| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have coined the term "Air Bud" when it comes to situations of "the rules don't say I can't".
Sometimes Air bud is completely valid, so generalizing Air Bud like this is wrong.
Guys, seriously, what the hell?
This is like a new record. :(
when the first post to start the thread was flaming people, you're bound to set new records.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, seriously, what the hell?
95% of the posts were cut. That's got to be some kind of record.
On topic, Pathfinder is generally a rules system that tells you what you're allowed to do, and assumes general common sense and straightforward rules interpretation. That said, when I GM I am willing to allow things that aren't in the rule, so long as they seem logical, would make the game more fun for everyone, and wouldn't throw off game balance.
|
TV tropes has "Ain't No rule"...
And Mr. Welch has a long list of these
24. Even if the rules allow it, I am not allowed to summon 50,000 Blue Whales.
311. Even if the rules allow it, I cannot start the game as pope.
337. Even if the rules allow it, I cannot control 20,000 pigeons and use them as flying piranha.
423. Even if the rules allow it, I cannot play a duck.
572. Even if the rules say otherwise, I cannot carry 100lbs of styrofoam without encumbrance penalties.
623. Even if the rules allow it, I cannot play a Dire Gummi Bear.
713. Even if the rules allow it, can't sink a battleship with a stapler.
715. Even if the rules allow it, I can't invent the strip joint.
754. Even if the rules give no maximum encumbrance, still can't pick up the bank and walk away with it.
930. Even if the rules allow it, I cannot circumnavigate the world on foot in one turn.
948. Even if the rules allow it, I can't catch dropped cannonballs with my teeth without drawbacks.
985. Even if it isn't in the rules, I have to use the same scale miniature as everybody else.
1197. Even if the rules allow it, I can't put a spinal mounted weapon on a bicycle.
1289. Even if the rules allow it, a laser sight doesn’t add to my chaingun’s accuracy. Yes, even if I have one on each barrel.
1408. Even if the rules allow it, I cannot fence with a katana.
1583. Even if the rules allow it, can't take a prestige class at level 4.
1600. Even if the rules allow it, I can't mount a flamethrower on a knife.
1642. No matter what the rules say, antibiotics can't make a man's head explode.
1807. Even if the rules allow it, I can't have a saber toothed walrus.
1821. Even if the rules allow it, the Soviet National Anthem doesn't qualify for the inspirational music ability.
1839. Even if the rules say otherwise, a huge back banner with an arrow pointing down at me causes a penalty to stealth checks.
1862. Even if the rules allow it, I can't hip shoot a cannon.
1883. Even if the rules allow it, my fighter can't carry a clan of halfings in his pack without penalty.
1911. Even if the rules allow it, I can't one shot guys with a feather duster.
1924. Despite what the rules say, shooting other PC's in the head does not improve morale.
1939. Even if the rules allow it, can't parry an artillery barrage with my fists.
1966. Even if the rules allow it, can't play a viking Mad Scientist.
|
754. Even if the rules give no maximum encumbrance, still can't pick up the bank and walk away with it.
930. Even if the rules allow it, I cannot circumnavigate the world on foot in one turn.
948. Even if the rules allow it, I can't catch dropped cannonballs with my teeth without drawbacks.
All these seem reasonable in a superhero game. Or Exalted (well, in Exalted the world is flat...but you could run around the edge).
1408. Even if the rules allow it, I cannot fence with a katana.
I'd allow it.
1583. Even if the rules allow it, can't take a prestige class at level 4.
Don't a lot of people allow 3rd level Eldritch Knights these days? I would.
1807. Even if the rules allow it, I can't have a saber toothed walrus.
Aren't they all saber-toothed?
1821. Even if the rules allow it, the Soviet National Anthem doesn't qualify for the inspirational music ability.
Yes it does. I pretty much hate everything they stood for...but awesome music remains awesome.
1862. Even if the rules allow it, I can't hip shoot a cannon.
1911. Even if the rules allow it, I can't one shot guys with a feather duster.
See above regarding superhero games and Exalted.
1924. Despite what the rules say, shooting other PC's in the head does not improve morale.
Well, in the Warhammer 40K universe...
1939. Even if the rules allow it, can't parry an artillery barrage with my fists.
And again, with the superhero/Exalted stuff.
1966. Even if the rules allow it, can't play a viking Mad Scientist.
Barbarian/Alchemist. Seen it done, and would absolutely allow it again.
..
.
The other stuff I'd laugh and disallow immediately, of course. Well, maybe not the Pope thing with the right player...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The trouble with asking people to 'just use common sense' (apart from the obvious assumption they even have any...), is that the game involves reality-bending magical tropes that rapidly send the setting into La-La Land.
You have a rule that can be interpreted two ways;
Interpretation A causes something ludicrous to happen.
Interpretation B causes something ludicrous to happen.
What makes Interpretation A a thoughtful, careful, well-thought out resolution,
and what makes Interpretation B a mound of stinking, abusive, expoitative cheese?
They're both silly results.
In the end, you have to invoke a gamist mindset, to ask, which of these options would allow the game to continue longest without crashing?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I get annoyed with demanding for common sense and reality. I recall playing a fantasy game where a gnome can grow two size categories bigger, fly into the air, and shoot missiles from his eye balls at an undead Dragon.
This is a game, and sometimes the rules say ridiculous things, but when you're not dealing with magic, all of a sudden it's time to use subjective "common sense". Then again, even while using magic people demand "common sense" and realism.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
TV tropes has "Ain't No rule"...
423. Even if the rules allow it, I cannot play a duck.
Nonsense. They obvioualy never heard of early editions of Runequest. Playable Race: Duck.
I get annoyed with demanding for common sense and reality. I recall playing a fantasy game where a gnome can grow two size categories bigger, fly into the air, and shoot missiles from his eye balls at an undead Dragon.
This is a game, and sometimes the rules say ridiculous things, but when you're not dealing with magic, all of a sudden it's time to use subjective "common sense". Then again, even while using magic people demand "common sense" and realism.
Is an issue. If the rules don't spell things out and leave certain assumptions unwritten, it's no surprise that not everybody is going to come to the same conclusions.
Realism tends to be even worse about that, since it's even more subjective and, as you said, in many ways antithetical to the very idea of heroic fantasy. If stict realistic adherence to medieval times were a part of Pathfinder, the party's first combat would end with half the party dying from infected wounds, another catching dysentery, and the sole survivor retiring and becoming a city guard because he was half-crippled by an arrow to the knee.
Nonsense. They obvioualy never heard of early editions of Runequest. Playable Race: Duck.TV tropes has "Ain't No rule"...
423. Even if the rules allow it, I cannot play a duck.
It's not the playing that's the problem, it's tuning it up first.
Realism tends to be even worse about that, since it's even more subjective and, as you said, in many ways antithetical to the very idea of heroic fantasy. If stict realistic adherence to medieval times were a part of Pathfinder, the party's first combat would end with half the party dying from infected wounds, another catching dysentery, and the sole survivor retiring and becoming a city guard because he was half-crippled by an arrow to the knee.
Most games are not based on 'real reality', they are based on 'fiction reality'. In other words, they are grounded in films, television series and novels rather than real history.
This means that the hero will rarely die before the end, always gets the girl, never needs to change his underwear or go to the lavatory, and doesn't catch cold or minor stomach bugs. However, it also means that some sort of internal logical and nod towards realism must be maintained. If Conan were to suddenly fly around firing lightning from his fingers, the audience would cry 'foul'. If Merlin were to suddenly pick up castles and run around with them over his head, the audience would likewise have a 'wtf' moment. We know that Conan and Merlin can do things that we can't, and that's their attraction, but we also expect that the level of fantasy remain constant and not become Looney Tunes (apart from in Toon, of course).
A more historical game can be played, but it is rare.
when the first post to start the thread was flaming people, you're bound to set new records.
Guys, seriously, what the hell?
This is like a new record. :(
The first post, which is really just the title of the thread, was flaming people? Asking people to stop using the title quote as an excuse to play jumprope with the rules is flaming now? And basically deleting everything but 6 posts makes sense?
The world of the Paizo forums is stranger than words can describe sometimes.
Also, if the topic is so offensive why not just delete the thread? Now there is just a random collection of contextless posts that make no sense. *sigh*
The trouble with asking people to 'just use common sense' (apart from the obvious assumption they even have any...), is that the game involves reality-bending magical tropes that rapidly send the setting into La-La Land.
You have a rule that can be interpreted two ways;
Interpretation A causes something ludicrous to happen.
Interpretation B causes something ludicrous to happen.
What makes Interpretation A a thoughtful, careful, well-thought out resolution,
and what makes Interpretation B a mound of stinking, abusive, expoitative cheese?
They're both silly results.
In the end, you have to invoke a gamist mindset, to ask, which of these options would allow the game to continue longest without crashing?
And sometimes the rules clearly work in one specific way no matter how much players would like it to be otherwise. Arguing the point is bad form.
|
|
Not a good record either...
Guys, seriously, what the hell?
This is like a new record. :(
Not everything that got deleted was all that bad. I know I lost an on-topic post, as did several others, in addition to all the badness that went.
The deletion was still for the best, and expected, but I admit to being surprised by how thorough it was. It was a bad thread, but I think the cleaning-out was more thorough than previously rather than the thread being that much worse than previous bad ones.
Just for the record.
It's just...it's not that hard to be decent to each other. :(
And the bulk of the people posting were. Best I can tell there were two people who threw in enough filth to get everything within 20 posts of theirs deleted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect that the mods are in a no-nonsense mood at the moment, what with a certain spammer's activities. I can't blame them, as after waking up to deal with said spammer I wouldn't want to have to put up with s*** either.
|
|
It's just...it's not that hard to be decent to each other. :(And the bulk of the people posting were. Best I can tell there were two people who threw in enough filth to get everything within 20 posts of theirs deleted.
A few of the others probably deserved it. But yeah, a lot of it was back-and-forth sniping and people's responses to it (including "Quit that.").
Posts that are replies to other posts get deleted when the original post goes, so all it takes is someone to hit "Reply", delete the quote, and post something, and it (and all other replies to a possibly innocuous post) will get purged in a thread-wipe.
On-topic: yep, this is why we have GMs.
It's just...it's not that hard to be decent to each other. :(And the bulk of the people posting were. Best I can tell there were two people who threw in enough filth to get everything within 20 posts of theirs deleted.
I had some arguments going back and forth here, so I could be one of those two you mention. But I can't remember writing something worth deleting. Very strange.
At least I'd like to get a chance to reread my posts...
Yes, SOMETIMES someone arguing this is going no where, but often times on the boards people join threads to be jerks to people who actually have a point. "They don't say you can do that" can be just as obnoxious, and destructive to a productive thread.
A number of posts were caught in the splash and taken down that weren't part of the scuffle.
In any case, what we do in our games is allow a brief discussion on what you want to do and apply modifiers to make it happen, if allowed. Longer discussions on the rules or loopholes or brokenness or whatnot occurs before the next session or after the game.
I've had good luck with players not pushing the point and going with the decision being made at the time. It's a matter of communication and letting people know from the beginning how we'll handle situations like this.
Realism tends to be even worse about that, since it's even more subjective and, as you said, in many ways antithetical to the very idea of heroic fantasy. If strict realistic adherence to medieval times were a part of Pathfinder, the party's first combat would end with half the party dying from infected wounds, another catching dysentery, and the sole survivor retiring and becoming a city guard because he was half-crippled by an arrow to the knee.Most games are not based on 'real reality', they are based on 'fiction reality'. In other words, they are grounded in films, television series and novels rather than real history.
This means that the hero will rarely die before the end, always gets the girl, never needs to change his underwear or go to the lavatory, and doesn't catch cold or minor stomach bugs. However, it also means that some sort of internal logical and nod towards realism must be maintained. If Conan were to suddenly fly around firing lightning from his fingers, the audience would cry 'foul'. If Merlin were to suddenly pick up castles and run around with them over his head, the audience would likewise have a 'wtf' moment. We know that Conan and Merlin can do things that we can't, and that's their attraction, but we also expect that the level of fantasy remain constant and not become Looney Tunes (apart from in Toon, of course).
A more historical game can be played, but it is rare.
That's not so much a matter of realism as it is consistency, I would say. It's not as much that fantasy needs to be realistic as it is that it needs to have some established rules that it follows. Conan having lightning powers or Merlin having super-strength isn't a problem because it's unrealistic; it's a problem because that doesn't fit with how the characters are established. Merlin shooting lightning bolts, or Conan performing a ridiculous feat of physical strength is something the audience is generally okay with, because that does fit the characters.
Compare that to stuff like referencing real-world human capabilities or the laws of physics when discussing what characters should be capable of, even when there's magic involved. That's the sort of "realism" that really bothers me, because it actually violates consistency of the setting. It would be like writing a Looney Tunes cartoon where Bugs hitting Elmer Fudd on the head with a hammer produces a gory head wound that splatters blood and bits of brain and skull all over the place, instead of cartoon sound effect.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, "The Rules Don't Say I Can't" is far, far more reasonable than "The Rules Don't Say You Can".
Why? Because rules (and laws) will always exist to set limits. We don't have rules saying my character can blink, scratch his head or fall in love. There are no rules saying your character can have a food she likes or an enemy she hates. In fact, there is no rule saying your character can like anything. However, none of that is explicitly forbidden by the rules, so it's all possible/allowed by them.
In some cases, the rules will tell you how something is done (e.g.:If you want to attack someone, here is how you do it) or the limits to that action (you can move however you want, but never faster than your speed says, so if you don't have the appropriate speed, you can't move that way). Of course, since the devs can't predict every possibility, there are where common sense/GM judgement must take over, or else the characters get to do stuff that is obviously against the RAI, but generally speaking, the rules are telling what you can't do.
Besides, there is another reason to allow all that which is not explicitly forbidden. This game is all about freedom of action. The greatest strength of tabletop RPGs is the freedom they give you. The possibility of trying anything you want, of creating and role playing whatever character you wish and interacting with the world in every way you can imagine.
If you take that freedom away by only allowing characters to do stuff that is explicitly allowed by the rules, what's the point? Might as well play video games. They usually have better action, faster pace, clearer rules, better game balance and more players. Hell, some of them even have a better selection of powers and abilities for the player to choose from!
What they don't have is the capability to allow you to try anything you can think of.
I grew up playing video games, I still play them on my free time, and probably will keep playing them for the rest of my life. And yet, I keep coming back to tabletop RPGs, because they give me more freedom than all electronic games put together.
Take that freedom away and tabletop RPGs are as good as dead for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Talk about a thread lobotomy. I've not been so confused visiting a thread before and almost sent a PM to Vic to report a supposed huge bug. Anyway...
Lemmy, I find the 'can't' argument unreasonable compared to 'can' because the rules are structured for your external contact with the game world. They define the manner and reason you can perform an action in an objective sense for most general cases. You interacting with yourself or what you think about yourself and others is subjective so you can't really have rules for it, not that I think they're required anyway.
However, I've seen the 'can't' argument brought up more since PFS came out and is a large reason why we can't have nice things, imo. In PFS you can basically only do what your sheet says you can. Genuine inventiveness be damned. It doesn't matter if you can describe something simply and concisely. If you don't have feature x then you can't do it. For example, even if you invest of your own time and write a beautifully constructed prayer to your god in a time of need as a one time thing, I've yet to see a table lately where the GM would give you so much as a +1 bonus to something let alone any other effect. I've seen that transition largely to non-PFS play and I utterly hate it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, "The Rules Don't Say I Can't" is far, far more reasonable than "The Rules Don't Say You Can".
Obviously the third option is the worst, "the rules say you can, but only if you have helpless prisioner/casutic slur/rumormonger/strike back/etc..."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, "The Rules Don't Say I Can't" is far, far more reasonable than "The Rules Don't Say You Can".
I can't agree to that because the rules tell us what abilities a pc has, not what all the abilities are that you do not have. If what you say was true fighters could cast spells because, apparently you can everything that the rules don't disallow.
So in reality the rules ARE telling you what you CAN do. Except for some basics like breathing, eating, loving and so on that normally every (demi-)human being is considered capable of. Anything further than those kind of basics you only can do what the rules tell you.
I was super confused for 5 seconds but then I figured this thread out. I don't think I've seen a thread nuked so hard before.
IMO, "The Rules Don't Say I Can't" is far, far more reasonable than "The Rules Don't Say You Can".I can't agree to that because the rules tell us what abilities a pc has, not what all the abilities are that you do not have. If what you say was true fighters could cast spells because, apparently you can everything that the rules don't disallow.
So in reality the rules ARE telling you what you CAN do. Except for some basics like breathing, eating, loving and so on that normally every (demi-)human being is considered capable of. Anything further than those kind of basics you only can do what the rules tell you.
I really disagree here. I don't think "basics" covers enough of what characters may do. I hold that if what the character wants to do could not be described as (sp), (su), or (ex) then it is fair game for a character to accomplish.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lemmy, I find the 'can't' argument unreasonable compared to 'can' because the rules are structured for your external contact with the game world. They define the manner and reason you can perform an action in an objective sense for most general cases. You interacting with yourself or what you think about yourself and others is subjective so you can't really have rules for it, not that I think they're required anyway.
Spitting at someone, scratching their back, cutting their hands off or simply messing with their hair is an "external contact with the game world", and yet, there are no rules for that. Should players assume those actions are not possible? What about snoring and bothering the people sleeping next to you? What about spreading rumors? Should players assume every gossiping housewife or mean schoolgirl is a 10th level Rogue capable of facing a T-Rex by herself?
Neither "The Rules Don't Say I Can't" nor "The Rules Don't Say You Can" should be treated as absolute truths, but the first statement is much closer to the spirit of the game than the second, IMO.
You can try to do anything you want. That doesn't mean you'll be successful. Since the game generally assumes its world works more or less like the real world, it stands to reason than anything a real person can attempt IRL, characters can attempt in their world.
There is no rule saying your god will give you a blessing for praying to him, but there is no rule saying it won't either. So you character can try to pray and convince his god he's worthy whatever blessing he's asking for, but it won't necessarily work.
You can try to cast spells, but if you're not a trained Wizard/Sorcerer/whatever, chances are you'll fail, because you don't have that ability, just like a character with Str 8 can't lift a 500kg object with a single hand. They can both attempt to do whatever they want, but since they don't have the necessary training or physical/mental capability to do it, they'll fail.
|
IMO, "The Rules Don't Say I Can't" is far, far more reasonable than "The Rules Don't Say You Can".I can't agree to that because the rules tell us what abilities a pc has, not what all the abilities are that you do not have. If what you say was true fighters could cast spells because, apparently you can everything that the rules don't disallow.
Bad example. The rules for spells require a class that grants spell slots and caster level, or being granted a spell-like ability. So the rules disallow a fighter just out right casting a spell.
Rules don't say I can't bull rush a grappled creature, but don't specifically say I can and what happens. Rules don't say I can't seems more valid than immunity to bull rush when you grapple.
Bad example. The rules for spells require a class that grants spell slots and caster level, or being granted a spell-like ability. So the rules disallow a fighter just out right casting a spell.IMO, "The Rules Don't Say I Can't" is far, far more reasonable than "The Rules Don't Say You Can".I can't agree to that because the rules tell us what abilities a pc has, not what all the abilities are that you do not have. If what you say was true fighters could cast spells because, apparently you can everything that the rules don't disallow.
It's not even that bad, actually. Like I said, in general, the rules either say what you can't do, or (and this is the important part) HOW to do it.
Fighters can learn how to cast spells. All they need to do is get the right training (i.e.: take a level in an spell-casting class).
Taking a level in the Wizard class, for example, is part of the process of casting Wizard spells, just like swinging a sword is part of the process of attacking an enemy (assuming you're attacking it with a sword, of course).
It's impossible to list everything you can do, so the rules list what you can't and sometimes tell you how to do something.
I was super confused for 5 seconds but then I figured this thread out. I don't think I've seen a thread nuked so hard before.You haven't been in the right threads then.
!!!
It looks like 98 posts got deleted in this thread. I'd be VERY curious to know of another thread on these boards that got at least 98 posts deleted.
The rules of the game are not "strictly permissive". They are, though, "permissive".
Strictly permissive: the rules define the entirety of the activities your character may undertake. Activities not presented are unavailable.
Permissive: the rules define activities that your character can take. Activities presented not in your character's abilities but covered elsewhere are considered unavailable. Activities not presented are adjudicated by a referee.
A GM responding "but I say you can't" is behaving exactly as the game intends. So is a GM responding "sure, roll for it" or "sure, I'll allow that using these rules". Even in PFS.
|
|
It looks like 98 posts got deleted in this thread. I'd be VERY curious to know of a thread on these boards that got more than 98 posts deleted.
I've seen at least one other thread with an entire page of the thread removed save for one post. But if we're not looking at proportional sizes, the Civil Religious Discussion thread can probably top 98 posts removed.
I think to simply dismiss air bud is unreasonable and disrespectful. At all times everyone should try to consider the point of someone else even if it sounds like madness. Madness has existed because of poorly written rules, but people refuse to recognize them which makes it harder to get it fixed.
A human can have a kobold tail, right? Feat says I CAN
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
moderating that many posts and leaving this open is basically a good way of saying come at me bro without actually saying come at me bro
either way, bros will most likely come at you
just lock it
A human can a kobold tail, right? Feat says I CANYou sure?
all aboard the crazy train!
Edit: my phone uses Swype, and I don't proof read