| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I put this in the PFS section because I imagine that home gamers most likely have enough rapport with their GM that open communication isn't much of an issue. That being said, in PFS players often have GMs that they barely know. Seeing as there are literally thousands of pages of rules and many complicated mechanics, nobody knows everything so misconceptions and mistakes occur. Erratas and FAQs further complicate things as well.
So what I want to know is: as a player, how do you handle a rules dispute in the most diplomatic way possible? For example:
Player: I am going to attack this monster
GM: you can't do that because of rule XYZ
Player: rule XYZ doesn't apply in this situation
GM: yes it does
Do you, the player, elaborate on the issue, potentially embarrassing the GM in front of the group and/or bogging the game down with a rules debate that potentially no other players care about? Do you just suck it up and play the rule the GMs way (even though you are 100% sure of their error)? Would your reaction change if the mechanic was particularly important to your build?
On a related note, what if the rules misconception is commonplace in your community? Do you start a crusade to fix the problem or just start building characters/using tactics to the misconception and conform to the group?
Tips, stories, and opinions from both vantage points would be appreciated.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find that your best bet as a player is to start off by providing too much information and then dialing it back based on the reaction of the GM:
GM: The troll charges the Cleric...
Player: I believe that movement would trigger an AoO from me as he passes, and since I have Combat Reflexes, I can take one even while flat-footed. And he's charging, right, so -2 AC?
GM: That's correct. Go ahead.
Even if it seems long-winded, it actually saves time and is less antagonistic than this:
GM: The troll charges the Cleric
Player: <rolls dice> Does a 24 hit?
GM: Hit what?
Player: I'm taking my AoO
GM: You're flat-footed, so you don't get one.
Player: I have Combat Reflexes, so I do.
GM: Fine. No, it misses.
Player: Are you including the AC penalty for charging?
GM:
|
Hey, in my opinion, there's nothing wrong with pressing the issue and explaining things to the GM.
After all, it'll be a learning experience for them, and the game will proceed fairly.
Besides; there are 1000s of rules. When I GMed at PFS, I was happy to have things explained to and corrected for me.
It's only embarrassing for the GM if he makes it embarrassing for himself.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the biggest things here is that you need to pick your battles. The GM thinking that the 2nd-level evil cleric's bane spell doesn't grant a save is not something to spend time on. Just a quick "Don't we get Will saves on that?" is as far as it should go. If the GM says no, just go with it.
Similarly, if the "discrepancy" is something that could easily be the result of a feat, template, item, buff spell, etc; then it could be that the GM is actually right, because MWAAHAHAHAAA!!!
The only time you should spend significant time to make sure it's being done right is if it's serious, like if it's the difference between life and death, or causes your character to not function, etc.
|
It happens with me a lot because I obsessively memorize rules, so I am very frequently aware of some rule that the GM is not. When it comes up, unless it is crucially important, I go "Oh, I think it's X" but if they disagree, I roll with it and bring up the appropriate ruling on my phone or tablet. At the next lull in the action (when it won't disrupt play), I'll go "Oh, by the way, I looked it up and [you were right, they don't get an AoO]/[they actually do get AoOs in that situation, because (REASON)]."
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel if you can look up the appropriate rules in a timely manner, there's no harm pausing momentarily to look it up. As long as it doesn't get out of hand.
I had a few GMs do this when I started using the Dirty Tricks Combat Maneuver.
GM: "Not sure if you can do that in this situation..."
Me: *Flips right to the mechanic in APG*
GM: *GM Reads* "Okay, but I'm limiting you to Dazzle, Blind, or Entangle for this enemy."
Me: "Cool Cool."
This happens a lot, especially with GMs new to my character. It even says in the APG that the maneuver is GM discretionary.
That's my example at least. I also agree with Jiggy, on his stance of knowing when to pick your battles.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel if you can look up the appropriate rules in a timely manner, there's no harm pausing momentarily to look it up. As long as it doesn't get out of hand.
I had a few GMs do this when I started using the Dirty Tricks Combat Maneuver.
GM: "Not sure if you can do that in this situation..."
Me: *Flips right to the mechanic in APG*
GM: *GM Reads* "Okay, but I'm limiting you to Dazzle, Blind, or Entangle for this enemy."
Me: "Cool Cool."This happens a lot, especially with GMs new to my character. It even says in the APG that the maneuver is GM discretionary.
That's my example at least. I also agree with Jiggy, on his stance of knowing when to pick your battles.
Jiggy and Brigg got the right of it. Old as the game itself, if not older, this is.
Keep two things in mind:
1. Gotta handle it respectfully.
2. Don't take too much time away from the game.
Can't quickly and reasonably resolve it? Then thank them for bringing it up and say, "That's a good point. We'll look into it after the game, but for now I'd like to keep things moving."
Then DO review it after the game. You may offer a compromise in the meantime.
General rule at tables I game at--you can bring up an objection twice. After that, it's post-game, but it IS handled. The last part is important. Also important is: don't insult the DM and don't insult other players.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Brigg brings up a good point. If you're using something that's up to GM discretion, a corner case in the rules, or even just something unusual that many GMs won't know, it's a good idea to have the book open to the right page before even starting.
I actually did something like this last night. My battle oracle has the Surprising Charge revelation, which lets me move as an immediate action once per day. When an enemy spellcaster started casting, I used it to get within reach of him. But assuming that the GM might not know the revelation if he's not that familiar with battle oracles, I handed him the book, pointed, and said, "I do this." It's only 3 lines of text, so I figured it was quicker than explaining it out loud, then possibly being asked to clarify.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Then DO review it after the game.
Too many GMs don't seem to do this. "Accept your GM's ruling and move on" is a much easier pill to swallow if you know that they'll have done their homework by the next game. I try to make sure I verify everything a player disagrees with me about, even something as basic as claiming that AoO's don't interrupt spellcasting. Yes, I really did look that up to verify that my having ruled against him was correct. He may never know it, but still.
|
Once the GM has made a ruling and is firm about it, please do not continue to argue/discuss. Unless as Jiggy says the consequences are serious.
Ask to table the issue until the next break or after the session.
And, as a corollary to the GM: if it is life or death for the PC, please be willing to be corrected with someone looking up the rule. Like the above rule, I try hard to abide by this one as well — even if the shop is closing around you, there should be time for someone to look up the rule and get it right if it means someone's PC.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is why every player should have their odd spells, feats, abilities printed out or bookmarked. Discuss tthese things with gm before the game to avoid rules disputes.
If you summon, have complete stat blocks on what you conjure.
If you sunder, have the break Items table handy.
Players are required to know how their pc works.
this will all avoid 90 percent of rules disputes.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16
|
And, as a corollary to the GM: if it is life or death for the PC, please be willing to be corrected with someone looking up the rule. Like the above rule, I try hard to abide by this one as well — even if the shop is closing around you, there should be time for someone to look up the rule and get it right if it means someone's PC.Once the GM has made a ruling and is firm about it, please do not continue to argue/discuss. Unless as Jiggy says the consequences are serious.
Ask to table the issue until the next break or after the session.
Good point, Chris. Thanks.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a player, here is how I would handle the misunderstanding of bane.
GM: "So the BBEG casts bane, and these are the effects."
Player A: "Don't we get a save?"
GM: "Bane doesn't allow save."
Player B: "Pretty sure it does..."
GM: "No, it doesn't."
ME: "GM, can I look it up while we move forward, just to make sure? I did make that Spellcraft check after all."
As a GM, here is how I would handle the misunderstanding of bane.
ME: "So the BBEG casts bane, and these are the effects."
Player A: "Don't we get a save?"
ME: "Bane doesn't allow save."
Player B: "Pretty sure it does..."
ME: "No, it doesn't. But why don't you look it up as we move forward, just to make sure."
-------------------------------
Games should be a civil discourse of ideas and creativity between people at the table, and rules that are difficult to grasp or are misunderstood rarely help that discourse. Figuring those rules out as a team is great when you have the time, and when you don't, sidelining those rules and coming back to them is good too. I prefer to pass ownership of solving those issues to a player at the table (or do it myself), and allow the rest of the table to move on.
I assume we all want to know how the game works, even the ticky tacky aspects of it, but we don't need to stall the game to get there.
|
|
When I GM, I try and introduce myself and my style, as well as getting some introduction from the players.
One of the things I say is that I know way too much of the rules for my own good, but I still make plenty of mistakes. If you think I've done something wrong or are just curious about how something works please feel free to speak up. Now sometimes the answer may just be we're going to call it DC 15 because it's not a big deal, but if necessary I'm happy to stop for a minute and look something up to make sure we get it right.
---
Different GMs have different styles. One of the big things we can do to help avoid issues like as GMs is introduce ourselves at the beginning of a scenario. Heck GMs in PFS only have 8 duties and the first is introducing yourself.
As a Pathfinder Society Organized Play Game Master running a session at a convention or an in-store event, you have the following duties.
• Introduce yourself.
• Encourage your players to introduce themselves (and their characters).
• It is recommended that you look over each player’s character sheet and previous Chronicle sheets, quickly checking wealth, equipment, calculations, and so on if time permits.
• Start playing the session.
• Play for no more than 5 hours. (Note: home games and online games do not necessarily have to follow this restriction, and some conventions may run longer slots.)
• Give each player an accurate Chronicle sheet for that scenario (see Filling Out a Chronicle Sheet, later in this chapter).
• At conventions, you may also be expected to quickly fill out scenario or module reporting sheets with additional tracking information—these sheets need to be turned in to your coordinator so she can report the results.
• When acting as both the Game Master and coordinator for an event, you are expected to report the results of your sessions on paizo.com/pathfindersociety in a timely fashion. Failing to do so has negative consequences for Pathfinder Society as a whole (see the
sidebar on page 36).
With cookies and begging.
|
|
My above post would go for the gms as well. Have your info. handy as well.
Quite a few players and gms have phones and tablets for quick lookup in case as pointed out in earlier posts.
Many good earlier posts. Just saying good player and gm prep along with before game discussion will go a very long way to avoiding rules disputes.
I.e. discussing how your lvl 10 tetori monk grapples before the game might be a good thing.
|
|
As a DM my biggest fear is making people feel I cheated them
As a result, if the player dispute me I let them check. If I get a ruling wrong os a spell in a scenario and I force the players to abide it. Then I am at fault for not reviewing that spell/ability in the scenario. That is MY FAULT as a DM for not understanding the spell. I did not spend enough time prepping the scenario. I am cheating everyone at the table for not understanding the rules I could use during the scenario.
Now if something odd comes up. Well that is much more forgiving.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, the biggest challenge is the player/GMs attitude. Too many players want to argue the minutia of the rules, often taking a lot of table time to do so, and then throw a tantrum or act like a jerk for the remainder of the session if the rule does not go their way. OTOH, I have seen plenty of GMs that immediately jump to a defensive position whenever a player questions their ruling, often dialing-up their attempts to kill the PC to punish the player.
|
|
As a GM, I *always* appreciate being corrected if I'm getting something wrong (yes, even in front of everyone!), but not at the expense of game time. If you can (quickly) show me the rule, or look it up while we move forward, I'm more than happy to go with the correction. But if it's something like, "I know I saw it somewhere, but I don't know where or can't find it", then I'm not going to stop the game for half an hour while everyone searches for it, unless it really is life or death for the PC. After the session, I'm all for clarifying the situation one way or another (and really all GMs should insist on it), as it makes for better GMing and playing in the future!
|
|
The leadership of this organized play community assumes that you will use common sense in your interpretation of the rules. This includes being courteous and encouraging a mutual interest in playing, not engaging in endless rules discussions.
Amusingly enough, engaging in lengthy rules discussions regarding minutia at the table is specifically disallowed by the OP guide.
As a player, I don't usually speak up about what I believe is an incorrect rule if it will not really change anything.
Example, the last game that I played in as a player, the relatively new GM made a number of errors:
No perception check to see a hiding rogue - rogue had a higher stealth than my PC's perception, probably wouldn't have seen them anyways.
Sneak attack through a doorway, on the diagonal - not a valid attack - but my PC would have kept walking, so the sneak attack would have happened in another 5' as my PC moved down the hallway.
No perception to see a rogue palm a dagger, then throw it for sneak attack damage in the surprise round - sleight of hand was higher than PC perception, probably wouldn't have seen it anyways.
Rogue pulled out a potion of invisibility, drank it, and then did a move action to move away, pushing the crowd out of his way - too many actions, and the rogue would have lost invisibility - rogue could have used sleight of hand to discreetly draw the potion, then when the fight happened, drink the potion, then move away using acrobatics.
All minor rule errors, but would not really have changed the outcome.
I will be talking to the GM in the near future to let them know of the errors (providing references to the rules).
If it would have been life or death of a PC, then I would have pointed out what I was seeing as an error, while getting out the reference book.
As a GM, I usually ask the player to provide me with the rule from the book (open book, finger pointing at the appropriate passage - or tablet - or watermarked page, etc..) if the rule is important to them (or I am unfamiliar with their build / feat / class ability / etc. when they want to do something that seems off to me).
I am right more often than I am wrong, but if I am wrong, I usually smile and say "Great, I learned something" and keep playing.
|
|
As a player, I don't usually speak up about what I believe is an incorrect rule if it will not really change anything.
Example, the last game that I played in as a player, the relatively new GM made a number of errors:
No perception check to see a hiding rogue - rogue had a higher stealth than my PC's perception, probably wouldn't have seen them anyways.
Sneak attack through a doorway, on the diagonal - not a valid attack - but my PC would have kept walking, so the sneak attack would have happened in another 5' as my PC moved down the hallway.
No perception to see a rogue palm a dagger, then throw it for sneak attack damage in the surprise round - sleight of hand was higher than PC perception, probably wouldn't have seen it anyways.
Rogue pulled out a potion of invisibility, drank it, and then did a move action to move away, pushing the crowd out of his way - too many actions, and the rogue would have lost invisibility - rogue could have used sleight of hand to discreetly draw the potion, then when the fight happened, drink the potion, then move away using acrobatics.All minor rule errors, but would not really have changed the outcome.
I will be talking to the GM in the near future to let them know of the errors (providing references to the rules).
If it would have been life or death of a PC, then I would have pointed out what I was seeing as an error, while getting out the reference book.
As a GM, I usually ask the player to provide me with the rule from the book (open book, finger pointing at the appropriate passage - or tablet - or watermarked page, etc..) if the rule is important to them (or I am unfamiliar with their build / feat / class ability / etc. when they want to do something that seems off to me).
I am right more often than I am wrong, but if I am wrong, I usually smile and say "Great, I learned something" and keep playing.
Better than my GM at bonekeep.
|
|
Sneak attack through a doorway, on the diagonal - not a valid attack - but my PC would have kept walking, so the sneak attack would have happened in another 5' as my PC moved down the hallway.
Hmmm? Its concealment that prevents sneaks, not cover.
And yes, my biggest pet peves with dms is not letting characters use their eyes. "You didn't say you were looking for the monster that I' responsible for telling you is in the middle of the room..."
|
|
Sneak attack through a doorway, on the diagonal - not a valid attack - but my PC would have kept walking, so the sneak attack would have happened in another 5' as my PC moved down the hallway.Hmmm? Its concealment that prevents sneaks, not cover.
And yes, my biggest pet peves with dms is not letting characters use their eyes. "You didn't say you were looking for the monster that I' responsible for telling you is in the middle of the room..."
To continue the rules discussion:
Page 195 of the CORE (Cover, 2nd paragraph):
When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from any corner of your square to the target’s square goes through a wall (including a low wall). When making a melee attack against a target that isn’t adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.
Page 196 of the CORE:
Total Cover: If you don’t have line of effect to your target (that is, you cannot draw any line from your square to your target’s square without crossing a solid barrier), he is considered to have total cover from you. You can’t make an attack against a target that has total cover.
The Diagram on page 194 illustrates this.
Is melee cover not total cover?
And yes, my biggest pet peves with dms is not letting characters use their eyes. "You didn't say you were looking for the monster that I' responsible for telling you is in the middle of the room..."** spoiler omitted **
Ouch
|
|
To continue the rules discussion:
Page 195 of the CORE (Cover, 2nd paragraph):
When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from any corner of your square to the target’s square goes through a wall (including a low wall). When making a melee attack against a target that isn’t adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.Page 196 of the CORE:
Total Cover: If you don’t have line of effect to your target (that is, you cannot draw any line from your square to your target’s square without crossing a solid barrier), he is considered to have total cover from you. You can’t make an attack against a target that has total cover.The Diagram on page 194 illustrates this.
Is melee cover not total cover?
No. Cover most definitely is NOT total cover. Total cover is a wall fully in between you and the target. Going around the corner is a -4, if that.
|
|
Partial Cover: If a creature has cover, but more than half the creature is visible, its cover bonus is reduced to a +2 to AC and a +1 bonus on Reflex saving throws. This partial cover is subject to the GM's discretion.Total Cover: If you don't have line of effect to your target (that is, you cannot draw any line from your square to your target's square without crossing a solid barrier), he is considered to have total cover from you. You can't make an attack against a target that has total cover.
Hmm, then why did they put in the word "melee" when talking about attacking diagonally, that is melee cover. They used the term in the illustration as well?
Edited for clarity
Then for me, I will class "melee cover" in the same category as "attack action" and apply a -4 penalty for future attacks on the diagonal through walls.
I learned something today. :) Game on.
Well, technically cover grants a +4 bonus to AC, not a penalty on attack rolls...Then for me, I will class "melee cover" in the same category as "attack action" and apply a -4 penalty for future attacks on the diagonal through walls.
I learned something today. :) Game on.
True, but when I am GMing, it is easier for me to apply the -4 than to tell the player to add 4 to their AC for this attack, and does xx hit?
|
|
Then DO review it after the game.Too many GMs don't seem to do this. "Accept your GM's ruling and move on" is a much easier pill to swallow if you know that they'll have done their homework by the next game. I try to make sure I verify everything a player disagrees with me about, even something as basic as claiming that AoO's don't interrupt spellcasting. Yes, I really did look that up to verify that my having ruled against him was correct. He may never know it, but still.
I will verify that he indeed does this... I was at a table Jiggy ran a while back, and he did follow up!
That's interesting. I was prompted to start this thread because of widespread misunderstandings of a few rules, namely various effect/immunity interactions, flanking rules, stealth rules, and cover rules. The latter two of those have now been brought up.
If you want an almost guaranteed rules debate, try going into stealth using an ally for cover, then move straight to a non-flanking position for a flat-footed sneak attack.
I put this in the PFS section because I imagine that home gamers most likely have enough rapport with their GM that open communication isn't much of an issue. That being said, in PFS players often have GMs that they barely know. Seeing as there are literally thousands of pages of rules and many complicated mechanics, nobody knows everything so misconceptions and mistakes occur. Erratas and FAQs further complicate things as well.
So what I want to know is: as a player, how do you handle a rules dispute in the most diplomatic way possible? For example:
Player: I am going to attack this monster
GM: you can't do that because of rule XYZ
Player: rule XYZ doesn't apply in this situation
GM: yes it doesDo you, the player, elaborate on the issue, potentially embarrassing the GM in front of the group and/or bogging the game down with a rules debate that potentially no other players care about? Do you just suck it up and play the rule the GMs way (even though you are 100% sure of their error)? Would your reaction change if the mechanic was particularly important to your build?
On a related note, what if the rules misconception is commonplace in your community? Do you start a crusade to fix the problem or just start building characters/using tactics to the misconception and conform to the group?
Tips, stories, and opinions from both vantage points would be appreciated.
I don't think anyone should be embarrassed by being wrong. I almost messed up a few days ago in a game, but my error was pointed out and the game went on.
With that said, if it is clear I just show where it is in the book. If it takes more than 30 seconds I tend to let it go, and look for more proof after the game so I can be ready if it comes up again.
Well actually I have known all of my GM's, but if I was in PFS that is what I would do.
If you want an almost guaranteed rules debate, try going into stealth using an ally for cover, then move straight to a non-flanking position for a flat-footed sneak attack.Yeah, starting your turn off by doing something the rules explicitly call out as not working tends to cause people to point that out..
I suppose that was a bit ambiguous. The soft cover stealth part is the catch, but otherwise it's legal as far as I can tell. I use it as an example because 1) the stealth with soft cover catch is strangely buried under the main heading "cover and attacks of opportunity" in the pfsrd, while the CRB places it under "soft cover" rather than "cover and stealth checks". In other words, it can be hard to find even if you're looking for it. 2) the stealth rules have been changed in an errata, so even if someone did know them, they might not now. 3) said errata is ambiguous, so you have to actually dig up a post on here by Jason Bulmahn to verify that yes, you can sneak attack from stealth.