| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And then we go get ice cream.
Is that what the kids are calling it now?
Because I like to understand how the rules work.
It's mildly disappointing that this seems to be a rare answer.
Sometimes no consensus can really be reached without dev input, either because it's too ambiguous or very poorly written.
Because I like to understand how the rules work.
The rules work...how I say they work.
Because I like to understand how the rules work.The rules work...how I say they work.
A thousand pardons Lord Richard, but the rules actually work how I say they work.
We do not approve of this message. GUARDS!A thousand pardons Lord Richard, but the rules actually work how I say they work.Because I like to understand how the rules work.The rules work...how I say they work.
One Million Years Dungeon! No trials!
Likely answered many times over -
For home games it doesn't matter, yet for Pathfinder Society games it can become very important as rulings are attempted to be somewhat uniform. It's the nature of being able to tablehop to other GM tables with the same character, and have some kind of tracking on said character.
We do not approve of this message. GUARDS!A thousand pardons Lord Richard, but the rules actually work how I say they work.Because I like to understand how the rules work.The rules work...how I say they work.
RELEASE THE HOUNDS!
RELEASE THE HOUNDS!We do not approve of this message. GUARDS!A thousand pardons Lord Richard, but the rules actually work how I say they work.Because I like to understand how the rules work.The rules work...how I say they work.
Zounds! I'll have to use the well-written Stealth rules to get out of this mess!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm more in the "they're not rules, they're guidelines" camp. Nonetheless, we have a member of our group for whom "getting it right" is very important.
I think his view is that one should play the game the way the designer intended it before introducing peculiar interpretations or tinkering with its underlying assumptions. (In that, by doing so, most people will have more fun).
He and I are also poles apart on balance (I prefer imbalance in options, he prefers disparate but equally useful options) and I suspect this is a crucial motivation for seeking RAI as well.
I understand this answer is an inherent part of many RPG's dating back to AD&D. But it devalues the work you do. If every legitimate question should be settled by what the players/GM think is best, then it calls into question the value that you're adding. Gary Gygax said we don't need a rulebook, but nothing could be further from the truth. The idea that players/GMs have to decide what is fun for them is well intentioned, but fraught with peril. The average player/GM does not have the oversight that you designers have to make robust rulings.@Laiho Vanallo — Yeah, lots of people aren't as good at interpreting the rules/making calls as they think they are, but won't hear it from anyone but a designer/developer.Then maybe this will help save us designers a lot of time (just quote this to them and see if it works?).
"Lots of people aren't as good at interpreting the rules/making calls that follow the text in an ambiguous or confusing situation as they think they are. However, this game is each of yours as much as it is the designers', so in your game, feel free to interpret things in the way that is the most awesome for your group. It doesn't have to be what the text says if your group likes another way better, so don't beat yourself up trying to wrangle the text when you could just be deciding which seems more fun and balanced."
Now they can hear it from a designer?
On the other hand, we don't have the unique insight into what works well in your game that only you have. And my post above isn't meant to be in lieu of making FAQs. In my opinion, we as Pathfinder fans (because I'm totally a mega-fan) can have the best of both worlds! Designer clarifications with global insights and GM houserules who can overturn those rules when it makes the game better using their local insights. It's like mixing your chocolate with your peanut butter!
It's been something I've struggled with a lot over recent years. I still very much find that my preferred playstyle is "you announce what you're doing in plain english, the GM then makes a ruling on how to determine success at that action, using the rulebook as a suggestion." When playing that way, there simply isn't any source more official than the GM - you're playing their game, as opposed to playing Pathfinder (note that it absolutely doesn't help if a GM doesn't tell new players this before starting play, that is just silly and asking for trouble.)
I don't play RPGs as some kind of complex rules-based game, I play them as making up a group story with the rulebook sitting to one side to help the GM adjudicate success or failure at actions. My players don't use the rulebook to tell them how to play the game, they use it to suggest whether or not something may possibly be a viable action, but not to decide the best course of action - the best course of action is the one their mind says they'd take if they were in that character's shoes at that moment (possibly influenced by narrative factors.)
I know there's a lot of people, especially those with a miniatures gaming background, for whom rules are a sacrosanct construct that define the game itself, for whom in-game decisions are made based using game theory principles using the rulebook to help them decide the best course of action. That's certainly a valid way to play, it's just not one I'm particularly interested in when it comes to RPGs - much as I still prefer my wargames to have a GM to adjudicate actions (or to play with an opponent who is happy for us to discuss sensible rulings on the spot) and allow us to play "what would really happen if these two armies faced off" as opposed to "gridless chess".
I like tactical decisions based upon real-world thinking (and yes, that really can be compatible with magic without having to resort to "but, fantasy world!") rather than upon RPG rules. Sun Tsu influences my strategic thinking far more than Jason Bulmahn does, no offense intended :) I'm a simulationist - or to be more specific, a simulationist/narrativist with very little in the way of gamist leanings. I'm usually most interested in simulating a world that is "our world, plus spellcasting, and some background force that makes the best options for an exciting story tend towards working out somehow."
However. I'm not self-centered enough to think this is the "correct", "right", "best" or worse yet "only" way to play. It's just what I prefer - the only "best" way to play is the way that you, personally, enjoy the most. Other playstyles aren't inferior - and the first thing this community needs to accept is that this really is a playstyle thing, people aren't doing it wrong just because they play differently to the way you like. The second thing this community needs to accept, however, is that expressing your preferences doesn't mean running down other people's, and that someone expressing their preferences in turn doesn't mean they are shooting down your own. It's quite possible for us to like different things, and still both be right.
We all play differently - we should rejoice in that, rather than mourning it, because otherwise half of us probably wouldn't be in the same community and buying the same products as the other half, and we would all lose out because of that.
None of the above actually answers the original question, so: It is necessary, because that is how some people like to play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't find official responses necessary.
Let me tell you a story: a couple decades ago, an eagre young gamer who ran crossover style White Wolf games had noticed about half a dozen rules questions and issues that arose in game. This being a time before online gaming communities were much of a thing (outside of newsgroups or IRC), our young heroine wrote an actual letter to White Wolf studios. Imagine her surprise to get a response, from a lead designer no less (Ethan Skemp). The quantitative type rules questions were answered directly, but the questions about more subjective things were answered with a suggestion that she knew her game and players best, and should decide what worked best for it.
Nowadays, what's called "rule zero" is bandied about casually, but to me, back then, the idea was revolutionary. I took off with it, and haven't put it down since. I'll consider official info that I find on here, but only as a suggestion. If I don't like how something works, I change it. The only FAQ I've clicked for is the current damage dice scaling one, because I'm curious to see how my chart will compare. I plan to keep mine if I like it better. :P
@ op its because some players will argue the toss over a rule for hours just so they do an extra point of damage every third round
Or something equally trivial and because they have to be right and "win" the game
|
I like official rulings because I have enough to do at the table as both a dm and player. If I'm running the game I don't want to waste time figuring out how much damage a character takes from a fall. If it's in the rules so much the better. Same as a player. I want to play the game not lets figure out what rule #20 really means.
I like official rulings because I like to know how the rules work.
The bigger reason - I read rules and think about how they work in my campaign. If there is an official ruling that it works different, knowing that means I add how I use it to my campaign notes / house rules document.
|
I just wanted to thank everyone for sharing their thoughts and opinions.
In my opinion I think people often forget this important little passage in the beginning of the Core Rule Book. Its one of my favorite passages. While not directly addressing official rulings,
It does give us the players, wether GM or player, a tremendous amount of freedom when running a home game.
The Most Important Rule
The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters
have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
Page 9 of the Core Rule Book
I guess from my experience a major component of a Pathfinder home game is trust. Do you the GM trust your players to “play nice” in the game world you are running? As a player do you trust your GM to do his best to run a fun game, a challenging game? I think that if you do have trust amongst the GM and players, you don’t necessarily need lots of official rulings. The GM can adjudicate situations and you can keep on playing rather then stopping the game and looking things up on an electronic device or in a book.
My style of GMing is where we consider the rules are there to facilitate the story, and if the rules get in the way of the story, well they can be bent a little.
I am not saying that there is a right or wrong way to play the game, this is just my preference.
When I GM Pathfinder Society Organized Play, I understand the need to stick to the Rules as Written as much as possible. Theoretically this will give people a relatively uniform experience. I think there will always be table variation because we are all human. Also when you go to a new place, you can have a reasonable expectation as to what the rules are, and won’t be tripped up by “house rules”.
Again, thank you for your thoughts and opinions. Please keep them coming. I am enjoying reading the thread.
|
This used to be a big deal in PFS, specifically because one of the PFS guides (not sure if the current version still has it; I can't find it) claimed that you had to follow rules as written short of an "official ruling", and a messageboard post wasn't enough, even if it was from a VO - it had to be the design team or the campaign co-ordinator.
The first section of p19 of the PFS guide v5.1 is the closest thing to that now, and I don't think it still supports that, but it was the only way to deal with a difficult player or GM, short of stopping playing with them - but for a lot of small communities, that meant stopping playing Pathfinder.
Edit: I just found it in v4; in v5, this whole paragraph was removed from that same area:
From time to time, campaign management staff may answer questions regarding campaign policy on the official Pathfinder Society messageboards at paizo.com. While these answers give you a good idea of the opinions of the staff on issues important to campaign play and may provide an idea of upcoming changes to the rules of the campaign, no change is to be considered official until it appears either in the most recent update to the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play (this booklet) or in the official campaign FAQ. Event coordinators are encouraged to print an up-to-date copy of both documents and have them handy for players and Game Masters to reference throughout their event.
And this is still in the current version:
If a particular issue comes up repeatedly or causes a significant problem in one of your games, please raise any questions or concerns on the Pathfinder Society Messageboards at paizo.com/pathfindersociety, and the campaign management staff or the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game development team will work to provide you with an answer to avoid confusion in the future.