|
I had a GM at my game last night claim that since the grapple ruling by Jason Bulmahn and Sean K Reynolds was not valid in PFS because the PFS guide to organized play specifically states that only 'campaign leadership' rulings count, and aalthough they make rulings on the game, they are not specifically campaign leadership.
You may not simply ignore rules clarifications made by the campaign leadership, including the campaign coordinator and campaign developer, on the paizo.com messageboards.
Could you please clarify 'campaign leadership' and correct him? This resulted in a much more frustrating encounter with a black tentacles, and even though i showed him the post, he would not change his ruling.
thank you.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well I certainly hope that the designers clarifications count because that would be very odd if the designers of Pathfinder can't make clarifications on Pathfinder.
PFS is meant to follow the Pathfinder rules except where the PFS material specifically says otherwise.
Clarifications by Pathfinders wonderful design team are adjustments or clarifications to Pathfinder rules.
If a change is made to the rules of Pathfinder it should be reflected in society play UNLESS there has been a specific clarification made in society play that is to the contrary.
|
Bulmahn and SKR are usually good guidelines. James Jacobs, usually not. However, always defer to Mike Brock if you are not sure. If you are uncertain about a ruling, send Mike a PM with the link to the thread and ask for it to be included in the FAQ. Keep in mind, if you spam him he'll end up hating on your football team. Either that or it's just the Saints. Not sure which ;)
|
|
As the grapple rules in the official material seem to be inconsistent, this is an area where GMs have to make their own interpretation. A forum post by Paizo staff other than PFS leadership is not technically binding as such.
That said, I'd consider it extremely inappropriate behavior from a GM to just ignore the expressed intent of the game designers just because of a technicality in the campaign rules. Especially if said GM uses that to give the PCs a considerable disadvantage.
|
|
Bulmahn and SKR are usually good guidelines. James Jacobs, usually not. However, always defer to Mike Brock if you are not sure. If you are uncertain about a ruling, send Mike a PM with the link to the thread and ask for it to be included in the FAQ. Keep in mind, if you spam him he'll end up hating on your football team. Either that or it's just the Saints. Not sure which ;)
Well there is a rivalry between the saints and the falcons, and mike is from atlanta. i am from new orleans, but i don't get into the rivalry because both those teams sucked for a really long time :)
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
This would be one of the places where I distinguish between board post by a developer and an entry in the FAQ. If the development team wants to change the rules of the game, they need to do so somewhere other than a casual board post.
One of the reasons I feel this way is that board posts frequently get over-ruled, sometimes later in the thread, sometimes in other threads. (For instance, can a PC use spiked armor with a polearm in hand? Mark and Jason say no, but Jason backs up later on the thread and says he'll consider it some more.)
The number of times that occurs cannot by any stretchbe ddescribed as frequent. Many posts aren't changing rules, but explaining how said rules work.
There's also Stephen Radney-McFarland on the design team.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are posts from SKR/JB technically "binding" in PFS? No.
Does it take a special kind of GM to say "Yeah, I know the guys who wrote the game say this is how it works, but I'm pretty sure I know better than they do"? Yes.
----------------------
Chris raises a reasonable concern, but as Cheapy noted, the number of times that JB/SKR (as opposed to JJ) go back on their messageboard clarifications is EXTREMELY, negligibly, small. GMs who go by what SKR/JB say are going to have a far better track record than someone who doesn't.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jiggy, I appreciate you calling me out as reasonable. And I would be reluctant to argue with a GM who was relying on a forum post by a developer. I think that, in most cases, that's a smart move.
But my memory of the number of forum posts that have been modified or overturned at some point is a little bit larger than yours is, particularly when a developer has weighed in on a contentious, or gray-area issue.
I think it's great that Paizo staff take the time to post clarifications, modifications, etc. when these issues arise. I think it's a mark of professionalism that they sometimes re-examine an issue and post ammended rulings. But let's look at a partially-hypothetical situation:
* Sean, perhaps on behalf of the development team, writes a post that changes the way one of the Summoner class abilities works. Later on, the development team overturns that initial ruling. A GM could read that post, which would still exist on the forums, and not find the correction.
* But, as it turns out, Sean had posted in the FAQ, so the correction and overturn also happened in the FAQ, and replaced the original ruling with the new one. There's no old posts to find. (I'm thinking of the "share spells" ability, which, for a while, was restricted to spells with "Self" as the target, rather than spells that a summoner could cast on himself.)
--+--+--
I'm going to state an unpopular position now. The decision as to whether a ruling is in favor of the PC or not shouldn't matter.
A GM wears different hats, and those have different attitudes with regards to the players. When it comes to my demeanor at the table, I'm "on the players' side". When it comes to role-playing the opponents, I'm "doing my best to defeat the PCs". And when it comes to applying the rules of the game, I'm as objective as I can be.
Example 1: The published books say that Apsu doesn't grant spells. James Jacobs says that yes, he does; that was a mistake.
Example 2: The published books say that Asmodeus has paladins. James Jacobs says that no, he does not; that was a mistake.
If a GM goes with James' clarification in the first case, but doesn't count it in the second, 'cause 'it's just a post and James isn't on the development team anyway', then that GM is cherry-picking to the advantage of the PCs. Likewise, if you disallow Asmodean paladins but also disallow Apsu-an clerics, you're reading the rules to the players' disadvantage. I'll go on record to disagree with either of those biases.
So I have no problem with asthyril's GM being reluctant to go with Sean's post overturning the Core Rulebook's clear guide on which spells can be cast in a grapple. Just so long as he is equally reluctant to follow developer posts that restrict PC options.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that, in most cases, that's a smart move.
Which is all I claimed: "most cases". If you always defer to messageboard clarifications, you will sometimes stick to something that you didn't know later got overturned. But that will be a minority (at least, if you're aware of enough posts - also see below) so you'll have a better "success rate" if you go that route than the opposite (though there's a better path still, but requires a lot of time).
But my memory of the number of forum posts that have been modified or overturned at some point is a little bit larger than yours is,
That may well be true. It may well also be true that my library of designer commentary that hasn't been overturned is larger still (approaching 100). I daresay a GM's best odds are still to side with designer commentary. ;)
Also, note that I specifically referred to Sean K Reynolds and Jason Bulmahn. They're both typically very careful about what they say, so I was careful to comment only on the wisdom of following their commentary. You do have to be more careful with James Jacobs or others.
So I'd still say that if a GM has a goal of consistently making correct rulings, then when presented with commentary from SKR or JB, he has better odds going with it than not.
As for going beyond those two methods, or dealing with commentary of other Paizo staff... well, it'd take WAY too long for me to type that guide. ;)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In PFS this is where I go for clarifications. It is an updated list on message board rulings.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p4na?Compilation-of-message-board-clarificatio ns#1
Make sure you read the entire thread as sometimes they are reversed.
That's PFS-specific rulings, made by Mike and Mark, which are binding and aren't really part of what this thread is about.
|
|
So I have no problem with asthyril's GM being reluctant to go with Sean's post overturning the Core Rulebook's clear guide on which spells can be cast in a grapple. Just so long as he is equally reluctant to follow developer posts that restrict PC options.
it is not clear. the CRB contradicts itself. the wording of the grapple rules in the back contradict the rules in the magic section. go read the thread i linked.
that is why they had to say the magic section is in error, and was one of those copy/paste errors from bringing 3.5 rules over to pathfinder.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Asthyril, I read the thread, and I thank you for linking to it.
You'll observe that everybody in that thread is reading the rulebook to prohibit somatic components while grappled, yourself included. (The "grapple" section is silent, and the "concentration" section is unambiguous.) Then Kyrademon references a post from Jason, and Sean weighs in, both saying that the Core rulebook has been overturned.
That's the way I'm reading it, anyway.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
I think that the general momentum of this thread has it right. GMs and players should both take everything written with a grain of salt. If another participant points out a rules clarification or clarification from JJ or SKR, it should be considered as heavy evidence in favor of that rules change. While they are not campaign leadership, the "don't be a jerk" rule applies to both sides of the table.
In the example provided by asthyril, a game was derailed because of this rules fiasco. There was no need to. Even if the GM was incorrect, the game should have proceeded on after a minute or two of discussion. Any arguing or debating over rules needs to happen after or before a game, not during, as there are 3+ other people at the table that really just want to play Pathfinder. I would direct the GM to these forums and encourage him or her to share his thoughts, so that we might get a clearer picture of why that particular decision was made.
|
A GM is not going outside their authority in following what the Core Rulebook says as long as their isn't an official FAQ, Errata, or PFS specific clarification / campaign specific rule change.
However, I think it poor form to willfully ignore what a developer (In this case, SRM, SKR, and JB--James Jacobs is not a rules guy) has to say in the way of a clarification.
Now, I will caveat this.
A printout of the post may not be enough to sway me. I may say something like, ok, well we will go by the CRB today, and I will research the post you have showed me and do some other research, to make sure that's all that's been said on the topic (for exactly the reasons CM (Chris Mortika) delineated).
And not casting aspersions on anyone, at all, because often it happens through ignorance (uninformed, not negative ignorance) of further discussion, but a player might come to my table without all the information on the topic. Some few might actually do so willfully to try and get one over on a GM (I try to show trust first, but at the same time I trust my own judgement in many cases more than I would trust a single printout without doing the diligent research on a topic.)
But, by and large, if a GM is made aware of a developer clarification, like what was mentioned above, then I feel it is their responsibility to do some research on the topic, at the very least. And if they can't find any contradictory information or rulings by the same developers, then I feel its incredibly bad form not to follow that clarification.
TL:DR - Binding? No. Bad Form? Yes.
|
As the GM who prompted this thread, I feel the need to explain my thoughts here. My policy is, at least for books that are actively being errataed, to welcome any forum clarification from SKR and co. while rejecting their forum errata. When the developers are willing to comment on an issue with many possible interpretations and state which one they had in mind, I consider than an excellent use of this forum. But using forum posts as a substitute for errata is, at least in PFS, not a practice I can condone. A post that says "we're maybe planning on changing this" is nice because it shows that the team is actively working on solving the game's problems, but it's not solid enough to use in a PFS table. NOTE: Posts from PFS campaign management are a notable exception to this rule.
Given the number of times in recent months that the design team (and even the PFS campaign management) has contradicted one another, I'm hesitant to accept any forum post presented to me in the middle of a game, especially when a) we're running late; b) I've already implemented this precise rule in the PCs' favor; and c) the table is fairly difficult to challenge. In light of these facts, I saw no reason to change my general stance on forum errata. If there was a reasonable chance that it would have meant life or death for the PCs, then I would have given such a change to my general policy serious consideration.
On a separate note, because of Paizo's policy not to release official errata for books that they don't plan on reprinting, I'm more than happy to accept any and all forum errata for splatbooks that aren't seeing further print runs.
EDIT: I do also want to make it a apparent that this discussion didn't derail the game. We took a moment to think it over, and then went back to initiative.
I'm curious if people could please list the instances of the design staff contradicting themselves, as based on these posts it must happen more often than I remember. I don't consider changing the rules to be contradictions, either. I try my best to keep up with this stuff, but I must have missed a few.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
But, by and large, if a GM is made aware of a developer clarification, like what was mentioned above, then I feel it is their responsibility to do some research on the topic, at the very least.
Total derail, but now suddenly I'm curious how many GMs actually do this.
By "this", I mean that if their understanding of a rule is challenged at the table, and then they make their table ruling, and the game finishes... I wonder how many then go back and dig up more information on the topic?
On the one hand, it would seem to be good form to investigate such disputes in the interest of being fair at future sessions. On the other hand, coming to the messageboards (especially for those who don't normally use them), doing some searches, wading through about 1d8 threads of discussion, sometimes even having to sort through contradictory information to see what's the most recent... well, that can be a lot of work sometimes (I say this from personal experience - some questions require weeks of effort to resolve).
So what do most of you do, when the session is over and there's ruling of yours that's been challenged? And perhaps more interesting, what about the GMs you know who don't frequent the boards? What do they do?
You'll observe that everybody in that thread is reading the rulebook to prohibit somatic components while grappled, yourself included. (The "grapple" section is silent, and the "concentration" section is unambiguous.) Then Kyrademon references a post from Jason, and Sean weighs in, both saying that the Core rulebook has been overturned.
That's the way I'm reading it, anyway.
Note that in the older thread referred to in the linked thread, there are more theories on how it's supposed to work. For instance, my take was that the grappler (i.e., the offensive party) cannot cast spells with a somatic component, but the grapplee (i.e., the defending party) can.
|
|
But, by and large, if a GM is made aware of a developer clarification, like what was mentioned above, then I feel it is their responsibility to do some research on the topic, at the very least.Total derail, but now suddenly I'm curious how many GMs actually do this.
By "this", I mean that if their understanding of a rule is challenged at the table, and then they make their table ruling, and the game finishes... I wonder how many then go back and dig up more information on the topic?
On the one hand, it would seem to be good form to investigate such disputes in the interest of being fair at future sessions. On the other hand, coming to the messageboards (especially for those who don't normally use them), doing some searches, wading through about 1d8 threads of discussion, sometimes even having to sort through contradictory information to see what's the most recent... well, that can be a lot of work sometimes (I say this from personal experience - some questions require weeks of effort to resolve).
So what do most of you do, when the session is over and there's ruling of yours that's been challenged? And perhaps more interesting, what about the GMs you know who don't frequent the boards? What do they do?
If a character died because of an ruling I made and I am not completely certain of it I will take 5 minutes to find everything I can on it. This has not happened yet.
If it is an issue which I am not certain on I usually rule it in favor of the players. I then research the issue after the game. Once I have found my answer I memorize it. If I believe I ruled it incorrectly I try very hard not to do so again for any reason.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I then research the issue after the game.
If you'll excuse my continuing curiosity, how do you generally go about researching? I don't want to assume everyone researches the same way I do. :)
And what if it wasn't life-or-death? Do you research more "minor" disagreements in your off-time?
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
As the GM who prompted this thread, I feel the need to explain my thoughts here. My policy is, at least for books that are actively being errataed, to welcome any forum clarification from SKR and co. while rejecting their forum errata. When the developers are willing to comment on an issue with many possible interpretations and state which one they had in mind, I consider than an excellent use of this forum. But using forum posts as a substitute for errata is, at least in PFS, not a practice I can condone. A post that says "we're maybe planning on changing this" is nice because it shows that the team is actively working on solving the game's problems, but it's not solid enough to use in a PFS table. NOTE: Posts from PFS campaign management are a notable exception to this rule.
Given the number of times in recent months that the design team (and even the PFS campaign management) has contradicted one another, I'm hesitant to accept any forum post presented to me in the middle of a game, especially when a) we're running late; b) I've already implemented this precise rule in the PCs' favor; and c) the table is fairly difficult to challenge. In light of these facts, I saw no reason to change my general stance on forum errata. If there was a reasonable chance that it would have meant life or death for the PCs, then I would have given such a change to my general policy serious consideration.
On a separate note, because of Paizo's policy not to release official errata for books that they don't plan on reprinting, I'm more than happy to accept any and all forum errata for splatbooks that aren't seeing further print runs.
EDIT: I do also want to make it a apparent that this discussion didn't derail the game. We took a moment to think it over, and then went back to initiative.
Good. This well thought out and presented; even if I disagreed with a particular ruling as a player at your table, I would accept your decision with this logic and get back to the game. Thank you for the clarification Illeist :)
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's how religions get started.So, if JB or SKR post to this thread saying that their rulings are binding... is it binding?
Someone had to go there...
So, are rulings from Sarenrae binding?
Sometimes. Rulings from Calistria are almost always binding, but for very different reasons.
|
|
So what do most of you do, when the session is over and there's ruling of yours that's been challenged? And perhaps more interesting, what about the GMs you know who don't frequent the boards? What do they do?
As a GM, I will usually give players the benefit of the doubt on rules if I'm unsure. If they provide actual text, I will happily concede and move on. I will, however, later take a quick look through the messageboards to check for any clarifications, or at least consensus.
I'm not too worried about a player trying to trick me with outdated posts or outright fabrications. If they want to cheat, they're going to cheat. And I'll know better next time (both the rule and the player).
As a player, I try to have relevant sections copied and/or bookmarked whenever I know a character will be doing something complicated or unusual.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Hard as it may be to believe, but not all PFS players read the boards.
I'd much prefer a, for example, PDF errata document to be kept up to date and published along the same lines as the additional resources document.
Then everything is clear and simple.
Not hard to believe at all. However, the example that started this thread was between a player and a GM that were both involved with the boards, which is why the discussion trended with that assumption.
As for something that is kept up to date, there is this compilation page. I doubt that it'll get put into PDF form, but if people get online to download the additional resources, they can just as easily view the link.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
That thread is for PFS-specific, not-necessarily-game-rule-related clarifications from Mike and Mark. Good to have, but not the same type of thing as is being discussed in this thread.
However...
EDIT:
A while back I made this post, which contains links to some of the more common/significant not-just-PFS rules clarifications, for whomever might like to keep it as a resource. Hope it helps. :)
|
|
Total derail, but now suddenly I'm curious how many GMs actually do this.
|
|
I then research the issue after the game.If you'll excuse my continuing curiosity, how do you generally go about researching? I don't want to assume everyone researches the same way I do. :)
And what if it wasn't life-or-death? Do you research more "minor" disagreements in your off-time?
Well assuming I am not looking for something mid game I do the following.
Open up my pdf's and start search for the relevant sections, usually be checking the index and using ctr f.
Assuming what I find there is inconclusive for any reason I then go to the forums and begin searching for threads related to the issue. I've gotten pretty good at digging. I usually start with looking for developer commentary, or commentary from Mike (he is the ultimate say for PFS after all). I also read other peoples comments on the topic. I have yet to encounter a situation where I can't find anything after about 30min - 1hour of searching on the forums and through my PDFs.
If that were to happen I would post a thread in the relevant forum, and send an email to the MUCH more experienced gms we have here in the Boston Loge.
To answer your second question I do research minor disagreements in my off time. I'm very interested in learning what the correct resolution is/should have been so I can learn from it and have an answer prepared for the next time it happens.
|
|
Another easy way to "research" this is to ask a local Venture-Officer, if you have one - I know that I get a lot of requests from my GMs on the same topics (because they are playing with the same player base repeatedly). I usually look into it on the errata, the forum posts, FAQ, etc. and then issue a "Rules Clarification" through our Facebook page, so all the GMs can run things consistently. (Often it's a suggestion rather than an order, though - where there's a grey area, the Table GM makes the call, even if it's different than the way I would make it.)
|
|
Add James Jacobs to the question, because he seems like the most reliable way to get a ruling.
Even if it means "their rulings are binding, but Mike/Mark overrule them if they conflict". Otherwise rulings can be left to GM fiat in Organised Play despite other Paizo staff making rulings, and that's a big problem.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm curious if people could please list the instances of the design staff contradicting themselves, as based on these posts it must happen more often than I remember.
I've been hoping that Chris (or anyone) would respond to this, so I can deal with any outdated information I may have collected.
But, by and large, if a GM is made aware of a developer clarification, like what was mentioned above, then I feel it is their responsibility to do some research on the topic, at the very least.Total derail, but now suddenly I'm curious how many GMs actually do this.
By "this", I mean that if their understanding of a rule is challenged at the table, and then they make their table ruling, and the game finishes... I wonder how many then go back and dig up more information on the topic?
I don't think you can be a GM and not investigate after the session. When I GM PFS or other I write down things I didn't have an answer to and then follow up.
|
|
I don't think you can be a GM and not investigate after the session. When I GM PFS or other I write down things I didn't have an answer to and then follow up.But, by and large, if a GM is made aware of a developer clarification, like what was mentioned above, then I feel it is their responsibility to do some research on the topic, at the very least.Total derail, but now suddenly I'm curious how many GMs actually do this.
By "this", I mean that if their understanding of a rule is challenged at the table, and then they make their table ruling, and the game finishes... I wonder how many then go back and dig up more information on the topic?
That's very optimistic thinking. There are GMs who will stick by their rulings regardless of what anyone (or almost anyone) says.