I can understand where he comes from I have a player that always argues rules but his basis is always trying to apply RL physics to how a rule is wrong. Obviously he's always wrong but it gets old.. as a gm I'm wrong on rules ALL the time. There's just so many that some hardly ever come up and when they do you realize your not really sure how it works. I'm pretty sure no one knows all the rules, including the devs, unless your rainman. Anyone claiming to I call BS on. I'm sure many GMs have made the wrong interpretation from time to time, I know I have. Sometimes GMs have to make a judgment call just to move the game along. In the end it just depends on how you handle itand correct it. I've been wrong and my players have too. But we all realize we're only human and shit happens, do it right the next time and move on. Sometimes I post in rules or advice cause me and the players really are not sure who is right or if the rule just isn't clear. But all we really expect is a larger majority of opinions to help us make our own ruling, because if your sure set to wait on a dev to rule it might be a long time or even never. Usually I try to rule IN FAVOR of the player because it streamlines the game and makes then happy. However you can bet at some point I will use that ruling for the enemy just to remind the players that it works BOTH ways ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The GM can absolutely be wrong. That's one of the biggest and dumbest lies that's ever been said (up there with 'the customer is always right'). The fact that he can alter or change the rules does not, in any way, make him 'never wrong'.
A GM who thinks he can never be wrong is a fine example of someone who should never be a GM.
What is true is that what the GM says, goes. And if he says enough stupid stuff (like this one does), then his players go, too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. Or, I only partially agree.
Sure, all humans can be wrong. And all mature humans admit it when they're wrong. The GMs responsibility is to understand the rules well enough to run a game. Every GM will be wrong from time to time, some more than others. That's OK. But a mature GM will listen to his players when they say "hey, that's not how it supposed to work" and then he'll weigh the player's perspective against his own and apply that to the RAW to figure out what's right. He might even seek other help, like player forums or FAQs or Sage Advice or hotlines or whatever.
Once he's done due diligence to be as right as he can, he can then decide to make house rules in place of those actual rules.
It appears, in this case, that the GM in question did, in fact, seek official answers and got a bad one, and he's stuck with that bad one ever since, despite clearly worded RAW that contradicts it. Now he's made his firm rule but he's not calling it a house rule, he's mislabeling it as RAW, which it isn't.
That was hard for his player to accept because he was, at least in this one case, quite correct. He now had to decide to deal with it or move on. Apparently he chose move on. Probably for the best since these two people didn't seem to see eye to eye on many things.
I am sorry for the player that had to go through this. Hope springs eternal that you find a new group or GM that can actually run a fun game instead of fiddling about discussing rules.I feel more sorry for the GM, even if I don't agree with his interpretation of the rules. I do however agree with his right to interpret them as he sees fit and it's mainly the player who seems a contemptous spoiled brat. Having played sorcerers myself, the class is hardly "broken" or " fatally nerfed" from such a minor change in the skill description.
Here's what everyone needs to get into their skulls.
The GM is never "wrong". He's right in his decisions because it comes down to it, it's his table, his rules. The fact that they may vary from what's written in print is irrelevant. The trap for both GM's and players is the occasional problem of not actually playing the same game. A player may offer clarification or a GM might request such, but ultimately one person makes the call.
On the GM's side of the equation, it is incumbent on him to wield this power with consistency, finesse, and fairness, and with the understanding that everyone, players and GM included has come to the table with the common purpose of having a good time. A GM who becomes drunk with the power he wields will generally find himself pronouncing his commandments to an empty table.
Just because a GM can change the rules, doens't mean he's incapable of getting them wrong. A congressman can still be arrested for speeding. (Even if they usually aren't)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The GM is never "wrong". He's right in his decisions because it comes down to it, it's his table, his rules. The fact that they may vary from what's written in print is irrelevant. The trap for both GM's and players is the occasional problem of not actually playing the same game. A player may offer clarification or a GM might request such, but ultimately one person makes the call.
If the GM says that you are playing Pathfinder, and then you show up and he's modified the rules so that it is more akin to 4E than the core Pathfinder ruleset, and this wasn't communicated to you beforehand, then he was misleading and is wholly at fault for not presenting to his players an accurate representation of the rules set under which they are going to play.
Along with the power to house rule as he sees fit comes a responsibility for the GM to be clear and up front to his players with those house rules. If he abuses that privilege and misleads the players, intentionally bait-and-switching on them, then he's wrong; if the miscommunication was unintentional and he then refuses to sensible compromise so that both he and the player(s) can have fun, then he's both wrong and he is not being a successful GM.
Rule 0 means that the GM is right even when he's wrong.
The point of this discussion is to show that he is indeed invoking rule 0; not a correct interpretation of a later rule.
Also, wouldn't that ruling make those items rather useless for a sorcerer? The whole point of scrolls of Knock is that you keep them around so you don't have to know or prepare it.
Well you're wrong about GMs being wrong, even if you're a GM ;). But you bring up a good point. If spell list meant only the spells a sorcerer knows, that would mean, scrolls, wands, staves, are all basically the same thing for a sorcerer. Meanwhile for a wizard they're serving their intended function, broadening your options. And while we're at it, why should a wizard be able to use a wand for a spell he hasn't prepared if a sorcerer can't use one he doesn't know? That doesn't make any sense. That it's in his book isn't doing him any more good than it is the sorcerer.
Back in the day of 1st Edition AD+D, rules were mainly something honored in the breach. Of all the DM's I played under, NONE of them used all of the rules, there were whole chunks of the books that were simply just ignored, almost all of of them who just simply made changes without seeking committee approval to do so. And every DM was essentially homeruling, and every home campaign was it's own game, and no one really cared if they were playing "D+D", because all those games with their idiosyncratic changes made by idiosyncratic DMs WERE D+D. And if we liked their games, we stayed. If we didn't we would go out seeking other GM's. But ever since 3.0, there seems to have arisen this new culture of player dictatorship and rules lawyering and...
I don't mean this to be rude but I have to honestly wonder if you read my comment at all. I didn't imply (or intend to imply) anything about "player dictatorship" or "rules lawyering".
I stated that in my opinion, a GM has a responsibility to either follow the rules as written or ensure before starting the game that everyone is reasonably aware of the changes that he's going to make; think of a poker game as an example: The dealer and\or host makes a point to let the players know what the rules at the table are before dealing the cards.
A GM who doesn't attempt to make the game fun and work with the players when they have complaints, or who springs surprise rules changes on players may not be a GM for much longer because he won't have players. Now if the GM isn't willing to learn then maybe that's for the best.
I have no problem with house rules; I use a number of them myself. But I make it a point to do my best to make those clear to the players before starting the game. If they have problems with any of them then I'll look for a compromise, and ultimately if I feel that's the way it has to work then that's the way it will work, but I feel it's a sign of immaturity to not try to reach a compromise and bat away player complaints with "I'm the GM!! Deal with it!!"
This has nothing to do with player dictatorship and everything to do with good sportsmanship and being polite and mature in something that's intended to be an enjoyable hobby. Perhaps that's an odd point of view but it hasn't served me wrong since I started gaming 20 years ago.
[edit]
As a final aside: An appeal to tradition is a fallacy for a reason. I'm sure that what you've described as 1st Ed history is accurate; that doesn't automatically make it the best way.
Rule 0 means that the GM is right even when he's wrong.
It means the GM is allowed to make and change rules at his whim. If he does so regularly "at his whim" with disregard for his players, who have a time investment in the game as well, then like a poker dealer who calls suits as wild after the game's started, he's not a very good GM and I don't think the players would agree that he's "right" in spirit even if he's right mechanically.
Back in the day of 1st Edition AD+D, rules were mainly something honored in the breach. Of all the DM's I played under, NONE of them used all of the rules, there were whole chunks of the books that were simply just ignored, almost all of of them who just simply made changes without seeking committee approval to do so. And every DM was essentially homeruling, and every home campaign was it's own game, and no one really cared if they were playing "D+D", because all those games with their idiosyncratic changes made by idiosyncratic DMs WERE D+D. And if we liked their games, we stayed. If we didn't we would go out seeking other GM's. But ever since 3.0, there seems to have arisen this new culture of player dictatorship and rules lawyering and...The GM is never "wrong". He's right in his decisions because it comes down to it, it's his table, his rules. The fact that they may vary from what's written in print is irrelevant. The trap for both GM's and players is the occasional problem of not actually playing the same game. A player may offer clarification or a GM might request such, but ultimately one person makes the call.If the GM says that you are playing Pathfinder, and then you show up and he's modified the rules so that it is more akin to 4E than the core Pathfinder ruleset, and this wasn't communicated to you beforehand, then he was misleading and is wholly at fault for not presenting to his players an accurate representation of the rules set under which they are going to play.
Along with the power to house rule as he sees fit comes a responsibility for the GM to be clear and up front to his players with those house rules. If he abuses that privilege and misleads the players, intentionally bait-and-switching on them, then he's wrong; if the miscommunication was unintentional and he then refuses to sensible compromise so that both he and the player(s) can have fun, then he's both wrong and he is not being a successful GM.
A person being lied to about the rules enjoying the game more than if the rules were unchanged is no more to the point than a drunk man being happier than a sober one.
I seem to remember 1e DnD as the era of TPK pandemic.
|
This accumulated into a lot of those houserules being integrated into the "second edition" of the brand, which was universally used in conjunction with 1st edition as both were still produced for almost a year (and sold) before second edition became the default. A lot of DM's picked and chose what to include and what to leave out. (THAC0 was universally panned)
Unearthed Arcana was still used a lot right up till the end, even though the book is still 1st edition.
3.0 didn't really translate well enough to do this and it had been almost 3 years since a published book that a lot of old school hybrid rules swap wasn't done like it was between 1st and 2nd. I liken the change from 1st and 2nd to the upgrade to PF from 3.5. There are still groups that use some of the 3.5 stuff in their home games as they play the PF system.
It seems that people forget that the DM makes up 1 person out of X number of people gathering to play the game. A communal game, a collaborative game. So it's not the DM's game, it's THEIR game. The DM is the one telling the story and has to shoulder the lions share of the work for everyone to play, so his/her opinion should count for something. However, it's wrong to propagate this absurdity that the game is the DMs alone. So if the player and DM are disagreeing, the other players are happy w/the DMs rules call, the player can either stfu and roll with it, or leave the group. Easy.
Poker is a lousy argument for an example. This isn't a competitive game where one winner cleans out the pockets of the losers. The GM is not competing against his players, and in a healthy game the players aren't competing against each other. It's a gathering to experience, plain and simple. In the classic days, we didn't require a catechism of every single change a GM was going to make before we started playing, such things were either impractical, or impossible, but more important, they generally were never asked for. The home game/house rule was the accepted default, not something that had to be warned about, or cleared for approval. There were some...Back in the day of 1st Edition AD+D, rules were mainly something honored in the breach. Of all the DM's I played under, NONE of them used all of the rules, there were whole chunks of the books that were simply just ignored, almost all of of them who just simply made changes without seeking committee approval to do so. And every DM was essentially homeruling, and every home campaign was it's own game, and no one really cared if they were playing "D+D", because all those games with their idiosyncratic changes made by idiosyncratic DMs WERE D+D. And if we liked their games, we stayed. If we didn't we would go out seeking other GM's. But ever since 3.0, there seems to have arisen this new culture of player dictatorship and rules lawyering and...I don't mean this to be rude but I have to honestly wonder if you read my comment at all. I didn't imply (or intend to imply) anything about "player dictatorship" or "rules lawyering".
I stated that in my opinion, a GM has a responsibility to either follow the rules as written or ensure before starting the game that everyone is reasonably aware of the changes that he's going to make; think of a poker game as an example: The dealer and\or host makes a point to let the players know what the rules at the table are before dealing the cards.
So you're argument is that things have changed and you don't like it? I just don't see how anything you're saying changes this fact: Rules say X. Game Master can change it to Y. This specific game master is saying it says Z and is not attempting to change it to Y.
Z is WRONG. Y would be correct under the purview of Rule 0. But that would not make Z correct. The game master is allowed to change the rules, like a lawmaker. Developers are more like the judges who interpret the rules. Players would be attorneys arguing their case, I guess. But just because a GM can change a rule, does not mean he cannot be wrong about a rule (without changing it so that he is right for his game).
|
|
I'm guessing I am the GM in question here and I feel the need to pipe in and share the full story. 1st: I have been dealing with this player for 6+ months. The group shifted from a 3.5 game to Pathfinder about 4 months ago under his suggestion. I then spent the next four months finding that my player spent a majority of his time misinterpreting the rules while I spent the entire time reading up on the new pathfinder rules so I can determine what was legitimate and what was crap he decided he could do but the rules said otherwise. In fact I found it was easier to list out the rules every couple of weeks and email them to this player to make sure he understood he was making a lot of mistakes. He and I started butting heads as soon I as I started quoting the rules to him.
WOTC and Dungeons and Dragons does have a hotline, I spent a lot of time contacting them as a player and a GM. During one GM session I had a player who wanted to design a wand wielding sorcerer. I took the opportunity to contact D&D, and interestingly enough so did one of the players who was thinking of something similar. We were both told the exact same thing. That Sorcerer's have to use magic device if the wand isn't on their known spell list. That is the 3.5 rule. When the issue came up again 4 weeks ago, I reread the rule in Pathfinder and 4th, because I wanted to make sure it hasn't changed and I was wrong. In both cases, the wording is vague as to the definition of spell list. For example I define Spell list for a character as the spells he has access to every day. For Wizards that is his spell book, for a Sorcerer his known spells, and for Clerics and Paladins its different because those classes get their spells from their god and get the entirety of the Cleric Spell list (Limited only by alignment).
So I based my decision on what I saw, which was that Pathfinder used the same definition as D&D for UMD. And since Sorcerer’s may select known spells from the Sorcerer/Wizard Spell list but “A Sorcerer’s selection is extremely limited,” I determined that Pathfinder hasn’t changed the rule whatsoever. My player defined his spell list too broadly while I viewed it in a restrictive sense.
So barring a clearly written difference in the rule by Pathfinder (which doesn't exist) I ruled that players can cast from a wand only spells they know in their spell book, as part of their known spells, or if granted by their god. My player started this thread to try to convince me I was wrong. I am sorry guys, I know all of you have your own opinions and experiences and a majority don't agree with me. But I do know the rule and absent something clearly written that changed the rule, it is the same rule: which makes sense since Pathfinder started with a template of Dungeons and Dragons.
I told my player he had 3 options: 1. Use Magic Device as a skill, 2. Contact Pathfinder and find out the rule, or 3. except my ruling. He refused all three and accused me of nerfing the game (a term he uses whenever he thinks he is right). I tired of his constant complaints and gave him a forth option, walk away. He chose to walk. And I and the group thank him for that.
The Paizo PRD is a valid source of rules for you? Is so, look this link: Spell lists. A specific section of the rules where the spell lists are listed.
I would say that that piece of the rules give us a clear definition of what is a spell list.
The GM is never "wrong".
That is a not true. That statement means the GM can make up any rules he wants. It does not mean his interpretation of the intent is always correct. If you think X=Y, and X does not equal Y then you are wrong. You may have the power to change X to Y, but your original interpretation is still wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love how this argument goes on. It makes me feel alive.
The GM can be wrong in the way a referee can be wrong. The rules may say one thing, but if a call is made, it's made. There is nothing saying that call is right and a player may dispute it, but at the end of the day, the GM still can only make interpretations and calls. These calls determine the reality of the game, but at the table, it's more akin to arguing with an umpire.
What I love, however, is the vehemence that some arguments are made in regards to GMs being right no matter what. Especially in this case, where we have sources, examples, and citations stating the rules in question. Now, don't get me wrong. I love a good houserule. But this is the forum where we discuss the interpretation of Paizo's rules regarding Pathfinder. If you need to invoke rule 0, we bring that into custom territory, which is beyond the nature of this board.
The ruling, yes, does seem a bit unfair. Yes, it does not mesh with Paizo's printed rules on the matter. But what can you do besides leave the game? I just think it's silly this discussion is here is all.
Odd how the DM posted once then disappeared. He may have done what the DM said. But he is wrong. Granted it is his game, his HOUSERULES, but they are still house rules. In the game I am currently in, our DM ruled that a 1 is always fail 20 is always pass no matter what. Sometimes this sucks, sometimes it is epic, and sometimes she missed that the roll was either of those numbers. But, it is still a house rule. Same in this case. Sorry, DM dude, you are by the RULES AS WRITTEN (AKA RAW) wrong. Doesn't matter in your game, but you are flat out wrong. Has been that way through all of 3.0 versions (3.0, 3.5, and PF). Not trying to be a jerk, just laying out the facts.
Poker is a lousy argument for an example. This isn't a competitive game where one winner cleans out the pockets of the losers. The GM is not competing against his players, and in a healthy game the players aren't competing against each other. It's a gathering to experience, plain and simple. In the classic days, we didn't require a catechism of every single change a GM was going to make before we started playing, such things were either impractical, or impossible, but more important, they generally were never asked for. The home game/house rule was the accepted default, not something that had to be warned about, or cleared for approval. There were some...
While I disagree that poker is a lousy example, you can take game of your choice and it still would function the same. Let's say baseball, for instance - it's a competitive game but you still have a team on your side. If the coach of that team tells you mid-game that you have to run the bases counter-clockwise then the players are at best going to be be horribly confused and at worst are going to tell you you're a fool and walk off.
As for the "classic days" - I'll say yet again that appeal to tradition is a fallacy for a reason, and honestly is irrelevant because it doesn't in any way indicate that the GM can never be wrong.
I don't think there's really any common ground here, so I doubt that I'll respond further.
I don't mean this to be rude but I have to honestly wonder if you read my comment at all. I didn't imply (or intend to imply) anything about "player dictatorship" or "rules lawyering".
I stated that in my opinion, a GM has a responsibility to either follow the rules as written or ensure before starting the game that everyone is reasonably aware of the changes that he's going to make; think of a poker game as an example: The dealer and\or host makes a point to let the players know what the rules at the table are before dealing the cards.
Impractical. if you're suggesting that he either needs to use strict RAW or he needs to list every house rule he will make over the course of the campaign up-front, you might as well stop pretending and just say he needs to use strict RAW.
Impractical. if you're suggesting that he either needs to use strict RAW or he needs to list every house rule he will make over the course of the campaign up-front, you might as well stop pretending and just say he needs to use strict RAW.I don't mean this to be rude but I have to honestly wonder if you read my comment at all. I didn't imply (or intend to imply) anything about "player dictatorship" or "rules lawyering".
I stated that in my opinion, a GM has a responsibility to either follow the rules as written or ensure before starting the game that everyone is reasonably aware of the changes that he's going to make; think of a poker game as an example: The dealer and\or host makes a point to let the players know what the rules at the table are before dealing the cards.
I said they should be made "reasonably aware", indicating that I recognize that they cannot be made aware of every possible change. In which case the other guideline that you stripped out - about discussing it with the players if some change makes them unhappy, to try and find a compromise - comes into play.
This is the rule that I follow in my games, across multiple systems, and I've never found it impossible, and in fact it's the same thumb rule that every other GM under which I've played follows*. If you're planning on making a major change to the way that the rules function then it's common courtesy to let the players know that up front.
*Which I recognize is anecdotal at best. I honestly didn't realize that it wasn't near-universal.
Impractical. if you're suggesting that he either needs to use strict RAW or he needs to list every house rule he will make over the course of the campaign up-front, you might as well stop pretending and just say he needs to use strict RAW.I don't mean this to be rude but I have to honestly wonder if you read my comment at all. I didn't imply (or intend to imply) anything about "player dictatorship" or "rules lawyering".
I stated that in my opinion, a GM has a responsibility to either follow the rules as written or ensure before starting the game that everyone is reasonably aware of the changes that he's going to make; think of a poker game as an example: The dealer and\or host makes a point to let the players know what the rules at the table are before dealing the cards.
No.
I have a short list of house rules. I print that out and give it to every starting player, and to every returning player when I start a new campaign. Everyone has that in their character folder right alongside their character sheet. I also ask them if they understand these house rules and if they agree with them - I give them a chance to say they don't like any of them, in which case, I'll make changes.
During the course of a campaign, we may dig up some rule and think it's weird, at which time we all, together, collaboratively, decide on whether we'll use a house rule for it or not.
Every GM I have ever known has done pretty much exactly that - tell me up front of any house rules I need to know when I join his game and then solicit player agreement for making any new house rules on the fly.
A GM who just lets a guy make a character, start playing, and then slams him with a surprise house rule that he didn't know about in mid-game is being a jerk. A GM who, in mid-game, suddenly feels like he needs to make a new house rule and simply proclaims the new house rule regardless of what his players think about it is being a jerk. GMs like that are completely forgetting that this is everyone's game. Sure, maybe it's his game, his rules, but everyone is there to have fun playing the same game and none of the players appreciate playing with a jerk.
Here's a related question.
If a spell doesn't normally appear on your class list, but you get it later through either a bloodline, patron, or what have you, does it count as being on your spell list from level 1, or only from the level at which you receive the spell?
Here's a related question.
If a spell doesn't normally appear on your class list, but you get it later through either a bloodline, patron, or what have you, does it count as being on your spell list from level 1, or only from the level at which you receive the spell?
Can you please provide the context in which this question matters?
The specific context is a SWD with the Endurance patron. Gets Bears Endurance at 4th level, but none of the stat boosting spells are on the witch class list. Just wondering if I could use a wand w/o a need for UMD since our GM lets us buy partially charged wands.
The specific context is a SWD with the Endurance patron. Gets Bears Endurance at 4th level, but none of the stat boosting spells are on the witch class list. Just wondering if I could use a wand w/o a need for UMD since our GM lets us buy partially charged wands.
Seems a bit more iffy, but I guess it's another example of interpretation in the GM's part.
When did 3.5E have a "help line"?I'm surely no expert, but I doubt they ever did.
Far more likely, it seems to me, that this dork made a bad ruling and then, when he had the chance to man-up and say "Oh, I guess I made a mistake" he took the coward's way out and made up a lie to rationalize his bad ruling "Yeah, see, this one time, yeah, I, ummmmm, uhhhh, called the hotline. Yeah, that's it. The hotline. And they TOLD me you have to prepare the spell to use the wand. Yeah, that's it. The hotline said so, so I'm right! Really! It's true! So, uhh, nyaa nyaa!"
Or something like that.
I'm pretty sure I only saw a hotline to call in Knights of the Dinner Table. Must be what he remembering. Jeez.
The actual official 3.5 FAQ on the issue being posted kind of pulls the rug from under even his dubious rationale.
It was never that way even in 3.5.
If he wants to over-ride the RAW and institute a houserule, that's legitimate. If he's claiming to just be applying the rules, and to be discussing them with somebody, then there is an obligation to act in good faith, which he did not do. If you engage in a discussion of the rules, you need to remain open to changing your position based on the actual rules. If you aren't actually open to that, then it is unethical to claim that you are really engaged in a discussion of the rules.
Another relevant point is that PFS play was mentioned. I wasn't clear from the context whether this was a PFS game or not, but if it was, then a GM absolutely can be wrong. It's one thing to cite rule 0 in a home game, but another entirely to play fast and loose with the rules in organized play.