Rules Lawyering?


Pathfinder Society

101 to 146 of 146 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade 3/5

I don't get it.

Grand Lodge

Yes. It was advertised on Paizo.com as one, we got chronicle sheets for it, and that's what it's labeled as. It's been a weekly game for... hrm, a bit over a year methinks.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


"making things more interesting" by getting the PCs killed through cheating is blatantly,specifically and categorically against the organized campaign. Its him that may not be suited for an organized play environment.

It's clear from the OP that the GM did not understand how the rule really worked. That's not cheating. That's just ignorance.

It's the later behavior that deserves our ire.


Are Nuku and NN959 the same person?

Grand Lodge

Nope? I have not posted under any other aliases on these boards. What gave the idea?

Liberty's Edge

Andrew Christian wrote:
Blowing it off and play under the incorrect rules. This doesn't have to be miserable if you choose your actions and character builds based on these incorrect rules. Essentially create a character that can use these incorrect rules calls to make the GM's rue the day they decided to be incorrect and not listen to any correct.

I am afraid that this option is not really one, as the "incorrect rule" here seems to be "GM knows best", which is as unpredictable as it can get (except for the "players will get shafted in the name of entertainment" part of course).

The Fox wrote:
I don't get it.

My point about official PFS, you mean ?

Well, the storeowner's answer was very far from the PFS ethos and he did not mention the PFS at all, hence my question to the OP.

Grand Lodge 3/5

Nuku wrote:
bunch of stuff

Make sure they are running PFS events and not just gaming with the scenarios. If there is an event number and they hand out chronicles instead of exp/gold, then it is safe to assume it is a register PFS event.

If it is then you need to point the store owner to the Guide to Pathfinder Society Play, chapter 7, table variation section, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence:

Quote:
This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder Roleplaying Game source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com.

Liberty's Edge

Chalk Microbe wrote:
Are Nuku and NN959 the same person?

Now that you mention it, I never saw them post at the same time.

But then , that is true of all posters on these boards.

So, maybe all these posters on the boards are all only one real person. Scary, isn't it ?

5/5

shakes her head at the pointlessness and hops aways... need more bunny kibble

Liberty's Edge 5/5

If you thought the GM did a crappy job, offer to run yourself instead.


Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:
shakes her head at the pointlessness and hops aways... need more bunny kibble

You do realize that you just added to the pointlessness of this thread. The more posts this thread racks up the more likely someone else is going to click on it to see what's up.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I didn't think the GM did a 'crappy job'. I did think a bad call was made, and we should all learn the correct rule. I would want to be corrected in turn if I made a bad call, as a player or GM.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Nuku wrote:
I didn't think the GM did a 'crappy job'. I did think a bad call was made, and we should all learn the correct rule. I would want to be corrected in turn if I made a bad call, as a player or GM.

Bad calls come and bad calls go, if the game wasnt crappy, dont worry about it and let it go. Running around telling VCs and store owners, b!%+$ing on boards... seems like a lot of work at the end of the day for a game that wasn't crappy.

Jus' saying

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

J-Bone wrote:

Bad calls come and bad calls go, if the game wasnt crappy, dont worry about it and let it go. Running around telling VCs and store owners, b&&&*ing on boards... seems like a lot of work at the end of the day for a game that wasn't crappy.

Jus' saying

Suppose I'm a player at your table. You do something, I respectfully say that I believe it works differently. You affirm your ruling, and I let it go rather than bogging down the game. I later (on my own time) determine that you were, in fact, in error on the rule in question.

How do you believe I should proceed?

Grand Lodge

Well, if you want to get to nitty gritty, the game was horribly slow and we went incredibly over the alotted time. However, the GM is new and inexperienced. I am not going to lay into a newbie GM. That's just not nice. I went to the owner because he's been running D&D and then Pathfinder for years, so I thought I was speaking from oldbie to oldbie as mature peers.

Liberty's Edge

Nuku wrote:

----- From Me

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pmxu?Attacks-of-Opportunity-Reach-and-Approach ing#2

Movement, specifically movement, never provokes twice from the same guy in the same round.
----- From Him
That is one way of looking it at, yes. Although reading through the thread indicates you can still take multiples, and the wording is vague and open to interpretation. Hence, the need for a GM, which is why we have them. They also keep the player cheese to a minimum. And sometimes, you have to roll with the punches - life isn't fair or equitable, and neither are the rules...
----- From Me
Are... we reading the same thread?

To quote the rules: Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent.

This is not vague. This is not open to interpretation. I don't see any debate in the thread. There was one person who was sad at this, but accepted it. I didn't debate it at the table as it was going quite slow enough as it was, but it was a wrong call. Movement(as in moving through squares) based AoOs are limited to 1/rd vs the same creature. Combat Reflexes does not change this.
----- From Him
Please refer to page 402 of the core rules, second column, first full paragraph:

"Likewise, don't feel bound to the predetermined plot of an encounter or the rules as written. Feel free to adjust the results or interpret things creatively..."

In last night's case, I think the scary boss that ripped people up was both appropriate and balanced for the size of the group. It made for a great story, which is the important thing. The rules are guidelines, not concrete barriers to force the hand of the GM into channels that benefit the players solely.

Also, FYI, I really hate rules-lawyering. Please do not send me any more links, or other crap you think justifies your position as I really don't care to hear it. If you want to talk storytelling, I am all for it, if its just to whinge about rules interpretations,...

Now that we have context...(numbered for clarity)

1. A few hours after a ruling went against you, You wrote him a terse e-mail stating that the messageboards say you were right and he was wrong.

2. He politely replies that he feels the rule is still ambigious and says you need to roll the GM. Basically he is saying "Let it go"

3. You reply aggressively and/or sarcastically "Are... we reading the same thread?"

4. He's tired of dealing with you, says table fun is more important than rules, and says if you want to keep doing this, sod off.

He didn't tell you not to come back, as you said. I am honestly shocked how people have read that series of e-mails and come to some conclusion that the owner is a tyrant.

The GM made a call in a game that was already running slow (by your account), the game was presuably stopped so the owner could come over and hear the dispute (presumably not speeding up the game) and then after hearing it, he backed the GM. Probably wrong, but he made a call and the game moved on.

You continued complaining on the messageboard immediately after the game, then in exchanges with the owner of the shop over what appears to be multiple e-mails, then you came back to the messageboard to complain some more when he didn't give you answers that you want.

And then others are all like "I hope Mike is reading this" like some torch bearing mob wanting to stop that evil shop from running PFS...

Newsflash: He may stop running it because of crap like this. It isn't like he can't just change the sign to "Open Pathfinder Night" and still get people to throw in 5 bucks without the hassle.

And then what?

And that is just looking at the information you have provided, framed by you in the best possible light.

If you don't like how he runs it, don't go there anymore. I was actually largely agreeing with you when this started, but the more that comes out the more I am thinking you are just a single disgruntled person playing at a store full of happy gamers.

4/5 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:

Suppose I'm a player at your table. You do something, I respectfully say that I believe it works differently. You affirm your ruling, and I let it go rather than bogging down the game. I later (on my own time) determine that you were, in fact, in error on the rule in question.

How do you believe I should proceed?

If this happens at my table, please tell me of your findings ASAP. Either in person or via some sort of private, electronic communication.

I will thank you for your diligence in finding the correct answer, apologize profusely for my mistake and assure you that I will not make the same mistake again.

5/5 *

ciretose wrote:
bunch of stuff

So what it boils down to for you is that as long as no grave consequences were had and everyone had fun, a little finagling of the rules is ok. Fun first and rules second.

Honestly, I am a firm believer that you can BOTH have fun and follow the rules 100% or as close to it as possible.

Liberty's Edge

Jiggy wrote:
J-Bone wrote:

Bad calls come and bad calls go, if the game wasnt crappy, dont worry about it and let it go. Running around telling VCs and store owners, b&&&*ing on boards... seems like a lot of work at the end of the day for a game that wasn't crappy.

Jus' saying

Suppose I'm a player at your table. You do something, I respectfully say that I believe it works differently. You affirm your ruling, and I let it go rather than bogging down the game. I later (on my own time) determine that you were, in fact, in error on the rule in question.

How do you believe I should proceed?

I think as soon as you leave the event, you should open a thread questioning the ruling. Then once people weigh in saying the owner of the store and GM are wrongbadpeople, you should tersely forward that thread to the owner.

When the owner replies politely that he respectfully disagrees, you should immediatly reply with disbelief at his ignorance of the rules and argue back and forth with him.

Then when that doesn't work, go back to the messageboard and make another thread bashing him.

That seems to be working great...wait...no...no that is horrible advice.

What you should do is wait a few days until you are calm and then either speak to him in person politely, or write him an e-mail politely saying that you think he missed a rule the other night, just wanted to give you a heads up as to this being how it actually works, including simply courtesy phrases like "Hello" and "Thanks" rather than an HTML link and a one liner to the thread where you talked about him behind his back.

Because you are an adult, and it is a game.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Nuku wrote:


PS: Damn you Arthur Perkins, I'll never succumb to your chain critting virtual dice!

Not to completely derail your thread David, but I will keep rolling a critical every round and you will like it. All shall see my damage dice and despair.

Also stop casting infernal healing. You are like the poster boy for Asmodeus.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

The owner was flat out wrong.

That rule has no ambiguity.

To say otherwise is silly and disregarding of the way the rules work.

I'm actually surprised folks are defending the Owners actions.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

graypark wrote:

If this happens at my table, please tell me of your findings ASAP. Either in person or via some sort of private, electronic communication.

I will thank you for your diligence in finding the correct answer, apologize profusely for my mistake and assure you that I will not make the same mistake again.

"Figure it out yourself." is a very helpful answer.

Liberty's Edge

CRobledo wrote:
ciretose wrote:
bunch of stuff

So what it boils down to for you is that as long as no grave consequences were had and everyone had fun, a little finagling of the rules is ok. Fun first and rules second.

Honestly, I am a firm believer that you can BOTH have fun and follow the rules 100% or as close to it as possible.

What it comes down to for me is that a little courtesy goes a long way.

Read the e-mails in order. The OP is flat out rude in the first e-mail and just as rude with his shocked disbelief in the 2nd e-mail.

How about something like this.

"Hey, it's (insert name here). Sorry to bother, but that ruling last night was bothering me when I got home, so I got on the boards and I think the GM may have messed up. Here is what I think the rule actually is (link to PRD, Dev Cite, whatevs) just in case it comes up again.

Thanks
(Insert name here)"

That would be the bare minimum expectation level of courtesy. I would personally add it "I really enjoy gaming at (insert store)" and "Not trying to cause a fuss, I know everyone is doing their best to get the rules right and some stuff can be unclear" etc, etc...

What is not cool is flooding my e-mail with terse, rude, e-mails while you bash me behind my back on the messageboard.

5/5 *

Honestly, arguing about email etiquette is not going to get us anywhere (not that this thread was already going somewhere).

Parting thoughts, as I don't have anything else to contribute:

As the VERY FIRST poster said, I think airing something like this in a forum will not do you any favorable service.

Looks to me the GM in question made a judgement error, and refuses to revise his position. Emails/discussion was had, (regardless of ettiquette; I think both people could have done better in the email exchange) and no progress.

Do I think the OP did what he needed to do? I don't care. It's entirely subjective. Do I think the GM and store owner in question are possibly detrimental to the growth of PFSOP? From the accounts above, yes (with the shadow of a doubt, as this is all at the end of the day hearsay).

To me, Nuku, you need to decide if you wish to continue playing there. I'm not judging who is at fault here. If you believe that the current state of the store is detrimental to PFSOP in general (i.e. other people will continue to have the same problem as you) then you should email your VO.

Liberty's Edge

Remember this isn't the GM he e-mailed.

This is the owner of the store.

We have no idea if the GM does or does not acknowledge right or wrong at this point. All we know is the OP sent the terse e-mails to the owner of the store, almost immediately after the event.

After reading the e-mails, I actually think I would like to play at that store. It sounds like the goal is "Fun".

I would not be particularly interested in GMing for the OP, however.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
open a thread questioning the ruling. Then once people weigh in saying the owner of the store and GM are wrongbadpeople,

The thread contains no such slights. The GM and owner are never even mentioned, let alone criticized. Please do not deliberately misrepresent the facts.

ciretose wrote:
you should tersely forward that thread to the owner.

"Terse", eh? In the literal sense of being short/concise, yes. If you meant lacking in some social niceties, I would agree. However, also see below:

ciretose wrote:
When the owner replies politely that he respectfully disagrees,

Both "politely" and "respectfully"? Although he doesn't fling any insults, he also doesn't use any of the nice language you advocate HERE. So when Nuku's email lacks those niceties, he's "terse". When the owner's email lacks the same niceties, it's both "polite" and "respectful"?

ciretose wrote:
you should immediatly reply with disbelief at his ignorance of the rules and argue back and forth with him.

There was no "disbelief" regarding "his ignorance of the rules" expressed in any way. Please do not misrepresent the facts.

The store owner's inaccurate description of the thread caused Nuku to ask whether there had been a miscommunication. Maybe it was sarcastic, maybe not. We don't know without tone. Which way to take it was a decision you made, not something inherent in the email.

Oh, and a single reply does not constitute "arguing back and forth". Please stop misrepresenting the facts.

ciretose wrote:
Then when that doesn't work, go back to the messageboard and make another thread bashing him.

The original post relayed a story with predominantly impartial language and asked for feedback on his own behavior up to that point; there was no "bashing" of anyone.

Again, please stop misrepresenting the facts.

ciretose wrote:
What is not cool is flooding my e-mail with terse, rude, e-mails while you bash me behind my back on the messageboard.

Two emails is not "flooding". Please stop misrepresenting the facts.

And again, Nuku did not "bash" anyone in either thread. Please stop misrepresenting the facts.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

ciretose wrote:

Remember this isn't the GM he e-mailed.

This is the owner of the store.

We have no idea if the GM does or does not acknowledge right or wrong at this point.

Correct, and I think some folks missed that detail. At this point, I'm not sure we even know whether the GM is aware that he made an error.

Grand Lodge

It is unlikely he will ever be informed by the coordinator. It certainly won't be me, as I am no longer welcome there.

4/5

I wonder if either of them will ever read this thread. ;)

Liberty's Edge 5/5

He banned you from his store for bringing a rule to his attention?

1/5

Jiggy wrote:
Again, please stop misrepresenting the facts

I don't mean to pile on Ciretose, but from my perspective, you're ascribing things to the occurrence that I am not seeing in the facts presented in this thread.

The attitude that "fun" or the "story" trumps the unambiguous rules is the road to ruin. Mike & Co have astutely seen the inherent problems in that long standing RPG tradition. They explicitly rejected it when they said that GM's are not allowed to contradict rules under any circumstances.

The problem with "Rule of Cool" is not everyone agrees on what amounts to cool. It also presupposed that the game isn't fun when played according to the rules. It promotes the idea that PFS is in constant need of GM's arbitrarily ignoring or changing rules or the game won't be "fun."

As Mike and Mark have stated, PFS GMing isn't for everyone.


Andrew Christian wrote:
He banned you from his store for bringing a rule to his attention?

Even if your still allowed in the store, its not as fun after being put through things like that. Its not welcoming to know the store owner is willing to act like that. I got in a disagreement with my local venture lieutenant and stopped showing since. Guy chased me off becuase it wasn't worth dealing with him anymore and I thought he was being a huge jerk.

Grand Lodge

No, I was banned for telling him that he was not operating under PFS rules and that GM Fiat had no place for clear cut rules.

My last email was a bit heated, but that was after I had posted here, and after I was pretty certain I wanted nothing more to do with the guy.

For fairness:

---- From me
NAME HERE,

Your quote is insulting, as it does not apply to PFS, which is expected to be run RAW unless RAW is unclear or open to GM call. You are not running Pathfinder Society if you think that call is acceptable outside of a 'Oops, forgot that's how it works', which is fine, (cuss) happens, but we LEARN from our mistakes.

If, and this is pretending the rules don't exist, that was a second provoking, well, maybe I wouldn't have charged in. I took an action in faith that the rules that I signed up to play were being enforced. Don't give me garbage about GM fiat for encounter balance. This was not encounter balancing. The GM didn't give the enemy a tweaked stat(illegal in PFS), and he didn't fudge any dice(discouraged, but legal). He ignored a concrete rule.

What next? Enemies get to take AoOs when you talk? You have to roll damage on your items when you drop them? Do clerics get to make spell failure checks because you don't like the armor they're wearing?

This is not a home game. Stop house ruling. Learn the damn rules and learn to be an adult and admit when you messed up.

Lastly, even if this was a home game, which it is not, I would at least think it would be common courtesy to be informed of such a rule change before it slaps you in the face. You made a call, it was the wrong one. It wasn't a big deal, but you made it one. Admit your (cuss) up. Don't call me a rules lawyer when I let it go at the table and allowed the game to proceed, even with my character in immediate danger of death at the result of the damage roll being made that shouldn't have been, with other players already chiming in at my side.

You have disappointed me greatly. I don't imagine that means very much to you, but I used to think you were a really damn good GM.

---- From Him
NAME HERE,

Go (cuss) yourself. And your presence is no longer welcome at STORE NAME HERE.

-NAME HERE

Liberty's Edge

Jiggy wrote:
Again, please stop misrepresenting the facts.

The exchange is available for anyone to read. I actually included it in the detailed post. But since you want to accuse me of "misrepresenting", I'll go through it.

So the Owner likely either just got home from work (because that is what the owner was doing, working at his store) or he woke up the next morning and and in his mailbox was the following.

"http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pmxu?Attacks-of-Opportunity-Reach-and-Approac h ing#2

Movement, specifically movement, never provokes twice from the same guy in the same round."

I would absolutely describe that as a terse e-mail. No intro, just a link and a sentance.

We can likely also deduce that since no explaination was provided, this must have caused enough of an "event" in the evening that no reminding of what happened was needed. Everyone knew exactly what he was talking about.

The owner replied, (apparently very quickly since this happened last night)

"That is one way of looking it at, yes. Although reading through the thread indicates you can still take multiples, and the wording is vague and open to interpretation. Hence, the need for a GM, which is why we have them. They also keep the player cheese to a minimum. And sometimes, you have to roll with the punches - life isn't fair or equitable, and neither are the rules..."

Which to me means, it was what the GM ruled, it's over, let it go.

The first line of his reply to that:

"Are... we reading the same thread?"

Is absolutely sarcastic and can't be read in any other way other than expressing disbelief. Which is what I said.

I have no idea if the OP replied to the last e-mail from the owner, I do know the OP started this thread to complain about the reply from the owner and described the owners response as

"He calls me a rules lawyer, and says GMs have the right to bend the rules to make for more exciting play, and to never correct him ever again, and that I wasn't cut out for PFS play."

Which is a bit of a misrepresentation of the exchange when you actually read it.

But since you dislike me personally, Jigs, keep saying I am "misrepresentin'"

Liberty's Edge

Just want to point out that you got the exact outcome I said would occur if you kept it up...

There is a line in the Big Lebowski that the Dude says to Walter that applies.

"You're not wrong Walter..."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nice! What's the store name? I'll make sure to never go there.

Dark Archive

Well ignoring everything else as someone from retail I do have to say the store owner is being very unprofesional in his reply.

Silver Crusade 3/5

Ciretose, when you play in PFS and GMs mess up BASIC rules, do you just bend to their will? You say nothing to them? I'm just curious.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
"You're not wrong Walter..."

I know -- I'm right all the time.

Now if only I could convince my girlfriend that...

Liberty's Edge 5/5

MrSin wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
He banned you from his store for bringing a rule to his attention?
Even if your still allowed in the store, its not as fun after being put through things like that. Its not welcoming to know the store owner is willing to act like that. I got in a disagreement with my local venture lieutenant and stopped showing since. Guy chased me off becuase it wasn't worth dealing with him anymore and I thought he was being a huge jerk.

True. I would hope that were it me you felt being that big a jerk to you, that you'd tell me and we would work it out.

Liberty's Edge

The Fox wrote:
Ciretose, when you play in PFS and GMs mess up BASIC rules, do you just bend to their will? You say nothing to them? I'm just curious.

I said up-thread what I would do. Let it sit for a day and either chat up the GM (not the owner) in person politely or send a polite e-mail to the GM (not the owner).

Then if you and the GM get on the same page (likely if you are polite and correct) you can mention it to the owner, politely. Then you all laugh about it next time you are gaming at the FLGS next week.

Instead, we are about 24 hours away from what happened and we have two threads and three e-mails, none of which were polite. And that is knowing nothing of behavior on the night of.

Until this incident, the OP apparently thought the owner was a good GM (in his e-mail) and now he has completely burned that bridge over a rather trival ruling, not to mention probably not helping his relationship with the local gaming community, since people seem to like the owner of the store.

How'd that work out?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am sorry this happened to you Nuku. I too have had similar things happen in my gaming experiences. People do not like to be wrong and sometimes they take things as attacks that might not have been. Hopefully you and him can mend the bond.

As far as how you handled it, I think hindsight is 20/20 and so is looking at things from the outside. Just chalk this little life experience up as a lesson and hopefully it will help you in the future.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I learned awhile back not to send messages while upset. Don't always follow that lesson, but it's there.


Andrew Christian wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
He banned you from his store for bringing a rule to his attention?
Even if your still allowed in the store, its not as fun after being put through things like that. Its not welcoming to know the store owner is willing to act like that. I got in a disagreement with my local venture lieutenant and stopped showing since. Guy chased me off becuase it wasn't worth dealing with him anymore and I thought he was being a huge jerk.

True. I would hope that were it me you felt being that big a jerk to you, that you'd tell me and we would work it out.

Easier said than done. Much easier to let things slide, which is what Ciretose advocates, but I think there comes a point where you need to talk. This needs to be when your both calm and collected and hopefully over a fine dessert to keep everything calm. I suggest cheesecake usually, rich and distrating. You can always go back, say your sorry if you were insulting and be nice. Its again, easier said than done and not always the best thing to do.

That said, there do seem to be other issues at hand.

Digital Products Assistant

Locking thread. This kind of discussion seems like it would be best discussed through email or PM. Pileons and popcorn posts are not helpful.

101 to 146 of 146 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Rules Lawyering? All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society