|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just curious. Why do people need official rulings? The rules can't possibly cover every situation. When Rules don't cover a situation that may arise in a game, isn't it the GM's job to adjudicate as best he or she can?
So I'm just curious, why the desire for an "official ruling?"
Thanks
|
I'm just curious. Why do people need official rulings? The rules can't possibly cover every situation. When Rules don't cover a situation that may arise in a game, isn't it the GM's job to adjudicate as best he or she can?
So I'm just curious, why the desire for an "official ruling?"
Thanks
For when the rules do cover a situation and multiple people within the game have differing interpretations.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because people want to be right. Internet debates r srsbsns.
Because people are inflexible. Some people don't want to admit they're wrong until "an official ruling" says so. They literally need Jason Bulmahn to fly out to their house, and hand deliver a monogrammed letter, notarized of course, stating what the rules are.
Because people want to understand the fundamentals behind the game, so official rulings are nice for that, to better help inform future ambiguous rules.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
-Because some people play PFS, and will therefore have a lot of different GMs who will adjudicate differently, so that character build that depends on a "grey area" may work some days, and not on other days.
-Some people are too immature to discuss rules with their GM/players like adults, so they run crying to mommy to settle their disputes for them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To shut people up
I realize it sounds crass to put it that way but in some groups you have multiple people who rotate the GM chair and often they have their own opinions on how a given rule is interprited. Even in groups with just 1 regular GM you get arguments over certain rules that can bog a game down. An argument over X+Y+Z situational Combo can get pretty heated and consume an hour of game time.
When that same argument pops up in more than one game session because one person thinks it's a winning tactic and the other refuses to accept that it works that way, you need a thrid voice that carries authority to come in and say "This is how it Works" because often the people at the table loose their objectivity when they become too invested in the argument.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For one, it is an unbiased answer to the question. While in a perfect world one could assume the GM and the Players could all just have a good time and work together, there's a lot of emotional investment in the roles played. An 'official' ruling is one that can't have claims of favoritism, self interest, or vindictiveness.
Even when the people involved are all friends who can get along, it is nice to have something that maintains the desired power curves and intent of the development group. Officials can consider more than the small specific scenario that generated the question. They may know of combinations that the GM or player doesn't know of and thus they can move to counter it. They also maintain a general equivalent level of power and similar intent. This is, of course, up for debate... but that leads me to the final point.
Any rule, even ones that are officially ruled, are free to be house ruled or modified by the GM. An 'official ruling' is a good way to have a starting point from which house ruling can expand.
Of course, in PFS, the situation is different because the GMs can't arbitrarily modify the rule system and consistency between games is paramount; official rulings drive that consistency. Also there are GMs like myself who enjoy staying as close to official rulings as possible and will revert house rules if a FAQ comes out that specifically rules differently. But that's just because I'm pedantic.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unbiased? Don't you know that Paizo obviously hates <main beneficiaries of FAQs that reduce the power scope of an ability>?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just curious. Why do people need official rulings? The rules can't possibly cover every situation. When Rules don't cover a situation that may arise in a game, isn't it the GM's job to adjudicate as best he or she can?
So I'm just curious, why the desire for an "official ruling?"
Thanks
Sometimes, it's because they don't realize how busy the Paizo staff are, and they honestly think they're not asking for that big of a thing for a designer to pop into the thread and answer their question. If you thought asking for designer commentary was truly no big deal, wouldn't you rather have that than the peanut gallery?
Sometimes, it's because the GM has shirked his responsibility to adjudicate fairly, and the player feels his only recourse for salvaging the game (i.e., his only option before walking) is "official clarification".
Sometimes, it's because the player won't stand for his toy being taken away by a reasonable interpretation of the rules by the GM, so they want to go "over his head" for something "official".
Sometimes, they have a different GM every week, and they're getting really tired of having to re-learn their own character from the ground up each session based on how each GM interprets things and they just want the insanity to end.
Sometimes, they think that their own views/opinions/interpretations are more valid than others (perhaps because they've published something before, have written lots of reviews, or most commonly just because they've been GMing for 30 years) and don't believe that anyone with lesser credentials than themselves has any place telling them they're wrong, so they'll only accept a ruling from Paizo because Paizo's the only one with enough authority to tell them they're wrong.
Sometimes, it's just that every question that gets an official ruling is something you can let your players take responsibility for instead of having to add it to the list of houserules/table rulings that you have to give your players before the game.
Sometimes, what they're actually asking for is whether an official ruling already exists and could someone just point them to it.
And I'm sure there's more reasons I've missed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't have said this a few years ago, but after being on these boards for a long time now, it is apparent to me that many of the rules don't follow the logic of the rules thereby making it impossible to adjudicate situations correctly unless the rule is clearly spelled out.
My personality type wants to "know right." That doesn't mean that I have to be right, or even have to play right. But something inside me keeps questioning the rules until I am sure of the answer. And as noted in the above paragraph, because logic can't be followed, the only way to be certain is to get an "official answer."
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I wouldn't have said this a few years ago, but after being on these boards for a long time now, it is apparent to me that many of the rules don't follow the logic of the rules thereby making it impossible to adjudicate situations correctly unless the rule is clearly spelled out.
...
And as noted in the above paragraph, because logic can't be followed, the only way to be certain is to get an "official answer."
Wow, that's pretty different from my experience.
I find with rules questions they fall in a few categories.
Sometimes a genuine question. Sometimes its a group conflict and rules question is the sorting it out phase. You also get cases where a player has already discussed it with the dm the has said no and the player wants ro counter this. Throw in a lot of pedantic rules reading and I want to tear my hair out.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There wouldn't need to be so many threads asking for an official ruling, if Paizo would update their errata.
You can't blame someone for starting a new thread, when the answer that others are relying on was only ever a single developer post, buried somewhere in a thread made years ago.
Paizo also seem reluctant to call errata 'errata', preferring to call it an 'FAQ', or a 'clarification', even when changes have been made to the actual text. Or when the intent is said to include an interpretation that 'does not compute', given the actual text.
It only apparently becomes 'errata', when a new printing goes to press, which seems ass-backward to me.
If the rule has changed, then the rule has changed, it's irrelevant when or even if, the product ever goes to a new printing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I try to get all my rulings and rules officially approved.
At some point Jason blocked my e-mail though. I think it was after I sent a "My fighter just rolled a 12 and has a +6 to hit, is that officially good enough to hit an AC 18? Thanks in advance for your time."
To be honest, the game would grind to a halt most night while we waited for an official response, but I think it was worth to really know.
|
|
PFS and its desire to minimize table variation seem to drive a lot of the rule hand-wringing.
Some people just need a high-authority to validate that their answer is right.
Some people want an official answer so they can use it as a bludgeon against their Gm or player(s).
Some people are at an honest impasse and want an answer to put the issue at hand to bed.
Some people are just curious.
-Skeld
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Appeals to developers don't hold much weight at my table. I'm the GM, and I'm the final authority. (Not that I'm a jerk about it-- I document any changes to the rules or rulings I've made on gray areas on my campaign website.)
Honestly, it's the obsession with the rules that I've noticed with PFS players (both on the boards and in real life) that have made me decide not to play or GM PFS. As a GM, I feel that I need the freedom to change things I don't like, or to make ad hoc rules decisions on-the-fly without having to look stuff up in the heat of combat.
I would imagine that my GM style would make too many PFS players get bent out of shape. Looking over the PFS GM guidelines in the Guide to Organized Play, I don't think that I'd be able to abide by the PFS GM rules, anyway-- they feel too constraining to my play style.
I'm enough of an old-school GM that I don't want any higher authority in my games than my own.
Now, out-of-game, you want to question my ruling or interpretation? Fine! Let's go out and discuss it over a beer like reasonable people. Persuade me. Why does your interpretation make the game better/more fun?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm enough of an old-school GM that I don't want any higher authority in my games than my own.
If more GMs currently running for PFS would recognize/accept/admit this of themselves, sooo many arguments and hurt feelings could be avoided. Bless you for recognizing the difference between a good home GM and a good PFS GM without putting one above the other.
I'm just curious. Why do people need official rulings? The rules can't possibly cover every situation. When Rules don't cover a situation that may arise in a game, isn't it the GM's job to adjudicate as best he or she can?
So I'm just curious, why the desire for an "official ruling?"
Thanks
I had issues with a certain GM in the past, he would interpret things from old 3.0 or even worst AD&D rules while playing pathfinder. I can understand why having an official source backing you up can be nice.
For instance for him Darkvision was spoiled by light, something that does not occurs anymore in Pathfinder, basically he was a GM with very low rule mastery and that caused many frictions with me in the group since I was the only experienced player. Alas he would only accept official ruling for anything I would call him on (politely). For things that are black and white in the rule book there was no problems however as soon something was not a 100% precise such has having to pay or not for the new familiar you get when taking Improved familiar, I needed to use backup from the forums/FAQ and calls by the devs.
I hate being a rule lawyer, I absolutely hate having to call the GM on stuff, but the fact is he as to much of a big ego to say: Hey man that make sense, sorry for miss calling this rule! So for me having the devs come out and confirm, it help me when having to deal with that GM. And we are not talking about me using insane crazy rulings or weird obscure traits to break the game we are talking about core rule-book stuff.
Appeals to developers don't hold much weight at my table. I'm the GM, and I'm the final authority.
This is exactly the opposite of how my groups play. I think this was popular back when we (my group) were kids and we could never agree so someone had to be in charge. But now we have all decided to keep the game fun for everyone. Sure the GM has to make calls that the others don't get to make, but for the most part we discuss and agree upon rules questions as a table. This ensures that when different people GM, we still follow the same rules. Everyone knows what to expect and it has worked great for years.
It's a phenomenon that, according to the players of my group who played prior editions, started with 3.0.
It's basically a side-effect of how complex the rules are; the complexity creates a tendency towards more rigid thinking within the human brain, which in turn requires more official sources of correction in order to adjust for the average person. That's part of why the 3.5 era was followed by a lot of rules-lite RPGs hitting the market and why it is 5E is trying to trend towards rules-lite.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
@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?
.
.
.
.
-Because some people play PFS, and will therefore have a lot of different GMs who will adjudicate differently, so that character build that depends on a "grey area" may work some days, and not on other days.
-Some people are too immature to discuss rules with their GM/players like adults, so they run crying to mommy to settle their disputes for them.
^
ThisEDIT: Outside of PFS your GM has the final word, doesnt need to be official rulings. Even with Official rulings some people will house rule it the way they think it should be.
Honestly, it's the obsession with the rules that I've noticed with PFS players (both on the boards and in real life) that have made me decide not to play or GM PFS. As a GM, I feel that I need the freedom to change things I don't like, or to make ad hoc rules decisions on-the-fly without having to look stuff up in the heat of combat.I would imagine that my GM style would make too many PFS players get bent out of shape. Looking over the PFS GM guidelines in the Guide to Organized Play, I don't think that I'd be able to abide by the PFS GM rules, anyway-- they feel too constraining to my play style.
I do a lot of PFS and have been running a home game for years now.
I like both games for different reasons. I find the confines of the PFS system forces me to be creative in ways that I don't naturally GM when at my home game.
At my home game, I bend and twist the rules - I don't always even apply the rules equally to my NPCs as I do to the players. It makes it fun, and the players recognize and realize that fudging happens and its all good.
To be fair, regardless of whether its PFS or a homegame, the goal is to have fun. I try and make sure that is what happens no matter what. If the scenario is poorly done in parts, or if something happens that doesn't make sense and everyone is sour about it, I will do what must be done to make sure people have a good time.
I think PFS players do focus too much on the rigidity of the system, when what they should be focusing on is having fun while they play. Certain sacrifices, I'm just not willing to make - but I think PFS needs some old school good GM's, maybe quitting isn't the right option.
|
I'm enough of an old-school GM that I don't want any higher authority in my games than my own.If more GMs currently running for PFS would recognize/accept/admit this of themselves, sooo many arguments and hurt feelings could be avoided. Bless you for recognizing the difference between a good home GM and a good PFS GM without putting one above the other.
I'm not a PFS VC or VL, but there are generally at least one of our local officers at the game days I go to. And I talk to them a lot. 90% of their VO duties are taken up by players complaining about how a GM didn't allow X from the player or did Y (which the player believes was illegal). Often in the judgment call areas. And then the VOs have to verify what really happened. I don't have figures but I'd guess it's:
20% Player doesn't understand rules10% GM made a mistake but it didn't matter
2% GM made a mistake that impacted a character negatively
68% Judgment call, VO supports the GM
A big part of these "pleas for official help" is that the players believe that there is a higher authority that might agree with them. In a home game the GM is the final arbiter but the hierarchy of PFS leads to what some people think of as an appeals process. So you have players wanting an overrule and GMs wanting an answer - any answer - that will put the issue to bed and stop the arguing.
So yeah, it's mainly a PFS problem. Don't get me wrong - I love PFS (I know it's not for everyone). But until Organized Play adds a line like "The GM decides everything at a table. Only contact your Venture-Officer if the GM is being abusive or deliberately changing scenarios to kill players" this is going to keep happening.
@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?
I agree with this, but I think there's a point that going unsaid. "Do-it-yourself, works-for-your-group" is all well and good. But some people play in multiple groups or in organized play. There's a reason I hate playing Monopoly, and that because everyone plays it differently. This isn't "wrong", but it is extremely frustrating when someone doesn't purchase a property and you get ready to bid on it, only to find out that the group has never read the rulebook and doesn't play that way. I don't mind if houserules are clarified up front, but surprise gotcha moments are bad, and official rules help to prevent this by clarifying to a person making a houserule that "This is what the official rule says if you want it to work otherwise houserule it and tell people." Basically, the argument for official rules is that people should know what counts as a fair and a foul even if they play at another location. And I at the very least believe that is important.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with this, but I think there's a point that going unsaid. "Do-it-yourself, works-for-your-group" is all well and good. But some people play in multiple groups or in organized play. There's a reason I hate playing Monopoly, and that because everyone plays it differently. This isn't "wrong", but it is extremely frustrating when someone doesn't purchase a property and you get ready to bid on it, only to find out that the group has never read the rulebook and doesn't play that way. I don't mind if houserules are clarified up front, but surprise gotcha moments are bad, and official rules help to prevent this by clarifying to a person making a houserule that "This is what the official rule says if you want it to work otherwise houserule it and tell people." Basically, the argument for official rules is that people should know what counts as a fair and a foul even if they play at another location. And I at the very least believe that is important.@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?
Oh sure, and it sucks in PFS especially (I know, I've seen it) but really any situation with multiple groups and experience table variation. I've seen table variation too, but I think in most cases, players and GMs of this game, while they might not always come to the same conclusions about an ambiguity, are at least cognizant about where those ambiguities lie. Even before becoming a designer (at which point Jason laid on his hand and instantly transmitted into my brain infinite knowledge of the game except for that totally didn't happen), I was rarely blindsided by an ambiguity that I hadn't even considered might be ambiguous. While it might be challenging to get an agreement on the answer one side or the other desires, it is usually not too hard to spot these ahead of time and either avoid building a character that requires a certain ambiguity to fall your way to be playable or else ask the GM first (and in the case of PFS, bring multiple characters and ask each GM first).
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I was rarely blindsided by an ambiguity that I hadn't even considered might be ambiguous.
What about "blindsided by something that the other person calls an ambiguity that you hadn't even considered might be ambiguous"?
Cuz man, I know I've sure run into a lot more of the latter than the former...
I was rarely blindsided by an ambiguity that I hadn't even considered might be ambiguous.What about "blindsided by something that the other person calls an ambiguity that you hadn't even considered might be ambiguous"?
Cuz man, I know I've sure run into a lot more of the latter than the former...
I usually could tell that the phrasing was confusing or thick, even if I eventually came to the conclusion that there was only one totally correct reading. I still classify that as a potential ambiguity.
Some people also don't care what the book says, even if it says X in plain English. I think it is because it messes with the way they want to do things, or have always done them. If they are the GM, they might be able to ignore it*, but if it is a player they need the support to convince a GM.
*Even some GM's have done this. My guess is that they don't like to add to many houserules and/or they just prefer to play by the actual rules.
Just like you have some people preoccupied with making sure their setting is 100% turbo official canon compatible, some folks want the rules side of their game to be 100% kosher Jason Buhlman approved.
Okay, seriously, this needs to be a thing.
I'm envisioning a picture of Jason Bulmahn giving two thumbs up with a huge grin. On one of the corners of the picture is a golden seal that says "100% Jason Bulmahn Approved."
We need this. We need T-SHIRTS of this.
Mark, since you're paying attention to the thread, could you pretty pretty please ask Jason if he'd be willing to pose for this? This would be awesome.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man, you're lucky. ;)
What I usually try to do is step back and put myself in someone else's shoes. Or another rule of thumb is that if you are someone who is guruish with fine interactions (like you are), if you have to read it even twice, then it was ambiguous and someone out there is interpreting it differently.
Incidentally, stepping back and trying to think about where other people are coming from has always been helpful for me around the forums in general.
Just like you have some people preoccupied with making sure their setting is 100% turbo official canon compatible, some folks want the rules side of their game to be 100% kosher Jason Buhlman approved.Okay, seriously, this needs to be a thing.
I'm envisioning a picture of Jason Bulmahn giving two thumbs up with a huge grin. On one of the corners of the picture is a golden seal that says "100% Jason Bulmahn Approved."
We need this. We need T-SHIRTS of this.
Mark, since you're paying attention to the thread, could you pretty pretty please ask Jason if he'd be willing to pose for this? This would be awesome.
You're thinking too small, MI!
Imagine, a black t-shirt with one of those fancy golden seals. On it, a picture of a gauntlet giving a thumbs-up. Encircling it is the motto of the Pathfinder Design Team:
"PDT-tested, Gauntlet Approved!"
... I have never wanted a T-shirt of anything so badly in my life.
(Though I still want the Jason Bulmahn T-Shirt. I'd buy them both.)
EDIT: No, seriously. I would pay up to $50 + shipping for that Jason Bulmahn shirt, and up to $35 for the black seal shirt. TAKE MY MONEY!!!!
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I'm just curious. Why do people need official rulings? ... the GM's job to adjudicate
If more GM's were diplomatic, there wouldn't be a need. Many RAW situations arise from people having different interpretations of the RAW.
If GM's would say "You know you are right, the rule works the way you think. But I'm going to rule 0 it my way" then we wouldn't need official clarifications.
For PFS games on the other hand, you can't Rule 0 things.
I'm just curious. Why do people need official rulings? ... the GM's job to adjudicateIf more GM's were diplomatic, there wouldn't be a need. Many RAW situations arise from people having different interpretations of the RAW.
If GM's would say "You know you are right, the rule works the way you think. But I'm going to rule 0 it my way" then we wouldn't need official clarifications.
For PFS games on the other hand, you can't Rule 0 things.
That is a problem with feature of PFS, not a flaw in Pathfinder. The Pathfinder rules, like the rules of every edition before them, aren't meant to cover every situation, and some are only meant to give a general idea of how to proceed rather than lock the participants into a particular situation. This engenders an environment of flexibility at the table, something crucial to the roleplaying experience--it differentiates tabletop roleplaying from, say, playing Baldur's Gate with some buddies via LAN/WAN. While all (or nearly all) tables rest on a fairly solid foundation, no two tables are quite the same in their handling of the areas in which the rules have no clear-cut answers. And that's a good thing.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Incidentally, stepping back and trying to think about where other people are coming from has always been helpful for me around the forums in general.
My wife and I do that a lot. I'll say something, and she'll get upset. Then she stops and says 'this is what I heard you say, is that what you meant to say?' and I reply 'heavens no, I meant this.'
And then we go get ice cream.
The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules.
