lawyers still split the pizza with the GM and laugh at each other's jokes.
At the end of the day, I'm seeing a lot of complaining about complainers and nitpicking about nitpickers. It's hypocritical. The thread achieved something, so why is a very negative conversation about nothing in particular taking up the next three pages? Does anybody actually have a point to contribute, or can we finally be done here?
|
Yeah, so I've been reading this thread since it started. At one point, there was an argument that got a little heated, then there were apologies, then the developers all came in and conceded that they would like to release a bit of FAQ that they didn't originally plan.
James Jacobs and SKR have thick skins. This is the internet, and as far as I've seen they both remained amiable and collected.
So, for starters, there is no Paizo apocalypse. This thread didn't "start the end" and it's not destroying the forums. Calm down people, please. I'd call the results of this thread actually quite positive and I'm glad that the FAQs were updated.
Also, all this talk about rules-lawyers versus GMs that happened after the thread was clearly over seems pointless. Yes, clarity of rules was asked for. Yes, the GM can arbitrate a game. These two things are not mutually exclusive. Having clarity of rules does not diminish creativity, the power of the rule of zero, or turn the game into "us" versus "them". Anytime you create an "us" versus "them" problem that didn't exist beforehand means that YOU are the problem.
My table is full of 3-5 people all having fun together. That's it. Some are rules lawyers, some are not. The GM doesn't need to "kill" people to fix the fun, and fun can be had by all if everybody is actually willing to work for it. The rules lawyers still split the pizza with the GM and laugh at each other's jokes.
At the end of the day, I'm seeing a lot of complaining about complainers and nitpicking about nitpickers. It's hypocritical. The thread achieved something, so why is a very negative conversation about nothing in particular taking up the next three pages? Does anybody actually have a point to contribute, or can we finally be done here?
Agreed!
Remember, you aren't dealing with Wizards of the Coast who can't stand to be wrong and will only allow you to say good things about their products.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, this is about home games only, I don't care for PFS when it comes to stuff like this:
I think the divison of DM/player power is different, and should be different, from group to group. Roleplaying is a group activity, and like all group activities, it's goal should be that it's fun to everyone involved. Different people have different tastes, so somehow the group has to come to an agreement on how to play to have the most fun.
In some groups, having a strict "dms word is the law" works best - if the group involves people prone to rules-lawyering, but that enjoys storytelling a lot too, for example.
In other groups, having it more open and even allowing rules lawyering can work best - if everyone involved likes to interpret rules and debate them, this might work very well. It'll be less time roleplaying and more semantics debates, but as long as everyone is having fun there's no issue.
Most groups fall somewhere in between, and I've actually played RPG's in groups with no DM/collective DMing by the whole group (though admittedly not pathfinder specifically) where that have worked well.
Interestingly, I've found that people new to the hobby tend to be more open to different styles and far less prone to rules-lawyering (even among those that enjoy min-maxing and optimization).
I think the point I'm trying to get to is that there's no player/DM power division quota that works for everyone, and that the best idea might be for the whole group to discuss this matter before starting a campaign, especially if they're old gamers with strong opinions but that aren't used to playing with each others.
Haha. Oppressive dictatorship for the win. /sarcasmTwo things that have developed over the years:
The unwillingness of players to except a DMs ruling (in modern sports there is the same game, with the same rules and Refs REGULARLY rule a different way from another ref)
Nearly EVERYone having books (I recall the days when the DMG was for the DMs eyes, no one perused the MM, and NO one made pre thought out characters ("builds").
These two things have made an utter mess out of playing this game, coupled with the internets ability to give voices to people who, admittedly, couldn't get the mop in a broom closet to listen to what they have to say.
This 'disease' has spread from table to table in the last 5 or so years, to the point where the table rarely IF EVER belongs to the Dungeon Master anymore.
How do you fix this?
To quote Shakespeare: "The first thing we do, kill all the lawyers"
Rules lawyers don't live at my table. I'll simply keep killing them. God Wizards? Never seen one.
Yup, we have trouble filling our table with players, it's a draw back. But when we DO play? We have fun, and there is a clear, final voice on what the rules are.
As this game has ALWAYS been designed, DM has the final ruling.
One of the main issues I have with PFS, opens too much room to "official rules" handwaving everything else to "homebrew".
Oh yes because a quorum of rules lawyers running the table is so much less of a dictatorship.
Ever seen a Coach throw a Ref out of the game, or a player? Nope.
No, but there are Refs who've made such bad calls they change the outcome of a game.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Discovering Ravingdork has saved links to posts on other boards where devs have said they don't like him, and then shared them proudly on Paizo so that he can show off to JJ about how irritating some people find him...
That gives this thread a whole new, terrible prespective.
This is the internetDoes anybody actually have a point to contribute
The first rule of the tautology club is the first rule of the tautology club.
If I was him, I'd just hide the thread, and pretend like everybody saw the wisdom of his counsel.
-.- This has turned into yet another player entitlement/GM tyranny thread.
I'm ascairt to dungeonmaster anymore.
Discovering Ravingdork has saved links to posts on other boards where devs have said they don't like him, and then shared them proudly on Paizo so that he can show off to JJ about how irritating some people find him...
That gives this thread a whole new, terrible prespective.
Did you find out who he went to Prom with?
I cringe every time I see a new post added to this thread.You should. We're all paying the price for what you started.
Hmm interesting. I made a post that was in response to what RD said and yet it was removed for "pointing fingers" while this post was very blantent about it and yet it remains.
This is just an observation on my part and is not intended to be more than that.
I cringe every time I see a new post added to this thread.You should. We're all paying the price for what you started.Hmm interesting. I made a post that was in response to what RD said and yet it was removed for "pointing fingers" while this post was very blantent about it and yet it remains.
This is just an observation on my part and is not intended to be more than that.
Prolly everybody just skims over his posts.
Lovely. Yeah you can make npcs respected by pcs, if they really think and fight hard. Nothing makes pcs disrespect npcs more than having them be weaklings, a mistake I have made a few times.
Ultra reasonable npc team. So the players were really hurt by losing weren't they?
Lawful Evil cleric, Neutral Fighter, Lawful Neutral Monk.
PCs coming into a place broadcasting that they're Pathfinders - in a community that's had "Pathfinders" robbing graves, and plenty of mysterious disappearances among those investigating the "Pathfinders." And oh, undead attacks...also blamed on the Pathfinders.
So they were given a chance to...redeem...themselves. Minus their expensive gear. If they'd been higher level, the NPC cleric would've used "Lesser Geas" on them.
The Lawful Neutral Monk used Sacred Touch to stabilize the downed PC Wizard and Cleric.
We'll see what happens... :)
This is the internetDoes anybody actually have a point to contribute
The first rule of the tautology club is the first rule of the tautology club.
I'm so getting this made into a button...
No, but there are Refs who've made such bad calls they change the outcome of a game.Two things that have developed over the years:
Ever seen a Coach throw a Ref out of the game, or a player? Nope.
depending on how the game is played, and who is playing often ANY call either way (good or bad) has changed the out come of the game.
Over the years, things like slow motion video etc have changed and even reversed a refs call (sometimes there isn't even a call made before reviewing the slow mo)
I, personally think that stinks, a call is a call and move on.
GOOD refs that make sound calls, get better gigs (not everyone gets to ref a world's series or super bowl) it's not just done by drawing names out of a hat. SO if the REF keeps making ridiculous calls, he'll for ever plague Pop warner football.....
Same goes for a GM, the table is not a democracy, nor it is an oligarchy of RAWyers. the balance comes from people who simply won't play with a GM because he down right sucks.... in fact there's an idea, I don't get to play enough...maybe in MY world ALL goblins have ray guns and 10 levels of gunslinger?
Excellent idea, Ill definitely see more playtime NOW.
you missed the fact we have all sworn a bond to keep this thread going... and going...and going...no matter what!
the devil is in the details
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was going to take a stab at this but seeing as how I'm a noob, I'll just read a couple more posts and move on. But if anyone would like to enlighten me as to what the creator of the thread is talking about, I'd be more than happy to read and understand.
Vital Strike is printed in the CRB as an 'attack action' and later on, 'attack action' was clarified to be a Standard Action. So, since activating Vital Strike is a Standard Action, it couldn't be combined with things like Charge, or Spring Attack. Many people feel this is rather dumb, as Vital Strike and Spring Attack seemed to go hand in hand, only to be told that's not how it works.
The problem comes from the fact that the NPC Codex (and I think in 2 or 3 other cases, but I might be confused), NPC Stat Blocks were said to use Spring Attack and Vital Strike together in their 'Tactics' section. So this is one case of Paizo saying, "That doesn't work like that!" Only to publish and print stat blocks for NPCs that says otherwise.
Next is the Monk's Flurry of Blows. In a Blog, it was clarified that Flurry of Blows works exactly like Two-Weapon Fighting in that you need to have two different weapons to use it. This is was odd, because in 3.5 the Monk was explicitly allowed to make all of his Flurry attacks with a single weapon, and in fact, nearly every person interpreted the Pathfinder Flurry text as to allow all of the attacks with one weapon. So much so, that every single Monk ever printed by Paizo makes all of their Flurry attacks with a single weapon. In addition, the Sohei and Zen Archer archetypes for the Monk either require, or are encouraged, to wield only one weapon while making Flurry of Blows. If Flurry of Blows worked exactly like Two-Weapon Fighting, then those two Archetypes would be required to forgo half their attacks when wielding the weapons the Archetypes were intended to use. In fact, the Zen Archer can only use Bows while flurrying, while the Sohei could at least make Unarmed Strikes if an enemy were close enough.
So, again, we have Paizo saying, "That's not how that works!" Then printing NPC stat blocks using the aforementioned incorrect method of playing.
There are other things, like the Brass Knuckles being Eratted in the Adventure's Armory to disallow Monk's from dealing their Unarmed Strike damage with the Knuckles, only for the Advanced Player's Guide to be re-printed (after the Eratta), using the description for Bras Knuckles that allows Monk's to deal their Unarmed Strike damage with the Knuckles.
Then there are things like Feats that actually did nothing for the character, like the Prone Shooter feat before it was Erata'd. Feats got published that either made the character worse, or literally did nothing at all.
================================
Of course, this doesn't paint a very pretty picture of Paizo, but the reality is most (if not all) of us really love Paizo and the work they have done. Ravingdork even said that Paizo is directly responsible for continuing his love of Table Top RPGs. However, as a customer and fan of Paizo, he had some concerns. Admittedly, they could have been handled in a better way, but at the same time, sometimes you need a good swift kick in the pants to set some people back on the right path.
Honestly? I think we've all been spoiled by Paizo. This wonderful company comes along and gives us the Pathfinder Core Rule Book, raising the bar for all future publishers to equal or exceed. Personally, when I read through the Pathfinder CRB, it was everything I dreamed of, and more, after dealing with some of the rather more unpleasant splat books of 3.5 and 4th Edition as a whole.
I know that I came to expect a certain standard that was to be maintained. Unfortunately, I don't think some of the later books did that. However, that doesn't mean the books themselves weren't brilliant, just that I disagreed with some of the things published.
Regardless of whether or not I think some of the later books weren't as good as the CRB, I still think Pathfinder, and Paizo, are brilliant. I love the game, true, but what I most love is the direct comments and responses from the Developers and Designers of a game I enjoy playing. I've visited and joined many a gaming forum in the past, but never before have the very creators of a game been so active in the community. This, I think, is the most attractive aspect of Pathfinder for me, knowing that my thoughts and concerns are actually heard by the Designers makes me immensely happy.
Discovering Ravingdork has saved links to posts on other boards where devs have said they don't like him, and then shared them proudly on Paizo so that he can show off to JJ about how irritating some people find him...
That gives this thread a whole new, terrible prespective.
I take some offense at this as Gary Sarli, Rodney Thompson, and I continue to have an amiable rapport to this day, something we've maintained for years. The thread I linked to was all meant in good jest from both sides. I'm sorry you didn't realize that. I guess text doesn't translate well.
And yes, I do share it proudly precisely because I am lucky enough to have that kind of positive relationship with them.
|
Is it not? I'm pretty sure that's outlined as early as Core... Maybe there's something I'm not seeing though that throws it into question.The FoB issue is a big mess so i understand that paizo team have not reached a consensus or whatever. But simple things like "is sunder a standard action?" should be easy to answer.
a) yes
b) No.
The problem is that half of the people screaming "error" are purposely twisting the rule text to get what they want. The whole sunder thing is one of those. I was left with the 3.5 version that could be used repeatedly in the same round and started a thread substantially asking "I am wrong?". It was proved to me fairly fast that I was wrong, but still people were arguing about it for several pages.
It is not a matter of "error" (even if better wording something can help) but of people "wanting it to work this way" and using twisted logic to prove it.Then there is the problem of optional rule compatibility. I don't use armor ad DR or hero points, some people like and use them. Enter new rule x that work only with one of those options. All the game should be rewritten because using that new rule will clash with a rule from a book published 3 year earlier?
The Juju oracle can make non evil undead in a very small corner of Golarion and people scream: "Here it is, anyone can make non evil undead anywhere with any spell/archetype. Any different ruling is an error."
No. that is a corner case that break the rules under very specific conditions. Under Pathfinder rules you can have a LG demon, but non-LG demons aren't a error.
I think the silent-monk-wizard-grapple is more of a PC tactic because high-level NPC casters tend to hang out with weaker mooks who need the wizard. Meanwhile, PCs are all pretty badass.
Everyone knows the default tactic in PFRPG is to overwhelm foes one at a time.
Oh, with good tactics, this wouldn't've been as much of a nail-biter of an encounter.
The Wizard was casting a summoned swarm. The fighter was applying an oil of Bless Weapon on his scimitar in the first round...and the players had not discussed what to do if their characters were silenced.
So I wasn't allowing them to table talk unless both of the characters were outside the silence spell, unless they could do it via pantomime.
DM/GM doing their job...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Believe it or not, people actually do like to play the game right out of the box without having to change things in order to correct mistakes. I can promise you, from long time experience that if people have to houserule a lot in order to fix mistakes then they are less inclined to contine buying the game. If I needed to houserule a lot then I would rather make my own game and save myself a few quid.
I'm sure there are. It's just a little hard for me to imagine them choosing Pathfinder as their game of choice if they are determined to play strictly by-the-book.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... What did I miss?
500+ posts that perfectly explain why we can't have nice things.
it's the thread that goes on and on my friends,
It's the thread that never ends.....
Let's take it to 1000 posts, we can do it!
I feel like I missed some form of news amongst the wailing and gnashing of teeth going on in this thread.
What have the Devs said in response to what was posted in this thread?
JJ posted a reply here in this thread, and commented in his own thread.
They also did a few FAQ.
JJ has also stated that he will no longer be answering rules questions in his thread so as to 'keep the house in order'. He's going to direct rules questions to the rules forum and tell you to FAQ it.
it's the thread that goes on and on my friends,
It's the thread that never ends.....Let's take it to 1000 posts, we can do it!
If we get to 1,000 posts what do we get? Is there a stretch goal reward?
If we get to 1,000 posts what do we get? Is there a stretch goal reward?it's the thread that goes on and on my friends,
It's the thread that never ends.....Let's take it to 1000 posts, we can do it!
The reward will be a public apology by Ravingdork!
(just kidding)
ok thanks. I saw the stuff earlier in the thread but didn't know what he had said in his "ask james" thread.
Didn't I already give a public apology?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can never have too many, RD ;)
|
To be fair EVER SINGLE RPG game EVER made , contains these types of small errors. And they always will. It is unrealistic to expect anyone to catch every error.
Also As Almost ANY RPG designer will say they Rules are GUIDELINES. and ultimately it is a game about ROLEPLAYING. Not getting EVERY SINGLE RULE EXACTLY RIGHT and making NO mistakes. the two rules u mentioned above seem pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. Decide what way u like better , then do that :) the end...
Decide what way u like better , then do that :) the end...
Organized Play: Because if I don't do it, then it doesn't exist.
...and with that, I signing off this thread. Watching yet another poster with no context and no clue pop in every 10 posts and say what amounts to "Just houserule it, n00b" has sapped my faith in human nature.
You'll be back. They all come back eventually.
It may be when we go back to talking about monks or maybe it will be us rehashing crafting again that brings you back but you know that soon enough someone will say something so objectionable, so completely bone-headed that you'll have no choice but to jump right back in.
It's not our fault. It's the nature of the thread, its grotesque lure, its ineffable pull.
Didn't I already give a public apology?
"The pound of flesh which I demand of him Is dearly bought, 'tis mine, and I will have it."
See, you've deleted the post and come back already. That was even faster than I could have predicted : )
edit: But seriously, you should just houserule it and be done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You'll be back. They all come back eventually.
It may be when we go back to talking about monks or maybe it will be us rehashing crafting again that brings you back but you know that soon enough someone will say something so objectionable, so completely bone-headed that you'll have no choice but to jump right back in.
It's not our fault. It's the nature of the thread, its grotesque lure, its ineffable pull.
Heh. I didn't even leave when I saw someone reaming RD.
But seriously -- ever since 2008 or so, this place really has gotten pretty bad in a "if you're not with us, you're against us" way. Let it go, people.
edit: But seriously, you should just houserule it and be done.
I kill you. ;-)
|
|
You'll be back. They all come back eventually.
It may be when we go back to talking about monks or maybe it will be us rehashing crafting again that brings you back but you know that soon enough someone will say something so objectionable, so completely bone-headed that you'll have no choice but to jump right back in.
It's not our fault. It's the nature of the thread, its grotesque lure, its ineffable pull.
Heh. I didn't even leave when I saw someone reaming RD.
But seriously -- ever since 2009 or so, this place really has gotten pretty bad in a "if you're not with us, you're against us" way.
Who's the "us" you're talking about? Genuinely curious here.