|
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.
Rules limit options, by definition.
They just are entitled to all the mechanics if they choose backgrounds that don't match and the GM decides to follow RAW (RAW cuts both ways, of course...)
It isn't bad design to say some things require other things. Many feats have racial pre-requisites, is that bad design.
A player isn't "free" to create a background. If you are in a wild west setting and you show up with a Jedi...well maybe Rifts...but generally you are asked to stay within the limits of the setting. Having a pre-requisite for a trait is no different than a class or racial pre-requisite.
There seems to be a push for a GURPS style approach to Pathfinder by some. That is fine, but to say it is better design, or even a worthwhile goal...that is all opinion much in dispute.
It always comes down to one thing - article 90.4
huh?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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."
But here is the thing, you don't need fluff text to do that. If you want the followers of whatever faith to have a bonus to will, you just have to give them this trait. The lack of fluff text doesn't stop you from doing so, but using the fluff text as a restriction stops you from giving said trait to anyone else, no matter how much you want or how well it fits the character.
So by ignoring the fluff text, you lose nothing, and by using it as a prerequisite/restriction, you lose a lot of character possibilities. IMO, this hurts the game.Don't get me wrong, fluff is nice, but it should always be an idea, never a limitation.
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.
How powerful or puny a feat/trait/spell/class/whatever is doesn't really matter for my argument. I'm against arbitrary limitations, and fluff text is often the one to blame for them.
As a side note, I used to dislike Dervish Dance, but nowadays I see it's a decent feat, but far from OP. Except for Magi, I don't see many builds using it because it's actually pretty weak. You don't get the bonus damage from two-handed weapons, you don't get to TWF and you don't get the AC bonus from shields... So it's rather limiting.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.
Traits, like any other game resource can be restricted by GM preference. But if my GMs forbids, let's say, Focused Mind, but allows Desperate Focus because of fluff, what's the point? If he doesn't like the flavor of one of them, just tell me and I'll role-play it differently. Just like I'm willing to not play a poison-using sneaky guy if my GM says there are no ninjas in his setting. If I want to play the Ninja class, but not necessarily a ninja character, I'll just call it a Rogue or Shadow Trickster, or whatever, and role-play it in another way. This way both me and my GM will be happy.
This is only possible because the fluff text of the class is a suggestion, not a restriction.I think our difference of opinion here is a matter of taste in game design, not of one way being objectively better game design.
Non-sense! MY WAY IS THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE WAY! BOW BEFORE MY SELF-PERCEIVED SUPERIORITY!
Just kidding! ^^
I agree with you. In the end, pretty much every fluff-related difference of opinion is a matter of taste. What's cool about it is that we can disagree and still have a nice discussion about our views and how they differ.
|
The goal is, largely, achieving the fluff through the mechanics. Not the other way around.
I strongly agree with this. On one side you've got chess and checkers, and on the other side you've got storytellers and LARP.
There's obviously a balance where where both sides of the equation are important, but in combining the two, I think that the limited mechanic ultimately is designed to express the unlimited fluff, though, I sincerely do enjoy the mechanics! I think it's safe to assume (correct me) that MOST gamers are more comfortable jumping between campaign settings than they are switching rule-sets, why else would we all be here right?
That being said, I do not think that there is a strong enough argument to be made on the fluff side to say that there shouldn't be clearly cut rules in the game (which there are: PFS). In fact, in making clearly cut rules and learning them, it only makes it easier for you to know where you wanna follow, and where you wanna homebrew, rather than having 300 page long discussions about a controversial application of a rule. I think where we really get caught up is in application, not design. You will always have points to argue, but you won't always have DM's (or parties for that matter) who understand how to be reasonable when in doubt.
I always thought that D&D made great training for civil procedure. In any case, the analogy is a little off. In a game, the PCs are the lawyers advocating for their position and action. The GM is actually sitting as a judge or neutral arbitrator. In any event, the GM should be ruling from a theory of equity; that for every action the "court" has the power to create a response or remedy. A GM running a game from pure RAW, or "black letter" as lawyers would call it, would run a fair, but not entirely entertaining game. That being said, training in how to juggle multiple, often conflicting rules, is an asset to running a game. IMHO.
And Terquem, I'd say this thread falls under 12(b)(6) of federal civil procedure: failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Heh.
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.
I actually strongly agree with the intent of what you are trying to say in your first point. All laws SHOULD be written so that the average citizen can understand them without need of an attorney. Unfortunately, that is not the the state of current affairs in the USA. In reality, most significant legislation written today is written by congressional staffers, many of whom are lawyers themselves, and who can and do call upon the services of teams of lawyers who parse every word. In further fact, much of the legislation written today is actually drafted by lobbyists in the pay of corporations or other special interest groups which have their own teams of lawyers work on it, and is then introduced verbatim into the legislation by their favorite Congressman, who most likely received a significant campaign contribution either from the lobbyists, the backing special interests or both. Of course, I'm an aging cynic, and perhaps I should not burst the idealistic bubbles of others...
Fully agree with your second point that rules lawyering and actual lawyering have little to do with each other, other than a tendency to be, well, legalistic.
The English language is ambiguous, and as a result legal documents have to be more wordy (is more ambiguity a good thing?) to cover up any misperceptions of what is being outlined.
In RPGs the word count is kept down, which leaves more room for "interpretation"
Unfortunately, most people are not as smart as their momma tells them they are, and the interpretation which "appears" to be purposely skewed towards ones self and views can very likely be a genuine misunderstanding.
Case in point. the other day I was discussing with my child my disappointment in her reading capabilities and I said, for all intents and purposes she could NOT read.
She said "yes I can"
So I told her to read the sign above the door over there.
I took her at least 5 minutes to figure out which sign I was talking about, where as I thought pointing to the door and saying "the sign over the door" was pretty clear.
Then she read it to me after giving me eyes about HOW SILLY that was and how easy it was going to be. erm, just do it.
"Door must remain closed during business hours" she reads
Ok... now tell me, what does that MEAN?
That was two days ago, she has still not been able to tell me in her own words what the sign means.
This was just following a battery of Federal tests the school does every year.
No matter how poorly my child's reading comprehension is, the school insists on graduating her to the next grade every year.
excuses like "being held back would be devastating for her ego" et al.
Someday she will be a high school grad with NO READING COMPREHENSION.
This isn't the only kid like this, they are frighteningly the norm.
My older one reads better , but has gotten then understanding reading REALLY fast has some kind of benefit (they have some rewards points for who finishes how many pages of reading per semester, so the faster she goes "the better")
I feel her reading comprehension is only better, simply because her people skills and common sense are better than her younger sibling. So for her the 'concept' or 'jist' is gathered by speeding over the text.
I think this will hit her hard come high school when there are less stories and more facts to read, containing things that require abstract thought and contemplation. then I think her reading style will no longer work for her.
Both children are told they are doing 'just fine' in school and resist any further training or teaching at home.
I have so little time between traveling for work and actually working, to spend arguing with my kids over the fact that they can't actually, truthfully READ.
That's the problem.
Coupled with the pre existing ambiguity of English, and you have a population that has widely varying degrees or reading capability/comprehension trying to read the same thing and communicate with each other.
It's nothing short of the tower of babble, In English. (can you imagine trying to make a movie about that, using ONLY english and NO dubbing? Sounds like an awesome college film project! I think It could be done!)
Attorneys are trained, more or less, in certain way. IF you watch one at work, they literally skip over and trivialize things YOU think are HUGE and WAY important. "when is my lawyer going to talk about the part of...."
It happens all the time, and they are extremely frustrating people to be around for us non-attorneys.
It's not because they are stupid, it's because they KNOW PROCEDURE, and the thing you want talked about isn't going to have the 'kaboom' it would in say a normal debate setting.
They KNOW people don't understand things like you and I do. Otherwise, if everyone understood eachother, there wouldn't be work for lawyers.
The best thing to do is hire a lawyer to represent you, and then go about your daily business, let them man/woman work and do something else. If you are actually required to be present, try to look awake and attentive but occupy yourself mentally otherwise, because you are going to get lost and frustrated.
that's a lawyers world.
In my experience Only exceptionally good ones (and usually ones who practice trial law) can BOTH interact fluidly with non-lawyers AND do their job well.
For the rest of us, we haggle over rule in brevity, otherwise known as RPG RAW.
As some who just finished law school (Georgetown Law) and is preparing for the Bar I must wholly disagree with the first statement. One of the major points that comes up is "The law as written" vs "the spirit of the law" or as we know them in gaming terms RAW vs RAI. Law students are taught that both are equally important and the violation of one over the other is something that should not be done (although the flip side is that they then teach you to do exactly that).
What happens, of course, is the exact same thing that is happening on this discussion. People's individual views on what is more important come into play based on personal experience, belief system and philosophies, etc. I believe in RAI but, as any good lawyer, will not hesitate to take RAW if it works to my advantage. So saying that a practicing lawyer is not a good arbitrator for rule arguments in a gaming session, when they are willing to listen to both sides as your GM is and do not simply say that they are right because they know better, is ludicrous.
The logical fallacies that are commonly used to win cases by swaying juries full of people who do not think critically, are not useful in a cooperative role playing game setting.
Critical thinking, strong syllogisms, and evidence from rules precedence make the game stronger and allow for greater verisimilitude when the rules are called into question.
Lazy lawyer behavior is bad, diligent lawyer behavior is good.
Sometimes a departure from precedent or RAW is required though. At those times it is important to remember the first rule that the core rule book introduces, the one that says "these are guidelines, and your group decides what is best for your individual game."
In moments or areas where verisimilitude and the rule of cool work together, I am fine with allowing things not normally allowed by the rules to occur. This is usually in favor of the players, as I can always cook up another monster if I want to.
I actually strongly agree with the intent of what you are trying to say in your first point. All laws SHOULD be written so that the average citizen can understand them without need of an attorney. Unfortunately, that is not the the state of current affairs in the USA. In reality, most significant legislation written today is written by congressional staffers, many of whom are lawyers themselves, and who can and do call upon the services of teams of lawyers who parse every word. In further fact, much of the legislation written today is actually drafted by lobbyists in the pay of corporations or other special interest groups which have their own teams of lawyers work on it, and is then introduced verbatim into the legislation by their favorite Congressman, who most likely received a significant campaign contribution either from the lobbyists, the backing special interests or both. Of course, I'm an aging cynic, and perhaps I should not burst the idealistic bubbles of others...
Depends on what laws you're talking about. A good chunk of federal laws are written by staffers or lobbyists, but not all of them. On a state level, they're even more accessible.
That doesn't mean that laws can't be difficult to understand. But, more often, laws are difficult to read because they're not written like the stuff that people are used to reading on a daily basis. It's the same reason technical manuals and the like are difficult to read - it's very dry and technical, with little flavor. The necessary use of technical language that people just aren't familiar with makes laws a bit intimidating to read (understandably), but the intent of legislation drafting is to be as precise as possible while communicating the idea as basically as possible.
For the most part, laws are very readable, even if they're tedious or technical. People just don't have a lot of experience doing so. That's why they enlist attorneys - familiarity with the system that's intimidating if you haven't been around it. When I sit down and talk about relevant statutes with my clients, a vast majority of them understand what's going on once they actually get a chance to read them and/or ask a clarifying question or two.
That being said, there are absolutely some laws that are horribly written (so much so that most attorneys look at them and go, "Wait ... what?").
Depends on what laws you're talking about. A good chunk of federal laws are written by staffers or lobbyists, but not all of them. On a state level, they're even more accessible.
That doesn't mean that laws can't be difficult to understand. But, more often, laws are difficult to read because they're not written like the stuff that people are used to reading on a daily basis. It's the same reason technical manuals and the like are difficult to read - it's very dry and technical, with little flavor. The necessary use of technical language that people just aren't familiar with makes laws a bit intimidating to read (understandably), but the intent of legislation drafting is to be as precise as possible while communicating the idea as basically as possible.
For the most part, laws are very readable, even if they're tedious or technical. People just don't have a lot of experience doing so. That's why they enlist attorneys - familiarity with the system that's intimidating if you haven't been around it. When I...
You'll have to forgive my cynicism. I admire your optimistic look and your obvious ideals. 23 years of federal service, working at times closely with our legislative process, have left their mark on me. I fully admit to being less familiar with state legislation, as most of it is irrelevant to my job.
I would agree that most people with college educations could understand our laws if they took the time to read through them, particularly once they got some experience doing so and learned how to identify the important parts. However, most modern federal legislation is quite lengthy and can be intimidating to approach. It is also laden with technical jargon not accessible to most people. Then of course there is the fact most Americans just aren't interested enough to slog through it, and many Americans sadly do not have the reading comprehension skills for such material.
Finally, some areas of legislation are made deliberately ambiguous for political reasons, or are deliberately made complicated (I'm thinking of the tax code) to protect vested interests (tax attorneys and accountants), or to hide their true intent (thinking about various special interest riders that are attached to important "must-pass" legislation every year), because if that intent were fully understood, they might be edited out or endanger passage of the overall legislation. Important to note that most Congressmen themselves never read the entire length of the legislation they vote on and instead depend heavily on their staff and lobbyists they trust to interpret it or tell them how to vote.
So for an educated and interested person, I agree the laws are not inaccessible to anyone willing to take the time and make the effort. For much of the population, however, they might as well be in Latin.