|
In the Alchemical Cartridges thread there was the beginnings of fairly good debate on the philosophy of the campaign and the restrictions on GM decision making. I think it should be continued.
The crux of the debate is how empowered GMs are to use their common sense at a table when rules are unclear. Furthermore, should GMs have a "say no first" attitude, or should they find a way to make things work for a character? It may be a mistaken impression, but I get the impression from GMs both on these boards and locally that they default answer is going to be no unless there is bullet proof evidence to the contrary. I have been disappointed a few times to hear GMs say, "I have to run the RAW" when both sides would agree that a rules issue should work differently.
I believe that the campaign is probably trying to be exclusive to eliminate table variation, but table variation is rampant and you are told to expect it. My opinion is that the game is more fun if you're trying to say yes, not trying to say no.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I'm making those calls as a GM, my primary goal is to avoid the player running into difficulty in their next game. If they want to do something crazy in combat, we'll figure out a way to make it work. If we did it wrong, what's done is done.
If they want to buy something and I don't know how to handle it, I don't want them to get stuck with a permanent mistake.
Same with stacking archetypes and the like. I always advocate a conservative approach to avoid sticky issues later.
I think when people complain about banned items, they're looking at it the wrong way. The default assumption shouldn't be "I get whatever Paizo publishes." It should be, "oh cool, they've allowed new stuff." That's honestly one reason I like to wait until the Additional Resources have been updated before I get new books. Helps me avoid getting my hopes up on some ridiculously unbalanced item or spell.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
"Use common sense," "Expect table variation," and "GM discretion" are perfectly fine when something comes up in the middle of a scenario. (e.g. "Can I slide down the bannister to make a charge?" "Sure, roll an Acrobatics check.") But when it comes to something your character is planning on, whether it's a combination of feats, a way for your gunslinger to deal with incorporeals, etc., then you don't want to have your choices invalidated at the table because of table variation. So for that, it's best to look for an official ruling if possible.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed, if something like the bullet-blanch issue was left to "common sense", then in one scenario the gunslinger would be happily shooting his blanched bullets because that GM's "common sense" was that it works just fine, but then at the next table he encounters a spectre and discovers that this GM's "common sense" is that you can't blanch bullets. Now he has no ghost-salted ammo, where if he'd gotten a single, official answer beforehand, he could have carried a backup bow with ghost salt arrows. But because we (in this hypothetical example) decided to leave the question up to "common sense", the player ran into a nasty "gotcha" at the worst time. Could even turn into a TPK.
That's the whole point of running PFS by the book: so that people know what to expect and can prepare accordingly.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure if 'inclusive' or 'exclusive' is the correct discussion.
I feel sometimes more important is tolerance and trust.
As a player I accept the ruling of the GM. I trust him to do the best. I don't mind if he is experienced or a new GM and if I would rule differently. The only exemption is if a GM asks me for my opinion - or if it is a matter of life or death for a character.
And I hope players at my table can accept my rulings. I do ask if I'm in doubt, I do listen and I do take care in matters of life or death. But I also make decisions to keep the game moving. That's my job as GM.
There are threads in the rules discussion area with 500+ postings. This implies to me that it is sometimes difficult to ascertain what RAW really is.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of you are saying that we should always look for official rulings, and that's great. In fact, it's the reason a lot of people post here. But we don't GET official rulings on things. I've posted a number of threads that have no official ruling and I suspect never will. I've proposed ways to change the system to make it easier to get official rulings, and been shot down. In fact, I've asked for some official clarifications and been told specifically that I won't get one so I should stop asking.
So when there isn't an official ruling, should we assume that there's no rule against it, so it's okay, or that there's no rule in favor of it, so it's not okay?
I say the former, because if there's no rule against it it's probably because nobody's thought of it yet. And I'm discinlined to penalize players for coming up with something new.
|
|
There are threads in the rules discussion area with 500+ postings. This implies to me that it is sometimes difficult to ascertain what RAW really is.
And as I found out recently in my Bodyguard thread, sometimes rules as written are not what the author intended. In fact this has happened twice to Jason Nelson: once with Tetori where RAW allows the archetype to do things he didn't intend, and secondly with Bodyguard where RAW implies it is limited in a way he didn't intend.
These are things easily solved at a homegame, but in PFS if the overriding rule is to be as restrictive as possible, you have to ignore what a contributor states was his intent. In other words, completely abandon common sense. That's the part that galls me.
Anyways, off my soapbox. I did intend for this to be more of a general discussion.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You all see me posting a lot about what I would or would not allow. I do my best to go by RAW, context of RAW, and precedent of RAW and/or campaign GM decisions when things aren’t 100% clear. This typically doesn’t steer me wrong. It is a conservative way of looking at things.
The difference though, between what I post, and how things go at the table when I’m actually playing or GM’ing, is this:
1) When I’m GM’ing, these things about yellow tengu don’t come up. They really, honestly, in the over 1-1/2” years of being a V-L, they have not come up for me. The players that I typically GM for (and there is probably over 100 in our region that I’ve GM’d for over the last while, don’t push boundaries).
But things like wanting to do something in combat that the rules don’t cover, I’m all over that. I love it. Be creative. I’ll find a way that you can at least make the attempt. The only time I get real squeaky with the rules, is when I have over-bearing rules lawyers at my table. You wanna quote rules so my badguys can’t do something, I’m not going to let you be particularly creative either.
We are building a story together, and supposedly having fun together. As long as we keep that in mind, then I think things turn out golden.
2) I post the most conservative outlook with a strong urging to stick to the conservative interpretation, mainly to help avoid table variation. If it comes to build choices or item issues, no player wants to show up to a table and basically not be able to play their character because some GM determines their entire build is illegal (based on their interpretation of the ambiguity in the rules). They have every right to do so.
This may come across as exclusionary, but honestly, at the table, I’m inclusionary as best I can be. When I post my very conservative interpretations, it is because it’s the best way to avoid table variation, and it is to the benefit of the players to try to avoid table variation as much as possible. Less stress for everyone involved.
So while it does frustrate me when people who don’t know me personally, look at my posts and believe I’m just some big curmudgeon stick in the mud out to ruin folks fun, I feel it is my duty as a Venture-Lieutenant to make sure that no player can’t play their character due to table variation.
So I’ll take being frustrated at being labeled something I’m not, if I help even just one player avoid that really horrible situation when they drive to a con, pay big money, and have a GM say, “Sorry, your entire character concept is illegal, here’s a pregen.”
|
|
The reason I don't like that argument is because everybody seems to use it. "Well, I certainly wouldn't have a problem with it, but somebody else might, so you can't do it." If every GM thinks that way, then no GMs have a problem with it. If even just most GMs think that way, then there will only be a few that will have a problem.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
you have to ignore what a contributor states was his intent. In other words, completely abandon common sense.
So it's common sense to expect every single PFS GM to be aware of messageboard posts from contributors, stating their intent?
Or were you saying it's common sense to expect every single PFS GM to just take every player's word for it when they say "No really, the author said it does the opposite"?
Or perhaps you mean that it's common sense to think that when you whip out printouts of author commentary and tell the GM to comply with this opposite-of-what's-written ruling, that they'll be totally cool with it and have no reason to raise an eyebrow at you?
If that's what you mean by "common sense", then yes, we should abandon it.
|
|
I'm known as the rules lawyer in my circles. I know the rules and I know them pretty well, the term may not be accurate, as I don't use my knowledge to exploit loopholes, but you get the idea.
The problems I have is when the RAW plainly states one thing, but it seems to me RAI is something else. An example that happened this weekend is the Rogue's talent Sniper's Eye:
A rogue with this talent can apply her sneak attack damage on ranged attacks targeting foes within 30 feet that benefit from concealment. Foes with total concealment are still immune.
Now that plainly says if I'm a rogue and my target has concealment, I apply sneak attack damage. I believe that the talent is supposed to give you sneak attack damage if you would normally be able to (target is flat-footed/denied DEX) AND the target has concealment.
These are the issues I find difficult to argue without causing sore feelings... as a side note I did a search, but I don't see any FAQ or clarification on Sniper's Eye, is there one?
|
|
The reason I don't like that argument is because everybody seems to use it. "Well, I certainly wouldn't have a problem with it, but somebody else might, so you can't do it." If every GM thinks that way, then no GMs have a problem with it. If even just most GMs think that way, then there will only be a few that will have a problem.
I don’t understand this comment, at all.
When you have 500 post threads on yellow tengu and pig mounts, that are very, very passionate with about a 50/50 split (or at best 60/40) on what the best way to do things is, how can you say that most judges would just allow something?
The point is, with organized play, you want to limit table variation as much as possible. While you will never fully get rid of it, the most egregious examples would be disallowing an entire character (or nerfing them so badly they may as well be disallowed) based on some ambiguity that the GM feels is RAW.
So you bet your bottom dollar, I’m going to post ultra-conservatively to try and avoid that.
You can appreciate the sentiment or not. But that aspect of why I post what I post is not going to change.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I encourage my players to be a bit more than just, "The rules state..." players. I hate playing with people who have no imagination, and as such actively encourage them to find ways to maybe not break the rules, but to take the rules, look at them, and say, "You and Iare going to have fun today."
I've had a group use a rogue as a thrown weapon for full sneak attack damage. Tell me where it says in the book that can't happen. Your response might be, "The rules don't state you can". Sorry, just because the rules don't state that it can happen doesn't mean they should be barred from it.
At least once, the group has "broken gravity" be leaping off heights to land on enemies and kill them.
My players come to me with ideas and ask, "Can I do that?" My first question is, "Do the rules state you can't?" If the answer is 'no' then I say they can, if they can provide a logical way they can do it.
This isn't a game where you have to accept the rules at face value. We expect players to be creative, and in many cases we expect them to be great. It's unfair of us to expect them--as GMs--and not be creative as well. We should be willing to accept that players find ways to play in a fun manner, and many times that means they come to us and ask questions about possible tactics we don't consider. I say if they can show us how it can work, we should be willing to let them try it. Of course, but stipulations if necessary.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you have to ignore what a contributor states was his intent. In other words, completely abandon common sense.So it's common sense to expect every single PFS GM to be aware of messageboard posts from contributors, stating their intent?
Or were you saying it's common sense to expect every single PFS GM to just take every player's word for it when they say "No really, the author said it does the opposite"?
Or perhaps you mean that it's common sense to think that when you whip out printouts of author commentary and tell the GM to comply with this opposite-of-what's-written ruling, that they'll be totally cool with it and have no reason to raise an eyebrow at you?
If that's what you mean by "common sense", then yes, we should abandon it.
Feeling a little attacked, but I'm going to ignore that.
No, not every GM should know everything that occurs on the boards. The player should have a source for them. No, they should not always take a player's word, but they should be open to hearing the reasoning, and come at it with a willingness to say yes, rather than a predisposition to say no. Yes, I think we should all be prepared for the human beings that write the rules to not have been prepared for certain situations. If the author says, "I wrote that, but that's not what I meant" then you should be able to say ok we can run it differently, rather than saying "nah-uh, no take-backs!".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A rogue with this talent can apply her sneak attack damage on ranged attacks targeting foes within 30 feet that benefit from concealment. Foes with total concealment are still immune.
Now that plainly says if I'm a rogue and my target has concealment, I apply sneak attack damage. I believe that the talent is supposed to give you sneak attack damage if you would normally be able to (target is flat-footed/denied DEX) AND the target has concealment.
These are the issues I find difficult to argue without causing sore feelings... as a side note I did a search, but I don't see any FAQ or clarification on Sniper's Eye, is there one?
This would be a manipulation of the rules and abandoning common sense.
|
|
you have to ignore what a contributor states was his intent. In other words, completely abandon common sense.So it's common sense to expect every single PFS GM to be aware of messageboard posts from contributors, stating their intent?
Or were you saying it's common sense to expect every single PFS GM to just take every player's word for it when they say "No really, the author said it does the opposite"?
Or perhaps you mean that it's common sense to think that when you whip out printouts of author commentary and tell the GM to comply with this opposite-of-what's-written ruling, that they'll be totally cool with it and have no reason to raise an eyebrow at you?
If that's what you mean by "common sense", then yes, we should abandon it.
Feeling a little attacked, but I'm going to ignore that.
No, not every GM should know everything that occurs on the boards. The player should have a source for them. No, they should not always take a player's word, but they should be open to hearing the reasoning, and come at it with a willingness to say yes, rather than a predisposition to say no. Yes, I think we should all be prepared for the human beings that write the rules to not have been prepared for certain situations. If the author says, "I wrote that, but that's not what I meant" then you should be able to say ok we can run it differently, rather than saying "nah-uh, no take-backs!".
This is a very Player vs. GM attitude.
Unfortunately, I understand how that attitude can be perceived and become prevalent on the message boards. Because often it’s the most extreme of examples that are discussed that often arrive because of a player and a GM who are playing an adversarial role against one another rather than playing a cooperative role.
So with that said, “what if you built a character based around one specific thing, and the GM said, “Yeah, but the author said it doesn’t work that way, so your entire build is now nerfed (or illegal).”
Would you accept that, or is doing what you are describing only good for the players?
|
|
I don't understand how it's vs. anything. I am advocating that the GM and player work together. Part of that may involve bringing in information that may not be common knowledge. You are correct that this could just as often prevent a build as make one. How many people just learned at a table this weekend that Magical Knack is legal and Bracers of Falcon's Aim aren't?
|
RtrnofdMax wrote
"My opinion is that the game is more fun if you're trying to say yes, not trying to say no."
More fun for the player trying to cheat and always interpret ambiguous writing towards the best possible outcome for themselves while being totally dismissive of any other interpretation.
I saw way too many games when I DMed Living Greyhawk where players were using brand new material and I gave them the benefit of the doubt at the table. When I got my hands on the material and looked it up, way too many cases were the player flat out cheating. I do not care weather they were desperate or making a foolish mistake. Cheating is cheating and unacceptable.
I still often give players the benefit of the doubt. The real reason for such is because we do not have time to audit characters at tables. Otherwise I am convinced I would find them to be in error somewhere. Every time I audit for a home game, I find errors, and of course, 95% of the time, it is in favor of the player. Because we do not have time for audits, I also don't think I have time for reading every archetype at the table. I try to do that on the way home and catch the player in the act the next time I see'em.
|
|
I don't understand how it's vs. anything. I am advocating that the GM and player work together. Part of that may involve bringing in information that may not be common knowledge. You are correct that this could just as often prevent a build as make one. How many people just learned at a table this weekend that Magical Knack is legal and Bracers of Falcon's Aim aren't?
Its like you are expecting a GM to constantly say no. That makes it an adversarial relationship.
I'm all for a cooperative relationship, as long as the players don't take advantage of that. When they start taking advantage of me, thats when my "no" starts happening.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@RtrnofdMax: Okay, so you believe that if a player hands his GM some papers explaining how he needs to rule at his table, he should just accept it graciously; yet if you are told that someone disagrees with your position because of three specific issues, you "feel a bit attacked"?
Maybe I'm misreading you somewhere, but that's coming across as one hell of a double standard.
|
|
Are you implying that cheating is the norm? Are you applying a causal relationship between an open attitude to rules and cheating? I am sorry if you had some bad eggs, but I have not lost my trust in the society so completely.
There is a huge difference in the following situations:
- 1) Sorry, no yellow tengu! Rules say they are black!
- 2) Sure, you can die your feathers yellow. See, it says right here that they often die some feathers or their beak different colors so other races can differentiate them. I don’t see why you couldn’t just dunk yourself in yellow die.
- 3) Yup, do whatever you want.
Item 1 above is not wrong, but perhaps a bit too narrowly focused on only RAW.
Item 2 above is what I’d call open attitude to rules. It is inclusive but still follows the RAW. Player gets a yellow tengu, but the GM isn’t just throwing the book away either.
Item 3 above should never happen in organized play.
Correct me if I'm wrong please, but you sound like you are advocating item #3, but I am pretty sure you really are advocating #2.
|
|
I fall between 2 and 3, but only for this specific example. I definitely do not think that "do whatever you want" is good for the campaign. I had my own Yellow Tengu back in the Frost days, except mine was a dwarf on a pig (see that pig stuck with me). I had this awesome DnD fig with a dwarf on a Thundertusk boar. I liked that fig so much that I made a character concept around it. I looked up the rules and saw that no large pig was available as a Cavalier mount, but I figured, no big deal, I'll ride a horse and call it a pig. No mechanical benefit, just flavor.
People had some decent arguments about when flavor matters. Someone has favored enemy elf and you're a half elf tiefling, who is really, per the rules a half human tiefling. Goblins absolutely hate horses, but have no such strong feelings about pigs.
I put myself at a 2.5 because I trust my GM to be able to handle the situation and not give a benefit or withhold a penalty due to flavor. I would fully understand why the goblins are swarming my "pig", because to not do so would be giving me a mechanical advantage that I shouldn't have.
|
|
@RtrnofdMax: Okay, so you believe that if a player hands his GM some papers explaining how he needs to rule at his table, he should just accept it graciously; yet if you are told that someone disagrees with your position because of three specific issues, you "feel a bit attacked"?
Maybe I'm misreading you somewhere, but that's coming across as one hell of a double standard.
No, attempting to distill my statement into one of three obviously flawed examples, in order to make my point lose its meaning, comes across as an attack. It's dirty pool in what should be a friendly debate.
As for handing a GM papers and saying he should run a certain way, I both am and am not saying that, depending on the situation. If that paper has a quote from Mike Brock saying that Magical Knack is now a legal character option, it most definitely obliges the GM to allow his player to use that trait. If the paper quotes a contributor where he explains that his original wording did not achieve his intent for a feat, I feel the GM should feel empowered to decide whether they will or will not allow it. Not that they should allow it cuz I said so, or that they can't allow it because the campaign says they can't.
|
|
As for handing a GM papers and saying he should run a certain way, I both am and am not saying that, depending on the situation. If that paper has a quote from Mike Brock saying that Magical Knack is now a legal character option, it most definitely obliges the GM to allow his player to use that trait. If the paper quotes a contributor where he explains that his original wording did not achieve his intent for a feat, I feel the GM should feel empowered to decide whether they will or will not allow it. Not that they should allow it cuz I said so, or that they can't allow it because the campaign says they can't.
When something is ambiguous, or at best not 100% clear on how it works, then the GM is certainly allowed to use their best judgement and common sense on whether to use a contributor comment to inform their decision.
|
|
There's a difference between bringing a post from Mike or a FAQ entry and bringing in a post of one of the game designers. A designer's submission is frequently altered in editing. So even if RAW doesn't match designer intent, it may still be functioning as intended by Paizo.
I'd love to bring in Jason's fix for the Titan Mauler so my Barbarian could use Large two-handed weapons, but his new version has in no way been vetted or blessed by the design team.
|
So, do your next GM a favor, don't put them in a position to say no. Follow the rules as written, bring the necessary documentation for non-core stuff, and respect their decisions. Keep in mind that you are only one player at the table, so should not monopolize the GM's time.
I'd also say as GM, you need to follow a GM's version of 'don't be a jerk'. If someone brings a legal PFS character with all the paperwork in order let him play unless there is an out of game reason, such as the table is full or the player really needs a shower; not because you don't like gunslingers or you think a character concept is weird. If someone is doing something you see as questionable, give the player a chance to explain unless it is blatant cheating. When faced with a player thought of creative solution, listen and give it a fair shot.
You as a GM have the responsibility to be an ambassador for the hobby you love.
Finally, if you have a serious problem with a GM's ruling or a player's character or behavior, rather then argueing, bring it up to a VO or store coordinator.
|
|
There's a difference between bringing a post from Mike or a FAQ entry and bringing in a post of one of the game designers. A designer's submission is frequently altered in editing. So even if RAW doesn't match designer intent, it may still be functioning as intended by Paizo.
Could be true, or could not be. We don't know what the designers intend unless they tell us. Until they do, we need someone empowered to make decisions.
|
I try very hard to make all my characters not have any rules involved with them that a GM can make a table variation rule on. Of all my 11 Characters only one has anything that can be a bit iffy...
The Problem I have with GMs is when they don't know the rules well and make calls that don't follow the rules that screw over my characters. When I am at conventions it happens in the majority of games I play in.
I am amazed how often I play a tables that GMs just don't know the rules well and make calls that go against RAW, I just have bad luck with that.
I have made bad calls, but I learn from them when showed other wise. I seem to run into a lot of GMs that refuse to believe they are wrong... grrrrr..
|
|
( I dont think its a great topic descriptor tbh)
The part of Pathfinder Society I find exclusive is this presumption that everyone can make a con at some point and can play the exclusives and get boons. I dont think its anywhere near as bad as the way Living Greyhawk got in some cases (which felt a bit like a core group of players within a wider group of players) but every time I read about some guy complaining he has too many copies of the same boon... it sets my blood pressure up a bit.
If I felt though that Pathfinder Society was only aimed at the people who attend the big cons like Origin or Paizocon or Gencon then I wouldnt play. I dont want to feel like the person who gets to play the event after its already been resolved at a con, It makes me feel like my input is of no importance. I know that these cons give these special events and boons to get the people in to attend, thats fine. Do I think there should be a way to get a boon in a non con game? Certainly. I have no idea how one would do it however.
How is Pathfinder inclusive? It opens up an entirely unknown group of gamers to me. I had never met any of the people I game within in Pathfinder Society before I started to play (and gm) back in August of last year. Now I know of a lot more gamers locally. Sure I may only ever see them once or twice and then not again for a long time , but It still makes me feel like Im in a bigger community of gamers. Everyone starts from a common point (cept of course for the guy playing the Nagaji/insert other raceboon), but still we are all building up at the same time.
|
|
( I dont think its a great topic descriptor tbh)
The part of Pathfinder Society I find exclusive is this presumption that everyone can make a con at some point and can play the exclusives and get boons. I dont think its anywhere near as bad as the way Living Greyhawk got in some cases (which felt a bit like a core group of players within a wider group of players) but every time I read about some guy complaining he has too many copies of the same boon... it sets my blood pressure up a bit.
I go to a couple moderately sized local cons a year, where I volenteer and usually end up with a few more boons then I want/need, though not all race boons. So far I've used two of them for myself. The rest I give to local players who go above and beyond, for example, filling a GM slot at the last minute or given to someone on these boards who was doing a lot promote PFS in their area whose attitude I liked.
I have seen the same behavior in others.
|
|
Finally, if you have a serious problem with a GM's ruling or a player's character or behavior, rather then argueing, bring it up to a VO or store coordinator.
But if I am the GM, V-O, and Store Coordinator, the only recourse would be for them to talk to Ryan Blomquist (the Minnesota V-C) or Mike Brock.
The point being, the buck does stop somewhere, and someone has to make a decision.
And just because a player feels they are being creative and thinking outside the box, doesn’t mean that their character is automatically legal. Will's point was that instead of thinking so far outside the box that you have one of those characters that rides the line of legality based on creative interpretation or blatant ambiguity, bring a fun character that obviously fits inside the rules.
|
|
Finally, if you have a serious problem with a GM's ruling or a player's character or behavior, rather then argueing, bring it up to a VO or store coordinator.
But if I am the GM, V-O, and Store Coordinator, the only recourse would be for them to talk to Ryan Blomquist (the Minnesota V-C) or Mike Brock.
The point being, the buck does stop somewhere, and someone has to make a decision.
First of all, you go to a venture officer on BIG things. That is why I said serious. This not just because you disagree with one ruling. It means the whole table was a cluster-f. I have done this exactly once in three years and that person, because my speaking up was the tip of the iceberg of a lot of complaints, led to that GM not GMing much anymore. But when I brought it to the local powers that be I had something like nine agregious errors I pointed out. I also am pretty sure that GM has something on the Aspergers/Autism spectrum and took him aside and with some information to get help (it exists in my family).
I did not give him a hard time at the table. His judgements stood at that table. The buck stopped with him. However, the buck is not going to stop with him very much in the forseeable future. That is fair.
Once I was asked to confirm whether another person was out of line (i.e. bullying other players), which I did. That person has a grudge against me for doing so. But one thing I greatly respect about that person is that when we are thrown together at a table, we are both polite.
And just because a player feels they are being creative and thinking outside the box, doesn’t mean that their character is automatically legal. Will's point was that instead of thinking so far outside the box that you have one of those characters that rides the line of legality based on creative interpretation or blatant ambiguity, bring a fun character that obviously fits inside the rules.
And I agree just because a player feels they are being creative is not enough. However, I've seen people argue here that come down to 'I don't like the idea behind a character, so I have a right to ban it' or even 'I don't like X class so that I'll ban it at my table'.
To me, that is just as wrong as a player not having all your non-core books/pdfs with you or replaying the module for credit. The rules for the campaign are availible on the Paizo website as to what is legal and what is not. Players and GMs should expect that to be followed. That is a very conservative ruling.
I know I argue for and defend a lot of creative concepts. But I am defending the concept i.e. if they can make it fit within the rules great, provided its not a vulcan elf or a jedi paladin. However, I always play characters who are within the RAW and when I have doubts, I sound it out.
For example, I talked on these boards about a Kitsume as Coyote from Arcadia concept. I tested in out in one game and while I had no problems and a lot of fun, I decided not to play the character long term because it pushed Golorian lore.
On the other hand, I had person on these boards go into shock when I suggested a summoner/eidolon pair be husband/wife. I was genuinely surprised at that reaction or the idea that I was being 'provocative'. But the thing was, the concept was well inside golorian lore and I thought developer intent(close personal bond and all).
If I didn't have a summoner already and not consulted these boards I might have made that character and shown up to a game. If I were blindsided by a reaction from a GM such as I got from that person, it would not be me being provocative or being a jerk or anything of the sort. I have a legal character with presumably my paperwork in order. It would simply be the GM being blindsided by something he hadn't thought of before. It would be me being blindsided by the idea that someone would react that way to what I thought of as a pretty cool concept.
No one is a jerk at that point.
If he, once we realised that there was a disagreement and say, had to play the character because I had nothing else in tier (I'd politely walk rather then play a pregen in those circumstances), he would be a jerk if he punished me by targeting me or making disparaging remarks at the game table after the initial surprise wore off.
That is what I mean when I say 'don't be a jerk' applies all around.
And I say this having dealt with it from a GMs perspective.
Hope that helps,
Kerney
|
I try very hard to make all my characters not have any rules involved with them that a GM can make a table variation rule on. Of all my 11 Characters only one has anything that can be a bit iffy...
The Problem I have with GMs is when they don't know the rules well and make calls that don't follow the rules that screw over my characters. When I am at conventions it happens in the majority of games I play in.
I am amazed how often I play a tables that GMs just don't know the rules well and make calls that go against RAW, I just have bad luck with that.
I have made bad calls, but I learn from them when showed other wise. I seem to run into a lot of GMs that refuse to believe they are wrong... grrrrr..
This is the #1 thing GMs need to learn to GM an organized play campaign. GMs don't know the rules and don't play by them EVEN when players explain otherwise.
I have seen a lot of people run haunts wrong (just as an example) I have seen haunts trigger once per person, I have seen haunts have initiative rolled for them, I have seen people completely ignore the reset and have the haunt keep happening until the "destroyed" condition was met.
That's ONE RULE and I have seen it run many different ways. I have taken time after scenario's to ask some of those GMs how that haunt was written and explain the Haunt rules, so they don't randomly kill a PC through misinterpretations.
Some of them take this well, some of them just get pissed that I would question how they ran the scenario.