| 30 people marked this as a favorite. |
In your hands is a framework for imagination, permitting you to take part in fantastic adventures, not a step-by-step manual explaining every situation conceivable in excruciating detail and closing all possible loopholes.
As I traipse about these very boards I am struck by how much creativity I see in my fellow players. There are so many magnificent ideas flowing forth that my favourite button must be worn out by this point.
A wonderful thread is cooking along without need for censure and then someone wanders in and feels the need to quibble over some piece of minutia, brandishing their dictionaries like weapons, and holding a game to a level of scrutiny that nothing could withstand. Why? I have absolutely no clue.
Like blood in the water the same travelling troop of quibblers (Actual Pictoral Evidence) congregate to tilt at windmills ad nauseum. What is left is 25 solid posts of unity and 14 pages of the same old chestnuts about why class Z is worse/better than it was before or than class 8 (note: mentioning the word "monk" appears to be akin to setting a daycare on fire these days). What's worse is that with all the talking there is so little listening. Only the most inflammatory voices persist and even more rush in to take up the call to arms to put down the insurrection of the inflammatory. What is left is a thread devoid of substance with people yelling until they are hoarse.
I imagine most of the masses simply ignore it as a bunch of people yelling and not listening, and they simply wander off to play the game with friends and have a good time (Video Evidence this Time).
I guess no matter what you do there will always be a vocal minority that need to seek out something to complain about. This game is amazing, it has flaws and this company is working to make it better.
I join the "if you disagree then just house rule it" camp. It is a game of imagination where a skeleton had been provided, and if you want it taller just add a vertebrae or 6.
Just my 2.5 cp
p.s. if I had anyone at my table start a "RAW vs. RAI" diatribe...sheesh, I'd probably stab them with a spork.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
And that stabbing would be well earned.
But at the end of the day, there is only one way to avoid rules disagreement in any game.
Have a person who is the final arbiter of what is and is not allowed.
The GM.
These fights all revolve around players not being willing to submit to the ruling of a GM, on either side of the debate.
Here ! here!
I join the "if you disagree then just houserule it" camp. It is a game of imagination where a skeleton had been provided, and if you want it taller just add a vertebrae or 6.
But at the end of the day, there is only one way to avoid rules disagreement in any game. Have a person who is the final arbiter of what is and is not allowed. The GM.
I 100% agree with both of you here. Basically, people around here seem to forget "The Most Important Rule" on a regular basis:
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. |
Some of this comes from the structure of organized play.
Without a consistent group of players or GM, the one thing that everyone has, and can rely on, is the rules that govern the game.
And that's why there's so much emphasis on what, exactly, the rules say, because in an organized play game, you can use rules to 'win' an argument against the judge for that table.
While I'm glad PFS exists, it's a different beast than a home game.
Then why do we need multiple printings of a book if we can just house rule it?
People want consistency in the rules because when you sit down at a table to play then you know everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet.
We have multiple printings for the exact reason you pointed out - consistency and getting everyone on the same page. We also have house rules to fix things quicker than new books can get printed, or to suit the needs of our specific groups. It isn't one or the other. I'm just as happy as the next guy when Paizo puts out a FAQ/Errata that fixes problems - the less house rules, the better. House rules are a good and necessary part of any non-PFS game in the right quantities. My 2cp.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3rd edition, in general, made a concerted effort to protect players from their GMs.
I have never liked it, but that is the purpose of all the complicated rules.
Example:
AD&D PC: I want to grab the guy!
AD&D GM: Ok, [makes something up on the spot using the general rules as framework]
3rd PC: I want to grab the guy!
3rd PC: Ok, that's on page...
Now, I know the immediate argument is that the problem with my AD&D scenario is that each GM will come up with their own ruling on the spot and it will be different in every game, but A) I don't really think that's a problem and B) if the general rules were well written, most people would end up with similar mechanics on the spot, that, at the very least, favor the same character stats (you may have one decide you should make an attack and another a strength check, but both ideas favor a high strength character--it's extremely unlikely someone would decide it was an Intelligence roll or a save vs. paralysis or something strange).
I started rambling, so I'll just stop here and say: GMs are not your enemy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I join the "if you disagree then just house rule it" camp.
I enjoy talking about game design. So I am going to look at how the game works and what it means based on how the whole is designed.
If you're talking about the grammar and logic torturing that occurs sometimes to try and prove a viewpoint, I agree, that's bad. If you're against discussion in general, well, I'm going to have to kindly disagree with you. Just hide the threads you don't want to read, it's very easy.
Also, learn to make shorter thread titles.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I harken back to the days when I was first introduced to D&D. There was so much excitement and potential. Of course the DM was the only one that could afford the rulebook back then, which I feel was a big part of the feeling of limitless possibilities. You would get the Player's Handbook long enough to look something up, or as part of a round robin of character gen, but not long enough to scour it.
Certainly you would never get to look at the Dungeon Master's Guide. To even consider it would be tantamount to treason.
Did the DM's make mistakes? Often, but only glaring ones would be brought to the fore, and even those were based on recollection of precedent, not quoting page and verse.
Good times.
Now everyone has access to the rules, which has a number of distinct advantages (character generation doesn't take all night long), but some of the mystery has been lost as well.
This is why Paranoia was always a fun game, since it stuck its tongue out at people that felt that the way to have fun was in lawyering the rules into oblivion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every form of society has very vocal fringe elements. It is often said that the loudest are usually the smallest in number.
There are also reasons for this. It is by the extremes that a society defines their framework, not the average. You notice it in politics all the time. The most extreme example becomes the primary topics and usually sets the tone for an entire political party which may, on average, completely disagree with the base statement.
So this is also true with rule-lawyering. It is a very vocal crowd, and it seems to have defined your experience on this forum.
But your questions seems to be "WHY". For starters, we need to step away from the preconceived notion that your group works like all groups. Players do need a defense against horrible GMs, and at the moment the rules are the best defense. You may not recognize this because you are not a horrible GM and have not needed to suffer one. Also keep in mind that some cities/towns do not have a large enough game community that leave much of a choice in players/GM.
However, in relation to this forum which was also the point, I see another major purpose: keeping Paizo honest. If everybody had the mindset that the books aren't perfect and we can just house-rule away any discrepancies, exactly what motivation would Paizo have to continue to produce good products? Essentially, this is the impact of customer feedback and this is the horrible truth of working in customer relations. It's ugly and hard to sit through, but a forum is just that.
LOL, it comes to me that ranting about ranting is also ranting. Maybe it's meta-ranting, which is a whole 'nuther discussion topic I suppose.
If there are rules, there will be debates about the rules. The more complex the rules, the more debates there will be.
Pathfinder and most other RPG systems are highly complex rules environments, which fosters intense debate, which tends to generate rules "fixes" which further complicate the rules set which leads to more rules debates. Much of the difficulty comes in through unintended synergies as rules written for different purposes collide in the same game mechanic.
The paradoxical conclusion is that if you want fewer rules debates, quit trying to write rules for every situation.
I started as a GM. My first gaming experience was as a GM of my own campaign world. It's been too long so I don't recall details but I probably was a GM for a couple of months before I got a chance to actually be a player.
I dunno how good of a GM I was then or now, but none of my players has ever complained and I never have any problem getting a group to play in my campaigns. And I've made some horrible mistakes as a GM, so that's apparently not what makes a horrible GM.
My experience as a GM has been that it is my job to provide a stage for my players to allow their characters to be challenged and to sometimes revel in the spotlight. That's really about the extent of my sage GM wisdom.
|
|
So a horrible GM has to go back to being a player until he is no longer a horrible GM?
Yes. They can watch and learn from a GM the party actually likes to have running the game rather than make a table full of people unhappy because they are "Horrible" He can ask that GM questions (out of game) about how that GM runs things. And then when the player knows enough that they aren't "Horrible" and the games they run are enjoyable to the people they play with, they can try again.
Again, we are discussing "Horrible" to the point the players "must" revolt, not "Mediocre" to the point the player can just acquiesce that the GM is learning.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But what about the people who are having fun wrong? How do they know unless we tell them so?
Milk shot out of my nose.
This might be the greatest post ever penned.
|
|
How does a horrible GM stop being horrible?How does a horrible GM get selected to be GM in the first place if someone at the table knows the rules so much better than they do that they are arguing with them and think they are horrible?Because you're not born with a gaming group hanging off your umbilical cord. I know 3.5 rules inside and out, and was pretty sharp with 2E before that, and spent many years bouncing around groups. One of the groups I frequently walked into was "Captain Illiterate and His Henchman."
These groups have a DM with Rule Zero printed somewhere under the ketchup and mustard stains on their tattered remnant of a T-shirt, and his brother/cousin/best friend from fetus-hood. The DM is the DM because he is pretty convinced that he is awesome at it, and his Henchman agrees due to preferential treatment. New players are brought in, then steadily driven away by some combination of the stench and the fact that they'll never be as awesome as the Henchman's level 26 Paladin (new players come in at level 1 because Gary said so) and the numerous DMPCs.
Now, before Ciretose can ask "and why didn't you offer to DM and show them how it's done, Captain Smartypants?" That's exactly what I did and it was a waste of my friggen time. Captain Illiterate and Henchman did not want to be part of a "group" consisting mostly of "equals." So, one would generally play the "steals from the party Thief" and the other would play "I heard this class is totally broken and I will bully the other PCs with it."
So, while all RPG's usually come with the caveat that you can "house rule as you see fit," they should also carry the following disclaimer: "New players at your table are quite likely to be enthusiastic about some aspect of the rules as written. Before bringing a player into your heavily house-ruled game, discuss the changes you've made and make sure all of your players are comfortable with them."
Actually, I'm asking why it is your job to define people who seem to be enjoying themselves as "doing it wrong" to the point you have to "show them how it's done"
And for the rest as to how to find a good group, rather than cut and paste....
The rules are there to adjudicate important questions in a fair and impartial way. For example, can a druid fertilize the eggs of an Axe Beak while using shapechange? What kind of skill checks would be involved?
One of the groups I frequently walked into was "Captain Illiterate and His Henchman."
I would think the obvious solution, rather than offering to GM or whatever, would be don't roleplay with troglodytes.
I started as a GM. My first gaming experience was as a GM of my own campaign world. It's been too long so I don't recall details but I probably was a GM for a couple of months before I got a chance to actually be a player.
I started running games when I was 9 for my nephews who were 6 and 4. I GMed for almost a decade before I actually got to PC. Turns out I actually prefer GMing for the most part.
GMing is part talent and part skill. If you lack the "GM Spark," you'll never be a good GM. Sorry. But even one with the talent can improve in skill. If someone is a "horrible" GM, they should not GM--they will not get better, it is impossible.
If someone is merely "eh" or "not great" or something, they can get better, and will if you give them the chance.
The rules are there to adjudicate important questions in a fair and impartial way. For example, can a druid fertilize the eggs of an Axe Beak while using shapechange? What kind of skill checks would be involved?
Constitution + Linguistics
I joke around with my friends that "Back in my day, you didn't find NORMAL people to game with, much less hot college-aged chicks with Dr. Who fetishes. You gamed with society's cast offs, because they were the only people willing to bring up their character in a public place. You gamed with the smelly guy, the 300 lbs. Wiccan with 20 lbs. of mascara, and the dude who peed himself a little every time he tried to talk to a woman. And you just kept growing that colony of weirdos until someone lassoed another couple of regular people into the group. Then, when you had three or four people who all showered, they snuck away together and formed a real group."I would think the obvious solution, rather than offering to GM or whatever, would be don't roleplay with troglodytes.
I actually gamed with my first "gamer" this past year. Everyone else I roleplayed with over the past 20 years, I taught to roleplay. I grabbed fringe geeks and hooked them, and it's worked awesomely. Much better strategy, I think, then hoping for "less smelly" guys.
Some of this comes from the structure of organized play.
Without a consistent group of players or GM, the one thing that everyone has, and can rely on, is the rules that govern the game.
And that's why there's so much emphasis on what, exactly, the rules say, because in an organized play game, you can use rules to 'win' an argument against the judge for that table.
While I'm glad PFS exists, it's a different beast than a home game.
I think this is a really important point, and it can also extend to some (though not too many) situations beyond PFS. I'm currently GMing a PvP Arena (we're still testing to work out rules problems), and cloudy rule areas can not be as simply fixed as they could be in a home game. I want to make all rulings (since they tend to favor one combatant over the other) to be absolutely as close as possible to the intent of the Pathfinder system, often using PFS as a guideline. I would also want to make it easy for someone besides me to step into the role of Arbiter and immediately be able to know how to rule on what. When we encounter problems such as a blind person being better able to detect an invisible person, or strange interactions between readied actions, it's very nice to be able to find the previous arguments that have taken place on these topics.
I completely agree that the people breaking down doors to smack home-game players in the face with their rulebooks are not my favorite, but I just want to say that I feel there is some merit in subjecting the game and its rules to scrutiny. I really love the Pathfinder rules, any problems aside, and I want to see them improved upon and made usable even in a very strictly-ruled scenario. I would love to see the time when, like ciretose said, house rules are only for changing the flavor of the game, and not fixing actual issues within it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I'm asking why it is your job to define people who seem to be enjoying themselves as "doing it wrong" to the point you have to "show them how it's done"
Anyway, the people in my example were not even having fun. They were depressing people who kept inviting people to their game expecting the new players to be dazzled by how awesome they were and being disappointed and confused when people ran shrieking from their table.
Tragic they didn't seem to realize how much fun they were not having.
Certain games attract certain players more.
Games like DnD especially PF (with bringing in PFS) and DnD 4.0 Are going to attract more rules lawyers
WoD games are going to likely bring in more roleplay flexible players. Can you imagine some of these PF players trying to play oWoD Mage: Sorcerers Crusade? They'd have a stroke with the amount of flexibiliy and GM discretion there was.
Would we? I have played and been a DM in PF, everyedition of D&D, Rifts, Shadowrun(all versions), Doctor Who: AiTaS, Fudge, Dragon Age, A Song of Ice and Fire, A Game of Thrones, HERO (from 3 onwards) and Champion, gurps, World of Darkness (all of them), Mutants and Masterminds, Alternity, and Grimm. Just to name the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
Perhaps it's true that different games attract different players. Perhaps it's also true that people expect different things from different games making different claims with different systems trying to tell different stories.
A well-ranted rant, Jinx. I happen to agree. We need to maintain the sense of fun and wonder in the game, and we can't do that if some people's "fun" is arguing minutia. It's the main reason why I don't play PFS.
Certain games attract certain players more.
Games like DnD especially PF (with bringing in PFS) and DnD 4.0 Are going to attract more rules lawyers
WoD games are going to likely bring in more roleplay flexible players. Can you imagine some of these PF players trying to play oWoD Mage: Sorcerers Crusade? They'd have a stroke with the amount of flexibiliy and GM discretion there was.
I know the rules so I know the breaking points of the game and how to make it better. Personally, I love Mage: the Ascension--I'd consider it one of my favorite RPGs of all time.
I think the actual result is that games like D&D attract more players in general, so you see more of those kinds of players even though the percent is pretty much the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I joke around with my friends that "Back in my day, you didn't find NORMAL people to game with, much less hot college-aged chicks with Dr. Who fetishes. You gamed with society's cast offs, because they were the only people willing to bring up their character in a public place. You gamed with the smelly guy, the 300 lbs. Wiccan with 20 lbs. of mascara, and the dude who peed himself a little every time he tried to talk to a woman. And you just kept growing that colony of weirdos until someone lassoed another couple of regular people into the group. Then, when you had three or four people who all showered, they snuck away together and formed a real group."
+100
This pretty much sums up the experiences of my formative RPG years. For the longest time, it seemed to be a crowd of black t-shirts (either stretched to their tensile limits or draped upon some skeletal coatrack of a guy) with red dragons breathing fire wrapped around the torso, marinated in Jolt Cola and BO.
I don't think we got an actual female player until, oh say, 1993. And she really needed a shave.
I am now happily married with two kids, but I still have to fight the reflex to, "Never, ever speak the terms dungeon, dragon, armor class, alignment or elf in mixed company. Never mention that you game until you've been dating at least six months, AND IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT IS HOLY, Never introduce her to your group until they have all showered and changed clothing.
Fun times. Fun times.
A well-ranted rant, Jinx. I happen to agree. We need to maintain the sense of fun and wonder in the game, and we can't do that if some people's "fun" is arguing minutia. It's the main reason why I don't play PFS.
I have the exact same impression of PF Society, which is why I avoid it like ebola-infected zombie rats that want to make babies in my intestinal tract.
Perhaps it is unfounded, but the threads I have seen are more about what you're not permitted to do than what you can.
It feels like accounting, except all the other bully accountants are waiting to twist your nipples when you get your numbers wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am now happily married with two kids, but I still have to fight the reflex to, "Never, ever speak the terms dungeon, dragon, armor class, alignment or elf in mixed company. Never mention that you game until you've been dating at least six months, AND IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT IS HOLY, Never introduce her to your group until they have all showered and changed clothing.
I am also married with two kids, and my wife roleplays with me. I met her my first day of college, actually, and talked about roleplaying the first week when it came up. I got her and our other mutual college friends to try it, and she's been hooked since.
I'm going to be totally honest and say that I don't think I would be happy married to someone who didn't roleplay. I'm kind of shocked other people involved in such a life-consuming hobby could.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I harken back to the days when I was first introduced to D&D. There was so much excitement and potential. Of course the DM was the only one that could afford the rulebook back then, which I feel was a big part of the feeling of limitless possibilities. You would get the Player's Handbook long enough to look something up, or as part of a round robin of character gen, but not long enough to scour it.
Certainly you would never get to look at the Dungeon Master's Guide. To even consider it would be tantamount to treason.
This concept is completely foreign to my experience growing up with gaming. We had several DMG's. We also took turns DM'ing, which means multiple people had to be familiar with the DMG. It didn't ruin our games, we still had a blast.
Knowing the rules of a game does not ruin ones sense of wonder. The sense of wonder is best gained from a cool story and setting.