|
My Saturday night GM, which I've had for a year and a half now, is a practicing lawyer, licensed to practice before the SCOTUS. He is absolutely brilliant, and reads rules and cross-references terminology as a good attorney should. When we disagree with his interpretation, he allows us to argue before him (the judge) as attorneys would.
Is this training and practice good?
No, and Yes. Years of play and careful examination of the text lead me to believe that D&D and Pathfinder were not written by lawyers for lawyers, but rather by designers (who may be lawyers) for players. In this way, it is bad that one with legal training read the rules as an actual Lawyer. It should be read taking into consideration the intention of the writer, taking into consideration the differences between Flavor Text, and Mechanical Text. In this way, legal training to can be a boon if used in the right way. Also, the ability to argue before a judge and use the rules as my tool is really great as a player, especially when dealing with death and/or loss of property.
In my experience, there are two general types of text in the game, which dictate the functionality of all things:
1. Flavor (Fluff) Text (FT)
2. Mechanical (Crunch) Text (MT)
FT helps give you context and imagery for the MT, but should not hold any damning mechanical weight. It should simply be used to enhance the flavor of the function in question, on the player and GM side. FT is the guide to Role-Playing, while MT is the guide to Roll-Playing. I'm not saying that the two do not intersect at times, in fact, they should be inseparably intertwined, but the nature of their relationship should be explicit: "MT exists to quantify the function of FT. If the opposite were true, no two people could sit at a table expecting to play the same game."
Yes.
Overruled.
Flavor text is generally setting-specific. It as a tiny piece of a larger story that a player can use like a lego block to inform their character's capabilities.
So, to answer your question, yes. Flavor text can be easily stripped away and replaced with something more suitable to whatever game you are playing.
I love that you're posting this as Abadar, who's like the god of law.
Would've been better if you where Asmodeus ;)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always point out to people that Pathfinder is written for kids as young as 12 to be able to play, and I usually say that when in doubt ask a 12 year old gamer how to interpret the rules. the rules are meant to be simple. not complicated or convoluted.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a lawyer, I'll point out the contradiction in the OP's thesis.
On the one hand, he argues that someone interpreting the rules shouldn't do it as a lawyer, but rather with consideration of intent. (As an aside, lawyers are absolutely trained to research and argue intent behind laws. So a lawyer interpreting rules "as a lawyer" will be considering intent.)
But on the other hand, he argues that flavor text should carry no weight when it comes to the mechanics.
The contradiction is that flavor text is very often an indication of the intent for the mechanics. If the OP thinks intent matters when interpreting rules, then flavor text matters.
|
|
Yah, pathfinder, I believe, did a good job of mitigating and evaluating a lot of the damage done by completely combining the two.
Consider the term: Pinpoint
If you look in 3.5, there is plenty of conflicting information about what 'pinpoint' actually means. Pathfinder fixed those problems, but never actually defines what pinpoint means in the glossary or anything, they just use it over and over and over again correctly, hoping that you'll get it.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF isn't written with a strict separation between crunch and fluff text intended.
It's not.
Compare it to Magic: the Gathering, which very clearly is written that way. MtG has an explicit separation between crunch and fluff, and you never need the fluff to understand, interpret or adjudicate the crunch.
PF isn't written that way, because it wasn't intended that way. Instead, there's a whole continuum of texts that are more or less crunchy. Some are totally crunchy, some are totally flavor, and some are somewhere in between. There are a lot of parts in PF that do describe something that is very definitely not "optional", but is also not very common, so there's no standard terminology for it that people use to identify "crunch". This happens often in spells and magical powers; they tend to start out with soft stuff that gradually hardens over the course of one or two paragraphs.
Is the way PF is written the right way? I think so. If you tried to enforce strict separation of crunch and fluff, you'd get large pieces of very dry rules implementing crunch-wise what the fluff section in the previous chapter explained. All the time. Extremely unpleasant to read. Highly paper-consuming, too. Any time a new and unusual ability is introduced that uses nonstandard mechanics, you'd have to add rigorous definitions, disclaimers, keywords and whatnot.
There's a tendency among some people here to say that fluff parts are optional, not mandatory like crunch is. I disagree; the line between crunch and fluff is rather blurry, and I think we should be interpreting a lot of fluff as mandatory unless it's followed by mechanics or text making it clear that it's not.
|
|
PF isn't written with a strict separation between crunch and fluff text intended.
Compare it to Magic: the Gathering, which very clearly is written that way. MtG has an explicit separation between crunch and fluff, and you never need the fluff to understand, interpret or adjudicate the crunch.
...
There's a tendency among some people here to say that fluff parts are optional, not mandatory like crunch is. I disagree; the line between crunch and fluff is rather blurry, and I think we should be interpreting a lot of fluff as mandatory unless it's followed by mechanics or text making it clear that it's not.
I agree to an extent. The fluff is written in, and for RP purposes should be followed unless the DM states otherwise previously. Arbitrary application and technical interpretation of fluff should be avoided, as it can lead to problems, such as the term I mentioned before "pinpoint". In 3.5 pinpoint was the term used to describe tremorsense, but it was also used to describe total concealment: "difficult to pinpoint". The loose use of non-mechanical text can cause confusion and conflicting rulings.
Just because fluff is made manifest in the game, does not mean that it needs mechanical interpretation. What is PFS? It's a standardized version of the pathfinder that attempts uniformity in the game using many or most of the same texts, just like a tourney of MTG.
I never have the problems in our group that I read about here. Occasionally an issue will arise where there is a disagreement between the player and DM. They'll discuss it and then make a ruling. We tend to favor RAI over RAW with heavy focus on realism and enhancing game play over using the rules to make stupid stuff happen (ex: An elephant could scale a wall because its strength is so high it could make an unskilled check and still succeed.)
My opinion is the rules were purposely written somewhat lose for people to have fun and yield some things to the flavor of their games. Obviously balance is a big part too. If the rules were written by lawyers, there would be many more books and every circumstance imaginable would be articulated explicitly. Thankfully they are not.
That's not to say a lawyer can't make a good gamer or DM.
...the line between crunch and fluff is rather blurry, and I think we should be interpreting a lot of fluff as mandatory unless it's followed by mechanics or text making it clear that it's not.
I see your point here, but I really disagree with this.
Tying rules to a specific fluff restricts variety and eventually leads to lines of thought like "You can only play a samurai character if you use the Samurai class."
I want to be able to role play my Ninja as if he were simply a thief/assassin with arcane abilities, not an Ki-based oriental spy.
I want to be able use Rangers and Barbarians to create samurai warriors.
I want to be able to make a Witch and just call it a Wizard who comes from a very unorthodox arcane school.
I want to be able to create a character who can use Dervish Dance even if she never ever had any kind of contact with Qaddiran culture.
I want to make a LG Cleric and call it a Paladin.
Fluff is nice, but it should be just a suggestion, otherwise, it becomes a needless restriction to character creation and role playing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lawyers are good at working out what complicated rules say and what the author probably meant. I can't think of a profession I'd rather have doing the rule discussion/arbitration role (including a different game designer).
|
|
...the line between crunch and fluff is rather blurry, and I think we should be interpreting a lot of fluff as mandatory unless it's followed by mechanics or text making it clear that it's not.I see your point here, but I really disagree with this.
Tying rules to a specific fluff restricts variety and eventually leads to lines of thought like "You can only play a samurai character if you use the Samurai class."
I want to be able to role play my Ninja as if he were simply a thief/assassin with arcane abilities, not an Ki-based oriental spy.
I want to be able use Rangers and Barbarians to create samurai warriors.
I want to be able to make a Witch and just call it a Wizard who comes from a very unorthodox arcane school.
I want to be able to create a character who can use Dervish Dance even if she never ever had any kind of contact with Qaddiran culture.
I want to make a LG Cleric and call it a Paladin.Fluff is nice, but it should be just a suggestion, otherwise, it becomes a needless restriction to character creation and role playing.
I agree with your example, but I won't yield the point just yet. I guess I should have made my point more clearly because I've given a wrong impression.
Cackle (Su): A witch can cackle madly as a move action. Any creature that is within 30 feet that is under the effects of an agony hex, charm hex, evil eye hex, fortune hex, or misfortune hex caused by the witch has the duration of that hex extended by 1 round.
Some people have argued that cackling is possible while being strangled, or at the very least in a very quiet manner, because "cackle madly" is fluff and should be ignored.
That's a good example of fluff that I think is a lot more crunchy than people give it credit for. It's a fairly uncommon ability; I can't immediately come up with any other abilities powered by mad laughter. So inventing all sorts of keywords for it seems a bit baroque. I think that reasonable people, upon reading "cackle madly", would think that you actually have to cackle madly, and that's just a bit noisy, and hard if you're being strangled.
But some people claim that since the hex doesn't list Verbal components, that it's just fluff. I disagree: Verbal components aren't mentioned because that's keywords only used for spells, but the power very clearly lists that you must cackle, and in the absence of keywords, cackling is what it would be in normal English; audible.
So I'll call things "non-obligatory fluff" if they're clearly set aside from rules text (like class names and descriptive texts), but anything that's in the middle of a piece of rules text (like the cackling madly part) gets the benefit of the doubt and is crunchy until proven otherwise.
If your GM has read any GM/DMing book thoroughly, then he has seen that nearly without fail, no matter the game nor the setting, the writers have always advised GMs to treat rules as means for fair adjudication and as guidelines, but not to let them overshadow or dictate drama, story, or least of all, fun.
People here who argue for rules-heavy because that is their style, and that is fun for them, I understand. I don't like it, but I understand it. The people here who argue for rules-heavy and the accompanying lawyering, but don't exactly know why, need to read their rulebooks more thoroughly. Perhaps if they read thoroughly and clearly enough that they see the BOOKS THEMSELVES, AND THEREFORE THE WRITERS recommend treating the rules more lightly and less sacrosanct, perhaps we'd all get along better.
In fact, I'd say that a lot of issues in the world, as on these forums, could be solved with better education. If people actually READ the books before commenting on them, and asked for help when they didn't "get it," the world (and these forums) would be a happier place. Alas, most people seem to skim PART of a book, or attend SOME of their classes, and then call themselves authorities.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"MT exists to quantify the function of FT. If the opposite were true, no two people could sit at a table expecting to play the same game."
There is a myth that Lawyers and Law work RAW in court.
They don't.
When you go to court, the Judge is always trying to interpret the intent of the law, by using the text, not the other way around.
Text is, and always will be, a translation of intent.
All good GM should be trying to understand intent. It is the only way to adjudicate grey areas (which are the only area you will likely be adjudicating)
No two tables are the same, because no two GMs are the same. The same is true of the law (how many 5-4 decisions do we need to see to prove that) but most of the time, reasonable people will agree on intent. Most supreme court cases are unanimous, they just don't make the news because there is no controversy.
Just as most clear cut rulings end up with one page responses on here.
I agree with your example, but I won't yield the point just yet. I guess I should have made my point more clearly because I've given a wrong impression.
Cackle (Su): A witch can cackle madly as a move action. Any creature that is within 30 feet that is under the effects of an agony hex, charm hex, evil eye hex, fortune hex, or misfortune hex caused by the witch has the duration of that hex extended by 1 round.Some people have argued that cackling is possible while being strangled, or at the very least in a very quiet manner, because "cackle madly" is fluff and should be ignored.
hat's a good example of fluff that I think is a lot more crunchy than people give it credit for. It's a fairly uncommon ability; I can't immediately come up with any other abilities powered by mad laughter. So inventing all sorts of keywords for it seems a bit baroque. I think that reasonable people, upon reading "cackle madly", would think that you actually have to cackle madly, and that's just a bit noisy, and hard if you're being strangled.
But some people claim that since the hex doesn't list Verbal components, that it's just fluff. I disagree: Verbal components aren't mentioned because that's keywords only used for spells, but the power very clearly lists that you must cackle, and in the absence of keywords, cackling is what it would be in normal English; audible.
So I'll call things "non-obligatory fluff" if they're clearly set aside from rules text (like class names and descriptive texts), but anything that's in the middle of a piece of rules text (like the cackling madly part) gets the benefit of the doubt and is crunchy until proven otherwise.
I see your point, and I even agree in parts with it. I'll give you the point that "cackle" does imply sound and "madly" does imply that sound is somewhat loud.
But from that, if I were your GM, I'd rule you have to use your voice to make a clearly distinct loud sound. But I'd not limit it to cackling.If you want to "cackle" by whispering, singing, shouting "Alakazam" or whatever, I'd not disallow it just because the feat says "cackle", just like I'd not force Barbarians to get angry because the ability says Rage.
There is no question that the author of the Cackle hex picture a Witch cackling madly. The real question is, did he intend that it had a verbal component? If the answer is "yes", then the verbal component is crunch and should be respected, but not necessarily its fluff description.
Let's take the example of the often used Indomitable Faith trait. It says the character struggled to maintain her faith in a place where it was unpopular.
Now if my Fighter is not particularly religious, and I simply want the +1 bonus to her Will save, should I have to change my character's background to fit the trait description? Am I unable to pick the feat? If she has the Auspicious Tattoo trait instead, who gives the same benefit, should I be worried about she losing the trait bonus if she somehow loses the tattoo?
My answer to all these questions is no.
Which is why I dislike every restriction that is based on fluff instead of game balance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules certainly have their place. And a GM that sticks to the RAW stringently, will always be able to claim they are doing things correctly. But, this is a crutch, since it basically allows the GM to pass the buck when it comes to a tough decision, and he has to make a judgement and one option is RAW and the other option is something that makes more sense. I have played with a GM that will rule in favor of RAW 100% of the time, even though they admit at times the RAW does not make sense. Perhaps in PFS this is necessary, when everyone has to be alike, but in a home game, this is ridiculous.
The best GMs I have played with, have a very good understanding of the rules, and know when RAW does not make sense in "their" world, and will make adjustments. And they make these rulings clear to the players before the situation comes up. Also, these GMs are flexible, and if a player can make a good case to change either the RAW or the GMs house rules, they are willing to change the game.
It is much better to have everyone, or at least close to everyone, in agreement that the rules you are playing with make the most sense for your group. Much better than sticking to a rigid set of RAW where both the players and the GM agree have flaws, but the GM will not change it, because it is RAW.
By the way, your GM that is qualified to
practice in front of the SCOTUS
should know, that if RAW cannot be changed, there would be little reason for the SCOTUS, and for the lawyers that would present their cases to it.
SCOTUS's purpose isnt actually to change any Laws, but to make RULINGS (like a dungeon master) on the meanings of those laws and their intent.
Example: The Second Amendment was meant to allow citizens to have muskets, but not Ar15s.
Things like that. The court doesnt make or change the law, they merely rule on it's clarifications.
Example: Dervish Dance was NOT including in a core rule book because it was MEANT to be restricted to a certain small group of individuals (and thus not just "fluff")
Something like this might not exist and a world that isn't Golarion at all. Or something like this on a world that is not Golarion might be everywhere and not restricted. But ON Golarion, it was MEANT to be restricted. Use of this feat therefor REQUIRES a ruling from the DM and can't just be hand waved away by a player due to existence of annoying "fluff"
That's why the Judge/DM position exists, to make rulings on the RAW... like a referee in a sporting event, the participants cannot challenge the ruling (although they try, frequently), it's futile.
We can chose not to play with a Referee or a DM, too bad we can't tell SCOTUS, "to heck with you, I'm not living in YOUR United States any more!"
Pendagast, I agree with you on what the original purpose of SCOTUS was meant to be, but sadly, what has actually been happening the last few decades is they have started to make rulings that have had the affect of law.
For example, the Second Amendment gives the right for civilians to bear arms. It says nothing about what kind of arms they can bear. Cannons and Man-of-Wars were available at the time, and they were not prohibited. It also states in plain English, that the rights of the Second Amendment shall not be infringed on by the government. Seems pretty definite. No clarification is necessary. But if the SCOTUS should rule against the Second Amendment, they are in affect changing the rules as written, regardless if they are making a ruling on a law that was written by a state, local or the federal government.
As for how that has anything to do with PF. In PFS, it seems the GMs must rule 100% in favor of RAW for uniformity. However, in a home game, a GM that rules in favor of RAW 100% of the time, regardless if the rule makes sense to himself or his group, is limiting the potential of the game to expand to fit the needs of those that play it. In PFS, the RAW has to be ironclad. Outside of PFS, the RAW is a guideline.
My Tuesday game GM is a lawyer and he is awesome...He's fair and listens to all arguments...Has ruled for the party numerous times that most likely altered his plans...He is very engaging and prepard...and did I say awesome?...*wink wink*...great campaign btw John!
|
|
@Ciretose I'm a bit puzzled where your get your strong opinion about the way the law in america works. Anyway... I think you're arguing right into the point that was original written: this is not the law of America, and regardless of what you may or may not think of law in America, it has no holding in D&D, because it wasn't written for lawyers, it was written for players. The methodology, audience, and purpose is completely different.
"Text is, and always will be, a translation of intent."
That's great, but being a wise GM includes differentiating flavor from mechanic. I don't think anybody would dispute your point.
"No two tables are the same, because no two GMs are the same."
That's okay, I usually like to talk with my GM's, and always lobby at my tables to err on the side of RAW until a house rule is established, that's just how I like to play, to promote regularity, especially with GM's who deal in death and destruction of property. Anyway, as for ruling, interpretation is everything, but this thread isn't so much about interpretation of the rules as it is about the differentiation of flavor vs mechanic and the value and relationship of each.
I'll say it again, the entire premise of a role playing game is simulation. That's not why everyone plays it, but it is to simulate. Rules help to build a predictable set of expectations so that everyone at the table can sit down and enjoy the same game.
"I'm playing pathfinder tonight, you should play d100 for our game tonight" said no-one ever.
edit:After re-reading my OP, I've been helped to realize I was wrong or unclear about one point: Lawyers have the the training to interpret intent, and so they should not be lazy and give that up when applying formal training to D&D.
My group plays by the rules as they are written, but I do not for a second discount intent. We don't know that the rule clearly expresses the writer's intent, so it is worthwhile at least discussing an alternate interpretation..
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pendagast, I agree with you on what the original purpose of SCOTUS was meant to be, but sadly, what has actually been happening the last few decades is they have started to make rulings that have had the affect of law.
For example, the Second Amendment gives the right for civilians to bear arms. It says nothing about what kind of arms they can bear. Cannons and Man-of-Wars were available at the time, and they were not prohibited. It also states in plain English, that the rights of the Second Amendment shall not be infringed on by the government. Seems pretty definite. No clarification is necessary. But if the SCOTUS should rule against the Second Amendment, they are in affect changing the rules as written, regardless if they are making a ruling on a law that was written by a state, local or the federal government.
As for how that has anything to do with PF. In PFS, it seems the GMs must rule 100% in favor of RAW for uniformity. However, in a home game, a GM that rules in favor of RAW 100% of the time, regardless if the rule makes sense to himself or his group, is limiting the potential of the game to expand to fit the needs of those that play it. In PFS, the RAW has to be ironclad. Outside of PFS, the RAW is a guideline.
Same can be said for a Referee in a game (like american football) a controversial ruling, ends up being an effective rules change. It has happened over the years in DnD as well.
Weapon space requirements, Weapons effective AC adjustments, THACO, Saving throws tables...
Long before actual D20, these were house ruled to nearly the same way the RAW is now. the house rules were so common, it just became a game changer.
With the advent of modern media. coupled with OGL and how much easier it is to get published these days, Splat books just about ruined 3.5.
The Balancing factor to that is your DM/GM/referee/judge.
"No we aren't using that material" is about the same as some ways PFS works, some things (vivisectionist for example) aren't allowed.
These 'rulings' fundamentally change the way some classes/features play completely (Summons and/or multiple companions for example) so effectively, it's a rules CHANGE/new Rule...even though it's a 'ruling' not a rule.
Most of what goes on here on the boards is a result of armchair RAWyers and theory-crafters who belittle actual gamers with "well that's a nice interpretation for your 'house rules' but it's not RAW" as they self style themselves on the definition of what exactly the RAW ruling is.
I vehemently uphold that most of these types of people just read the books over and over and dream in their cubicle and don't actually PLAY with live people (PbP doesn't count).
As a result these types of people have huge amounts of time on their hands and dominate the boards, giving a false impression of status quo, when in truth, house rule/interpretation is,was and always will be the norm.
IRL, rulings have to be like PFS (uniform for all) you can't say "well in kentucky, strangulation isn't murder...it's venting frustration"
in the gaming world, GOOD house rules eventually become unilaterally used, and thusly morph into RAW.
|
|
@Ciretose I'm a bit puzzled where your get your strong opinion about the way the law in america works. Anyway... I think you're arguing right into the point that was original written: this is not the law of America, and regardless of what you may or may not think of law in America, it has no holding in D&D, because it wasn't written for lawyers, it was written for players. The methodology, audience, and purpose is completely different."Text is, and always will be, a translation of intent."
That's great, but being a wise GM includes differentiating flavor from mechanic. I don't think anybody would dispute your point.
"No two tables are the same, because no two GMs are the same."
That's okay, I usually like to talk with my GM's, and always lobby at my tables to err on the side of RAW until a house rule is established, that's just how I like to play, to promote regularity, especially with GM's who deal in death and destruction of property. Anyway, as for ruling, interpretation is everything, but this thread isn't so much about interpretation of the rules as it is about the differentiation of flavor vs mechanic and the value and relationship of each.
I'll say it again, the entire premise of a role playing game is simulation. That's not why everyone plays it, but it is to simulate. Rules help to build a predictable set of expectations so that everyone at the table can sit down and enjoy the same game.
"I'm playing pathfinder tonight, you should play d100 for our game tonight" said no-one ever.
edit:After re-reading my OP, I've been helped to realize I was wrong or unclear about one point: Lawyers have the the training to interpret intent, and so they should not be lazy and give that up when applying formal training to D&D.
Rules and laws are written for the same purpose, and have the same limitation. They can't cover every contingency.
The problem isn't what to do when the rule is clear, as no one is going to be arguing the obvious or the clear stuff. Only when the rule is unclear, or at least the intent and purpose of the rule is in dispute, is any adjudication going to be needed.
To use your analogy, I don't need to tell you it is a d20. But I may need to guess at what the check would be based on comparison to comparable checks.
And at that time, you are going to need to try and figure out what the intent of the rule is. What were they trying to do when they wrote that law.
Pretending that RAW is always clear and covers all possible scenarios is just silly.
Let us accept for a moment your premise that simulation is a goal. Others will likely jump on you for this in a minute, but any goal works for me, so we'll go with it.
If your goal is simulation, what are you trying to simulate? Not our world, as our world has no magic, dice, etc...
You are trying to simulate the setting the imaginary characters are in, within the constraints of the mechanics of the system.
So how do you determine the setting? Fluff. How do you determine intent? Fluff?
Mechanics are great when things are clear and you are within the basic framework. But the only advantage of table top over other RPG options is the Turing Test quality that means you will end up choosing an option outside of clearly defined rules at times.
It is a fallacy to say that any rule set is anything more than an attempt to make clear what the person writing it would do in a given situation, should it come up. Meaning a rule is nothing but an attempt to convey the intent of the writer.
The fluff is part of the description of that intent. The fluff is the writer saying "This is what I have in mind" and then the mechanics represent it.
The mechanics come first, obviously. That is the starting point. But if you can't agree on the mechanics, the fluff helps guide the intent behind the mechanics.
And at the end of the day, if you are trying to faithfully follow the rules, you are trying to execute the rule as the Developer intented, meaning what they would do if they were in your chair.
So WWJBD, WWSKRD or your Dev of choice do?
I think any other approach to the words is silly, because it forgets what words are.
Translations of ideas and thoughts into letters for other to read and try and grok.
|
|
IRL, rulings have to be like PFS (uniform for all) you can't say "well in kentucky, strangulation isn't murder...it's venting frustration"
in the gaming world, GOOD house rules eventually become unilaterally used, and thusly morph into RAW.
Which is an unrealistic goal if you are getting to the margins. Sure, we can have agreement on 95% to 99% of all possible decisions, but GM flexibility is why it isn't a computer game.
It is simply a false goal to believe all tables can be adjudicated the same.
I would even argue it is a bad goal to have, if it supersedes the table enjoying the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IRL, rulings have to be like PFS (uniform for all) you can't say "well in kentucky, strangulation isn't murder...it's venting frustration"
in the gaming world, GOOD house rules eventually become unilaterally used, and thusly morph into RAW.Which is an unrealistic goal if you are getting to the margins. Sure, we can have agreement on 95% to 99% of all possible decisions, but GM flexibility is why it isn't a computer game.
It is simply a false goal to believe all tables can be adjudicated the same.
I would even argue it is a bad goal to have, if it supersedes the table enjoying the game.
no ones saying all tables should be the same, just the opposite, but eventually something that works really well, or things that get by passed or ignored become common place and often get adopted into RAW in later versions.
Just don't game with the lawyer if he makes gaming miserable and slow. When push comes to shove, I am willing to give a d20 a roll and have the players call out evens or odds. If they win, they get what they want and later on I check it out. If not, I do what I was going to.
I figure that's good enough for during the game, as I hate it when someone decides to get all argumentative during one, ruins the fun for everyone else.
|
|
I see your point, and I even agree in parts with it. I'll give you the point that "cackle" does imply sound and "madly" does imply that sound is somewhat loud.
But from that, if I were your GM, I'd rule you have to use your voice to make a clearly distinct loud sound. But I'd not limit it to cackling.
If you want to "cackle" by whispering, singing, shouting "Alakazam" or whatever, I'd not disallow it just because the feat says "cackle", just like I'd not force Barbarians to get angry because the ability says Rage.There is no question that the author of the Cackle hex picture a Witch cackling madly. The real question is, did he intend that it had a verbal component? If the answer is "yes", then the verbal component is crunch and should be respected, but not necessarily its fluff description.
I don't have a problem with reflavoring cackle to be most of those other things - I'd insist that it be a somewhat weird activity; more disturbing than reading aloud the newspaper - but chanting in a foreign language, magical words is fine. Whispering I'd be cautious with as that's actually a move to make cackle stealthy.
Altering rage is trickier; in the fine print of rage is also stops you from doing a lot of things requiring concentration (like spellcasting), so a reflavoring should also take that into account.
Let's take the example of the often used Indomitable Faith trait. It says the character struggled to maintain her faith in a place where it was unpopular.
Now if my Fighter is not particularly religious, and I simply want the +1 bonus to her Will save, should I have to change my character's background to fit the trait description? Am I unable to pick the feat? If she has the Auspicious Tattoo trait instead, who gives the same benefit, should I be worried about she losing the trait bonus if she somehow loses the tattoo?My answer to all these questions is no.
Which is why I dislike every restriction that is based on fluff instead of game balance.
In the case of Indomitable Faith, yes, I'd tie it to religion. It's a religion/faith trait, which is somewhat advantageous because it's in a different trait category, and you can't pick more than one trait per category.
I wouldn't have as much trouble with putting a trait providing +1 Will in a different category and giving it a non-faith flavor though. And I expect such a trait probably exists.
So my problem isn't so much with reflavoring in general, as it is with altering flavor that actually had strings attached. The examples all have fluff that causes certain restrictions or game effects (noisy, loss of concentration, trait from the faith category), and saying "that's just fluff" is weaseling out of it. It's not just fluff; it's just written with less keywording so it doesn't look like rigorous mechanics.
Altering rage is trickier; in the fine print of rage is also stops you from doing a lot of things requiring concentration (like spellcasting), so a reflavoring should also take that into account.
Maybe you simply enter a combat trance. Maybe you focus too much on your enemy. Maybe you are. Maybe its just an adrenaline rush. Maybe its a very peculiar form of Transmutation magic.
It doesn't matter. As long as the benefits and limitations are the same, you can describe it however you want. That's why I never understood why people would ban the Ninja class because it doesn't fit the setting but are not bothered if you make a Rogue/Ranger who wears black pajamas, throws shurikens and use poison.I mean, if you ban a class do it for the mechanics. That's all they are.
If you ban a concept, then ban the concept, not a word. An Inquisitor fluffed to act like a ninja is much more of a ninja than a Ninja fluffed to be a magic-dabbling thief. Characters don't walk around with a neon-sign on their foreheads telling the world which class they belong to.
In the case of Indomitable Faith, yes, I'd tie it to religion. It's a religion/faith trait, which is somewhat advantageous because it's in a different trait category, and you can't pick more than one trait per category.
I wouldn't have as much trouble with putting a trait providing +1 Will in a different category and giving it a non-faith flavor though. And I expect such a trait probably exists.
So my problem isn't so much with reflavoring in general, as it is with altering flavor that actually had strings attached. The examples all have fluff that causes certain restrictions or game effects (noisy, loss of concentration, trait from the faith category), and saying "that's just fluff" is weaseling out of it. It's not just fluff; it's just written with less keywording so it doesn't look like rigorous mechanics.
I really disagree with you about the trait. IMO, restrictions should only be based on game balance, and the fluff description should only be taken in consideration if it has a mechanical effect on the game.
e.g.: Cackle. The "cackle" part adds a limitation to the ability. It involves making a sound with your voice, so there are situations where it's may not be effective. This means the fluff text ("cackle madly") is a bit more than a description, because it gives the ability a limitation (whether that was the author's intention or not is a different story...)
In this case, fluff should be taken into account for GM ruling, IMO, because it kinda crosses the border into crunch territory.
Now, the Indomitable Faith trait is a whole different beast. Nothing in its description makes it more or less effective than any other +1 bonus to Will saves. It doesn't matter if that +1 comes from faith, genetics or a odd looking tattoo, in the end, the result is the same. If you keep it at whatever trait category it belongs but completely ignores its traits, nothing changes. At all.
So why should a religious (or tattooed) Fighter have an advantage on non-religious (or non-tattooed) Fighters?
This restricts character creation and role playing.
Sure, you don't have to pick all the most optimized options, but you shouldn't be unable to pick any given option just because your character background doesn't match the fluff text.
Imagine if Power Attack was restricted to Fighters from the River Kingdoms. I'm pretty sure we would see very few melee Fighters from any other place, even if their players would rather be from Absalom.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with the Pathfinder rules is that they're written to be engaging to read rather than exact.
Rules text should be clearly delineated from fluff and should be exact, making heavy use of defined keywords.
Being explicit about things like cackle requiring (or not requiring) audibility forces the designers to think about such things. Is cackle better balanced if it can or cannot be performed in a silence spell? If a GM with less experience than Jason Bulmahn or James Jacobs wants to allow a mute witch is he breaking important balancing weaknesses or is it just fluff that can be freely discarded?
I don't know. I don't know because the writers sometimes put rules in what are normally fluff blocks. (Eg. the travel domain movement speed boost is in what is for other domains an entirely non-mechanical fluff paragraph.)
But it isn't a technical manual. It isn't dealing with things that have fixed measurements and precise instructions with limited variances.
The goal is, largely, achieving the fluff through the mechanics. Not the other way around.
|
|
IRL, rulings have to be like PFS (uniform for all) you can't say "well in kentucky, strangulation isn't murder...it's venting frustration"
in the gaming world, GOOD house rules eventually become unilaterally used, and thusly morph into RAW.Which is an unrealistic goal if you are getting to the margins. Sure, we can have agreement on 95% to 99% of all possible decisions, but GM flexibility is why it isn't a computer game.
It is simply a false goal to believe all tables can be adjudicated the same.
I would even argue it is a bad goal to have, if it supersedes the table enjoying the game.
no ones saying all tables should be the same, just the opposite, but eventually something that works really well, or things that get by passed or ignored become common place and often get adopted into RAW in later versions.
What I am saying is there is a myth of sameness being even possible as a goal. PFS games aren't going to be universally adjudicated, unless player options are so limited that all contingencies can be accounted for in a rule set all GM's can memorize infallibly.
I love that you're posting this as Abadar, who's like the god of law.
This makes me want to combine Kratos and Phoenix Wright into one character in its own game.
Being a lawyer doesn't give anyone any special insight into the rules. Last I checked, the Pathfinder CRB wasn't taught in law school, and lawyers in their professional practice are not called on to interpret it. Sure, lawyers are trained to be analytical and to derive meaning from text. So are a lot of other professions and just ordinary jobs.
The CRB and other gaming materials are written deliberately so as to be understandable to just about anyone, including 12-year olds, as another poster stated. If we ever got to the point where we needed lawyers to interpret the rules, the hobby would surely be in deep, deep trouble.
Rules interpretation is only one part of what makes a great GM, and I would say not the most important part. In point of fact one of the GMs in our group, who I consider to be better than I am, didn't go to college. I hardly think law school would have made him a better GM.
That said, there have always been "rules lawyers" in almost every gaming group. At their best, they can help others understand the game rules better, enhancing the enjoyment of all. At their worst, they can suck the life out of a game pretty efficiently.
In the end, the rules are just a framework to make for a fun game. Different groups follow the RAW as much or as little as they like, and it's all good, so long as they are havng fun.
You'll never have a rules system so complete and comprehensive so as to not require judgment and interpretation from a GM, or if you did so it would not be a game I would be interested in playing. Rule 0 is the foundation of the pen and paper RPG experience and always will be.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the case of Indomitable Faith, yes, I'd tie it to religion. It's a religion/faith trait, which is somewhat advantageous because it's in a different trait category, and you can't pick more than one trait per category.
I wouldn't have as much trouble with putting a trait providing +1 Will in a different category and giving it a non-faith flavor though. And I expect such a trait probably exists.
So my problem isn't so much with reflavoring in general, as it is with altering flavor that actually had strings attached. The examples all have fluff that causes certain restrictions or game effects (noisy, loss of concentration, trait from the faith category), and saying "that's just fluff" is weaseling out of it. It's not just fluff; it's just written with less keywording so it doesn't look like rigorous mechanics.
I really disagree with you about the trait. IMO, restrictions should only be based on game balance, and the fluff description should only be taken in consideration if it has a mechanical effect on the game.
e.g.: Cackle. The "cackle" part adds a limitation to the ability. It involves making a sound with your voice, so there are situations where it's may not be effective. This means the fluff text ("cackle madly") is a bit more than a description, because it gives the ability a limitation (whether that was the author's intention or not is a different story...)
In this case, fluff should be taken into account for GM ruling, IMO, because it kinda crosses the border into crunch territory.
Now, the Indomitable Faith trait is a whole different beast. Nothing in its description makes it more or less effective than any other +1 bonus to Will saves. It doesn't matter if that +1 comes from faith, genetics or a odd looking tattoo, in the end, the result is the same. If you keep it at whatever trait category it belongs but completely ignores its traits, nothing changes. At all.
So why should a religious (or tattooed) Fighter have an advantage on non-religious (or non-tattooed) Fighters?This restricts character creation and role playing.
That restriction is exactly what is intended; the point of traits is to reward people for picking a particular flavor. To actually give certain benefits based on which part of the campaign setting you come from, which god you worship and so on. That's also why some campaign traits are particularly powerful; basically you're being bribed to pick a flavor that's highly relevant to the campaign the GM wants to run.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being a lawyer doesn't give anyone any special insight into the rules.
I think we should be holding actual lawyers to a high standard when it comes to interpreting game rules. They're trained to look for the intent of the writer, so they should be able to see what the writer wanted even if he expressed himself poorly.
And we should be asking them to use their training in a sportsmanlike manner.
Often "rules lawyering" is a dubious art of twisting text to coax a meaning from it that's obviously not what the writer intended, but is more advantageous. A lawyer should be good at that, and should realize when someone is doing it.
And since this is a game, not a court case he's being paid to win, he should not be doing it.
I think we should be holding actual lawyers to a high standard when it comes to interpreting game rules. They're trained to look for the intent of the writer, so they should be able to see what the writer wanted even if he expressed himself poorly.
Often "rules lawyering" is a dubious art of twisting text to coax a meaning from it that's obviously not what the writer intended, but is more advantageous. A lawyer should be good at that, and should realize when someone is doing it.
And since this is a game, not a court case he's being paid to win, he should not be doing it.
But the issue is laywers do rules lawyering all the time: otherwise we wouldn't need prosecuters and defenders in lawsuits.
A Lawyer art of twisting text to coax a meaning to make it more advantageous toward their position.
Rules lawyering has nothing to do with writer intent that is just interpretation of the loser of the case. Because if they intended it another way why make it ambiguous?
The author Fish said writers intent has no meaning, the reader makes the intent.
|
|
A myth of lawyer art is twisting the text. A fact is the re-framing of the event in the light most favorable to their client.
The intent of the law is adjudicated by the judge. They make their arguments to the judge, and the judge decides. That kind of stuff is more research skill than argument skill. You literally find citations and precident, then argue it was similar to what you are trying to do.
If you can't find any, you argue what the intent of the law is. Literally, that is what you are arguing. This is why many of us laughed during the recent scotus debates on Gay Marriage when one side argued that their was no intent of legislating morality by the congress and the Justice proceeded to read a letter from the congress saying it was about morality.
Rules Lawyering, the term, has nothing to do with actual work of a lawyer. Where lawyers get slimy is when dealing with non-legal folks like juries and witnesses. That is where they twist words and try to manipulate things, because they are dealing with people who don't see this stuff every day and can be fooled by the smoke and mirrors.
Which is why if I am ever on trial, and I'm innocent, I lean toward wanting a verdict by judge rather than by jury.
Rules lawyering is taking the text and trying to extrapolate without consideration of intent. "It doesn't say I can't move when I am unconcious..." that kind of stuff.
Having someone in the GM chair who is trying to figure out what the intent of the rule was is exactly what you want. Unless you don't trust your GM, in which case, why did you put them in charge?
That restriction is exactly what is intended; the point of traits is to reward people for picking a particular flavor. To actually give certain benefits based on which part of the campaign setting you come from, which god you worship and so on. That's also why some campaign traits are particularly powerful; basically you're being bribed to pick a flavor that's highly relevant to the campaign the GM wants to run.
It may be intended, but it's still bad design IMO. A player should be free to create his character background without having to worry about it limiting their options.
|
|
That restriction is exactly what is intended; the point of traits is to reward people for picking a particular flavor. To actually give certain benefits based on which part of the campaign setting you come from, which god you worship and so on. That's also why some campaign traits are particularly powerful; basically you're being bribed to pick a flavor that's highly relevant to the campaign the GM wants to run.It may be intended, but it's still bad design IMO. A player should be free to create his character background without having to worry about it limiting their options.
Well, that's a reasonable opinion, but it's also a matter of taste. I personally lean towards the side of actually limiting some mechanics for flavor reasons. If a GM wants to differentiate several races/nations by allowing different traits to each of them, I'm okay with that. Same for faiths. "The men of the hill tribe are particularly tough and can take a trait for +1 Fortitude. The plains people are light on their feet and can take a +1 Reflex trait. The followers of the True Faith are unshakeable and can take a +1 Will trait."
I think it's important that
1) traits not be so powerful that they become almost mandatory; a small bonus to reflect an edge is better. You should still be able to execute the concept of a tough person from the plains by having a high Con. Only if you want to be the toughest possible person do you really need the trait. I think Dervish Dance is poor design because it's so extremely powerful.
2) the GM actually make sure that the list of traits reflect the flavor of his setting. So it's probably a bad idea to allow all the traits from all Paizo publications. Particularly, campaign traits from different APs than the one you're playing, should be viewed with suspicion.
I think our difference of opinion here is a matter of taste in game design, not of one way being objectively better game design.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Why is everybody presuming that laws are meant only to be accessible to lawyers? It's typically quite the opposite, actually. And often, many of the people writing laws aren't lawyers themselves, which is frequently when you run into issues with trying to interpret just what the hell the drafters meant - since they're not lawyers, they didn't know to think through all the possible ramifications of their laws that might crop up when the courts get involved. That's when you get fights about intent. Sure, they explicitly said it covers that circumstance, but this circumstance isn't exactly that one. So, is it supposed to be treated the same way or not?
2. Rules-Lawyering is a pejorative term that developed out of the negative stereotypes of lawyering and generally has very little to do with actual lawyering for the most part (as has been stated, most notably by ciretose). Rules-Lawyering is semantic quibbling and use of hyper-technical definitions of words to create or skirt corner cases in rules because language is, by its nature, generally imprecise. It's taking a clear connotation (which necessarily includes drafter intent) and applying an archaic or very specific denotation (which is typically devoid of intent, though not necessarily) to create a preferential circumstance. Also, it's typically quite annoying.