| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find that some people take the approach of "If the rules don't explicitly say so, I can assume my character is allowed to do X"
Example:
The rules don't explicitly say that you DON'T start with a fly speed of 10, therefor all characters must have it.
Why is it that people make assumptions like this?
I keep running into things posted on here where people are basically saying that they think the rules work a certain way, and ask if someone can disprove it...
I offer this suggestion:
If you think something needs to be interpreted, don't ask if someone can disprove it, show why you think it is a certain way!
I don't know if I'm being clear, but I will check back and clarify after a few posts...
Thoughts?
Yeah I've been in this situation
Had a druid saying they gained the animal type when they used wildshape
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find that some people take the approach of "If the rules don't explicitly say so, I can assume my character is allowed to do X"
Why is it that people make assumptions like this?
Because the opposite assumption -- if the rules don't allow you to do something, you can't -- makes for an unplayable game. As Doug Lenat found in the CYC project, it's very difficult, expensive, and time-consuming to codify all of the everyday rules of life that permit us to deal with day-to-day activities.
As a perhaps silly example, nowhere in Pathfinder does it say that characters are permitted to stand on one leg. (Actually, that's not quite true; the fluff text for the Crane Style feat says that practitioners of this style can stand on one leg. But does this mean that you need a feat to stand on one leg?)
A more serious example is facing. There is no facing in Pathfinder and hence no penalty for being attacked from behind. The absence of such a penalty is not explicit, it's simply one of the millions of unlisted things that you're not being penalized for (like wearing a red shirt, or being near-sighted, or holding a sandwich in your hand, or having not had your coffee in the morning).
So if you have to pick between everything-not-forbidden-is-permitted and everything-not-permitted-is-forbidden,.... the second literally creates an unplayable game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The burden of proof is always on the claimant. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the proof should be. The claimant must provide his proof, evidence, or reasoning that led him to make the claim.
Everyone else can either provide counter-evidence or simply debunk the claimant's false evidence (if it's false). If either of these are done adequately, the claimant has failed to make his case and must concede the point as invalid.
In the case where adequate counter-evidence cannot be produced and the claimant's evidence cannot be resonably debunked, the claimant can then assert his claim as valid.
Not before.
Can you prove that?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
look at me
look at me
I am the GM now
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So if you have to pick between everything-not-forbidden-is-permitted and everything-not-permitted-is-forbidden,.... the second literally creates an unplayable game.
I think those are both unplayable.
In the first case, it's not forbidden for my character to eat hot chili peppers to gain a fiery breath weapon, so I guess it's permitted? In the second case, there are no rules permitting my character to use a knife and fork to eat a meal, so it's forbidden?
Both extremes are, well, extreme. And neither makes for a playable game.
Better is the middle road: if it's written, I can do it, and if it's not written, I might be able to do it if it makes sense. If the rules say I cannot do it, then I cannot, and if they don't say I cannot do it, then I might not be able to, unless it makes more sense that I should be able to.
Of course, therein lie the arguments...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
NO, The ONE is always right. It doesn't matter if 6 or more people all tell him the same answer and explain why they're right and he's not. The ONE doesn't back down, it is his job and his ALONE to prove that everyone else is wrong. That the RAW stands supreme!!!
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer the "the problem doesn't exist until it happens at my table, then I'll make a quick ruling for that session and take more time after the session if I feel like it needs to be revised" approach.
Also, I don't generally worry about RAW, or RAI, or developers opinions, etc. If it works for me and my players, that's all that matters.
-Skeld
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rules argument?
A player may provide rule suggestions or rules interpretations. The rules are whatever the GM thinks they are.
If your fighter turns into a unicorn after every critical hit because the GM said so, then that is RAW.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find that some people take the approach of "If the rules don't explicitly say so, I can assume my character is allowed to do X"
Example:
The rules don't explicitly say that you DON'T start with a fly speed of 10, therefor all characters must have it.
Why is it that people make assumptions like this?
I keep running into things posted on here where people are basically saying that they think the rules work a certain way, and ask if someone can disprove it...
I offer this suggestion:
If you think something needs to be interpreted, don't ask if someone can disprove it, show why you think it is a certain way!
I don't know if I'm being clear, but I will check back and clarify after a few posts...
Thoughts?
If the premise is changed slightly, the entire discussion is changed immensely.
If the player is instead saying "The rules don't explicitly say I can't, then I can assume I can" is actually basically right. The only time "The rules don't say I can't" is trumped by "They don't say you can, either" is when the topic is a fantastic element of the game. "real world relevant" aspects of the game use the assumption that the rules are only a framework and not intended to cover every possible thing.. recognizing that GMs exist to apply common sense rulings on things that aren't explicitly said.
So, the absence of an allowance is generally not a prohibitation. "It doesn't say you can, therefore you can't" only applies to rules discussions about things like spells, monster abilities, and so on.
Of course, as Rhedyn said, the entire train of thought is moot when the GM throws rank, anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If your fighter turns into a unicorn after every critical hit because the GM said so, then that is RAW.
RAW = Rules As Written.
Thus not quite. Unless, I suppose, your GM takes a sharpie to his Player's Handbook.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See, I'm still not articulating my question well... I will use an example from earlier today:
Someone was claiming they could cast a healing spell, move, discharge the healing spell onto their ally and then CONTINUE MOVING, because touching an ally as part of the casting is a free action...
The argument was that there was no rule restricting this, and they are technically correct about that statement. There aren't rules EXPLICITLY AND SPECIFICALLY saying that you cannot move-heal-move.
However, the rules about touch spells EXPLICITLY state that you CAN:
a)cast, touch then move
or
b)cast, move then touch
or
c)move, cast then touch
They don't SPECIFICALLY restrict you from move-heal-move, but the options of a, b and c clearly spell out what IS allowed.
So by their logic, there are no rules saying you DON'T get a free wish everyday, therefor you get one?
Why is this viewpoint so prevalent? How can someone defend this?
I know I'm using an absurd example with the Wish, but it proves my point precisely. Find a rule and show it to me proving that my character DOESN'T get a wish everyday...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rules argument?
A player may provide rule suggestions or rules interpretations. The rules are whatever the GM thinks they are.
If your fighter turns into a unicorn after every critical hit because the GM said so, then that is RAW.
I would not hesitate for one second to join this game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your fighter turns into a unicorn after every critical hit because the GM said so, then that is RAW.RAW = Rules As Written.
Thus not quite. Unless, I suppose, your GM takes a sharpie to his Player's Handbook.
When we were kids, my brother took a pencil to the drawing of a unicorn on the cover of the olde monster manual. Apparently unicorns in his world were well endowed.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@OP, I'm all too familiar with the particular phenomenon you're describing.
A classic example is whether rogues can Sneak Attack undead: the Sneak Attack class feature doesn't differentiate between creature types, and there's no rules elsewhere (like in undead traits) providing an exception, therefore undead are affected by Sneak Attack just like anything else would be. But some people got used to earlier versions of D&D prohibiting SA vs undead, and don't see any rules explicitly stating "Sneak Attack even works on undead", so they think it still doesn't.
I also recall the discussion leading up to the FAQ about TWF, iterative attacks, and multiple weapons. Plenty of people were saying "Show me in the rules where it says you DON'T take TWF penalties when you make an iterative attack (or even an AoO) with a different weapon than your primary attack."
I've also seen "Show me where it says you can Spellstrike with a two-handed weapon," and plenty else.
However, your example about touch spells and movement is not necessarily an example of this particular error.
Lists of options can be a tricky thing. Sometimes they're exhaustive ("You can do X, Y and Z and nothing else"), while other times they're merely examples ("You can do X, Y and Z and so forth"). Unfortunately, there are plenty of lists in the Pathfinder rules that don't clearly dictate which type they are ("You can do X, Y and Z").
Now, you say that the listing of options X, Y and Z in the touch spell rules means you have no other options at all besides the ones listed. But it could also simply be pointing out that those options are available. (After all, there are a lot of people who think the touch must be performed at the same time as the casting, until they're shown that rule—perhaps that list of options is just trying to demonstrate total flexibility.) How did you arrive at your conclusion of which type of list it is?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One term that crops up a lot in these sorts of discussions is "permissive". Pathfinder is often touted as a "permissive ruleset", meaning that unless you can provide a rule to say you can do something, then you can't.
Personally, I consider it to be "mechanically permissive", in that the rules tell you how to adjudicate certain game-mechanical effects and their impact on the world. Wearing a red shirt offers no mechanical advantage or disadvantage (unless you're playing Pathfinder Star Trek, in which case your GM hates you), nor does standing on one leg, or picking your nose, going to the toilet, or falling asleep. So those things have no rules governing them.
Other things do have clear mechanics which delineate the structure and restrictions characters have. Such as charging, combat maneuvers, casting spells, swinging swords, and even busking.
However, I will freely point out that the rules don't cover every situation (and they know they don't). My personal favourite example is a fight against skeletons in a dining hall. One strong character decided to pick up the table he was hiding behind, and bull rush a skeleton with it. I can't remember how I dealt with it at the time, but something like not provoking the AoO because the table was in the way was granted for creativity. But that would actually be impossible if the rules were strictly permissive.
It's better to say that if the rules do cover a situation, then the rules should be considered to describe that situation in sufficient unambiguous detail that it is not possible to operate outside the circumstances presented, but if the rules are completely silent one way or the other, it's up to the GM (yes, even in PFS).
If your fighter turns into a unicorn after every critical hit because the GM said so, then that is RAW.RAW = Rules As Written.
Thus not quite. Unless, I suppose, your GM takes a sharpie to his Player's Handbook.
Not to be overly pedantic, but rules do say everything is up to GM discretion.
Not to be overly pedantic, but rules do say everything is up to GM discretion.
Perhaps not the way they used to in earlier editions:
"The rules presented 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."|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If your fighter turns into a unicorn after every critical hit because the GM said so, then that is RAW.RAW = Rules As Written.
Thus not quite. Unless, I suppose, your GM takes a sharpie to his Player's Handbook.
Not to be overly pedantic, but rules do say everything is up to GM discretion.
Actually, no:
The rules presented 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.
EDIT: Ninja'd.
|
|
Example:
The rules don't explicitly say that you DON'T start with a fly speed of 10, therefor all characters must have it.
Why is it that people make assumptions like this?
That's a matter of people not reasoning through 'the exception that proves the rule'. (Such a misused phrase. My best example of it actually in use is a sign that says "No Parking M-F 7AM-6PM". The implication is that you can park any other time you want even though it never actually says that.)
In this case - because creatures such as eagles/griffons etc DO have a fly speed, and humans DO NOT, one can infer that humans are meant to not have a fly speed despite no rule specifically stating it.
"You change them to fit your needs."
Step one) Ignore rest of that paragraph.
:P
|
This is not a great example.
But it is his example, not a hypothetical situation. And you think it is clear, but it wasn't to others, and that is what he is asking. And I don't think it is nearly as obvious as some think.
Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.
Sometimes when there is a list, it means that those are the ONLY options available. Sometimes it does not. (Usually this is because of books that came out later, but not in this case).
From the next paragraph it seems obvious when it's an enemy it's an attack action, also a free action. When it's an ally it's a free action, but is it also an attack action that automatically hits?
We just have to ask ourselves, why is this section written this way?
To determine if the list is presented in order to exclude everything NOT in the list, we can ask, what other implications are there?
(here i removed a long list of implications that belong in the other thread).
And so the DM has to analyze the implications and decide if they all make sense, then the list is exclusive. If not, then it's not, at least at that DM's table. It all depends on how long the touch lasts, is it instant or not?
I'd prefer it if they just said "even though it's free, it requires more than just a slap and so you must be stopped or hovering to deliver the touch" or "the delivery is instant as soon as you touch" then all of it would be cleared up. It would also help if they wrote "for enemies this is a touch attack that happens to be free the first time you try, and for allies a free action"
Because the opposite assumption -- if the rules don't allow you to do something, you can't -- makes for an unplayable game. As Doug Lenat found in the CYC project, it's very difficult, expensive, and time-consuming to codify all of the everyday rules of life that permit us to deal with day-to-day activities.I find that some people take the approach of "If the rules don't explicitly say so, I can assume my character is allowed to do X"
Why is it that people make assumptions like this?
It's been addressed above that the opposite is silly. And indeed, both actually are. The problem is that this response explicitly decides that amid any nuance or reason; we can burn the discussion down to two options; permissive readings or restrictive readings.
This is a completely false dilemma to present.As a perhaps silly example, nowhere in Pathfinder does it say that characters are permitted to stand on one leg. (Actually, that's not quite true; the fluff text for the Crane Style feat says that practitioners of this style can stand on one leg. But does this mean that you need a feat to stand on one leg?)
This brings to mind what would seem a perfectly reasonable caveat. One that, really, is not that out of place in ideas of rules discussions. After all, reading the rules requires us to engage in respect of certain non-outlined grammatical rule-sets and definitions. Heck, if we tried to define the lexicon of Pathfinder, we'd rapidly reach a problem that exists in trying to learn a completely alien language form in a vacuum; definitions of words (by virtue of using words) are circular.
Ergo we, as people trying to interpret the rules, are applying empirical evidence beyond just the rules. That evidence being experiences completely external to gaming; be it in linguistic ideas or, and here I reach the crux of what I want to suggest: Using our damnedable common knowledge of the Physics we assume our setting to follow to rule on the mundane and uncovered.The not-mundane? The explicitly covered in some forms by the rules? Turn to the rules in a permissive manner.
tl;dr: Given we use our experiences to read the rules in the first place, that which we know is trivially manageable by our experiences, requires no rules call out,
A more serious example is facing. There is no facing in Pathfinder and hence no penalty for being attacked from behind. The absence of such a penalty is not explicit, it's simply one of the millions of unlisted things that you're not being penalized for (like wearing a red shirt, or being near-sighted, or holding a sandwich in your hand, or having not had your coffee in the morning).
To be fair, turning around (presumably) doesn't take you more than a second. And someone trying to attack you is really easy to hear (unless stealth is playing in - but that's what stealth rules are for).
So if you have to pick between everything-not-forbidden-is-permitted and everything-not-permitted-is-forbidden,.... the second literally creates an unplayable game.
And this is a bit of a rehash of the original claim so I'd be rehashing my counterpoint.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's a matter of people not reasoning through 'the exception that proves the rule'. (Such a misused phrase. My best example of it actually in use is a sign that says "No Parking M-F 7AM-6PM". The implication is that you can park any other time you want even though it never actually says that.)In this case - because creatures such as eagles/griffons etc DO have a fly speed, and humans DO NOT, one can infer that humans are meant to not have a fly speed despite no rule specifically stating it.
The people whose job it is to interpret badly-written rules (lawyers and judges) have actually formalized a principle (in Latin, of course): Expressio unius est exclusio alterius (By expressing one thing, you exclude the others). This covers both what you can and what you can't do. When the book lists that eagles have a fly speed, it excludes things that don't have a fly speed listed from having one. When the book says that you can move five times your movement with the Run feat, it excludes you from doing so if you don't have that feat.
But when it says that clerics are required to be within one step of their god, it excludes wizards from that requirement.
I generally find that rules lawyers are, er, not very good at actual "statutory construction," and that the legal maxims are pretty good at resolving issues in the actual rules.
|
|
Also on that other thread, I don't see anyone doing that. I see people talking about rules and which rules apply, not saying "well I can because it doesn't say I can't"
So now we come to the real issue:
If someone does not explicitly say "if the rules don't explicitly say I can't then I can" then did they actually say that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Writing down house rules somewhere is a very good idea.If your fighter turns into a unicorn after every critical hit because the GM said so, then that is RAW.RAW = Rules As Written.
Thus not quite. Unless, I suppose, your GM takes a sharpie to his Player's Handbook.
I usually have sticky notes in the book as well as a secondary document with house rules. Less messy and doesn't bleed through the page that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I usually have sticky notes in the book as well as a secondary document with house rules. Less messy and doesn't bleed through the page that way.Writing down house rules somewhere is a very good idea.If your fighter turns into a unicorn after every critical hit because the GM said so, then that is RAW.RAW = Rules As Written.
Thus not quite. Unless, I suppose, your GM takes a sharpie to his Player's Handbook.
The implication of the phrase "Rules as Written" is that the word "Written" refers to the text in the official published documentation for the rules you are referencing. Unless you are specifically referring to house rules, RAW generally refers to rules written in published Paizo material, not rules that exist inside Rhedyn's head, or rules sharpied into his/her CRB for that matter.
*legal stuff, cut for length*
Huh, I never realized just how much of the principles people use for rules interpretation came from law principles. On reflection it makes sense, but it is still pretty cool.
Some of the principles include:
- Specific beats general
- Avoid making parts of the rules redundant
- Prefer the interpretation of the rules by the devs over others (since they form the body that wrote the rules)
- Avoid interpretations of specific rules that have widespread mechanical implications if other interpretations are reasonably possible
- Avoid absurd interpretations
- Use the ordinary meaning of words
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The written rules are there to give everyone common ground. That is the ONLY real common ground we can expect everyone to have. The stuff that is not written? Up to the GM, ultimately. Being the final arbiter, alone, means there are no appeals and no way to force a different decision from the GM.
Still, games need to be reasonably predictable, or people will get tired of them very quickly. The word "realism" usually comes creeping into the discussion at this point, but "predictable" and "sensible" are better options. A GM IS responsible for making a setting and a plotline that engages, and guess what? Without predictability and sensibility, we as humans can't follow stories and the like. It's the basic elements of willing suspension of disbelief. If I cast a magic missile at a monster today, and I cast it at the same sort of monster yesterday, the results better have a common theme. If dragons can fly despite being the size of a bungalow, fine, but don't then say it's impossible for a smaller animal to fly if the proper spells have been invested in it. If a human can survive a hundred dagger wounds, fine, but don't then say "you die because you got stabbed with a dagger". The rules of the fantasy world are Different from real life, obviously, but that doesn't in any way mean there are no rules. They exist, some of them are shaped by the rules of the game, some by the GM, and so on. Once set down, they are, however, CONSTANT. The dragons will not suddenly stop being able to fly because they are too big.
So, the crowd saying "everything that is not forbidden is permitted" are wrong. Those saying "everything that is not permitted is forbidden" are wrong. Those saying "since dragons can fly there ARE no rules" are also wrong.
All of it depends on your campaign, which is where you will see the expression of these rules.
This is not a great example. You've shown an example where the rules do explicitly forbid something in the rules for how touch spells work. It's a lot trickier when a power is implied by fluff or the logic of a spell or power, but not specifically explicated. That's when things can become more confusing. PF simply does not spell out every implication of every action or power. That's where it's the GM's job to adjudicate; but a hard and fast rule of "if it doesn't say it, you can't do it" is illogical in an open universe and silly in a fantasy game. Adjudication should take place on a case-by-case basis. A better iteration of your rule would be: If the rules forbid X then action which are part of the subset of X are also forbidden.See, I'm still not articulating my question well... I will use an example from earlier today:
Someone was claiming they could cast a healing spell, move, discharge the healing spell onto their ally and then CONTINUE MOVING, because touching an ally as part of the casting is a free action...
The argument was that there was no rule restricting this, and they are technically correct about that statement. There aren't rules EXPLICITLY AND SPECIFICALLY saying that you cannot move-heal-move.
However, the rules about touch spells EXPLICITLY state that you CAN:
a)cast, touch then move
or
b)cast, move then touch
or
c)move, cast then touchThey don't SPECIFICALLY restrict you from move-heal-move, but the options of a, b and c clearly spell out what IS allowed.
So by their logic, there are no rules saying you DON'T get a free wish everyday, therefor you get one?
Why is this viewpoint so prevalent? How can someone defend this?
I know I'm using an absurd example with the Wish, but it proves my point precisely. Find a rule and show it to me proving that my character DOESN'T get a wish everyday...
Actually my choice here was deliberate. Nowhere in the description of touch spells does it forbid move-heal-move.
It lists what you are allowed to do, but does not REMOVE options.One can obviously infer that the reason these options are listed is because they are what is permitted, but nowhere does it actually EXPLICITLY rule out other options.
This is the stumbling block, THIS is the problem, the "type of people" I'm talking about adopt this attitude and use it as a basis for their arguments.
They adopt the standpoint of saying like "the rules LITERALLY don't forbid me from doing this" and somehow expect that to be enough...
As I have said before, stupid and extreme examples can be used (I love employing the principles of Reductio ad Absurdum), my favorite of which is stating the the rules don't tell you that characters DON'T get free wishes, or a fly speed.
Clearly, you shouldn't have these, the intention was to work for them, but I am technically correct, the rules don't EXPLICITLY spell out that you aren't allowed to get these for free.
HOWEVER, there are people that employ this principle on a lesser level, seeking to slip ruling by, or just arguing on the internet hoping to have a thread agree with them so they can refer back to it later...
The rules on touch spells are a perfect example.
"Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll."
They use the word "may", which some argue means that they are only starting a list, to which you can add options, not completing a list.
I'm very frustrated with people who take this approach, the ones that ignore what is pretty clearly spelled out, and I guess I just want to know why they act this way... it really just winds up causing a lot of conflict.
Actually my choice here was deliberate. Nowhere in the description of touch spells does it forbid move-heal-move.
It lists what you are allowed to do, but does not REMOVE options.
One can obviously infer that the reason these options are listed is because they are what is permitted, but nowhere does it actually EXPLICITLY rule out other options.
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*legal stuff, cut for length*Huh, I never realized just how much of the principles people use for rules interpretation came from law principles. On reflection it makes sense, but it is still pretty cool.
I think it's more that the legal principles codify common sense, and the same common sense informs the more rational and dispassionate members of the gaming community.
It's fairly easy to say that "specific trumps general," for example, when there's no actual dispute and we're just having a philosophical discussion, or when I have no interest in the outcome (no dog in the fight). On the other hand, when my imaginary avatar's very survival depends on how we interpret this rule, rationality and dispassion may take a back seat to self-interest.
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.Actually my choice here was deliberate. Nowhere in the description of touch spells does it forbid move-heal-move.
It lists what you are allowed to do, but does not REMOVE options.
One can obviously infer that the reason these options are listed is because they are what is permitted, but nowhere does it actually EXPLICITLY rule out other options.
expressio unius?
You agree with me then? The options that are listed are what has been made available to the player?
We should stick to english, non-latin speakers might have trouble keeping up.
Catapultam habeo. isi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane
:)
Seems like it would be an improvement to the game to allow Move-Action-Move. Basic common sense says moving ten feet, performing an activity, then moving another ten feet doesn't take any longer than moving twenty feet then performing an activity. Let's see... you would have to perform your actions in a place where you would be able to stop. It wouldn't give you the benefits of Spring Attack, because you'd provoke AoOs...
Yup, I might add that to my ultimate house-rule edition.
Catapultam habeo. isi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane
Also a very important legal maxim, roughly equivalent to the Golden Rule.
Orfamay, if someone said this to me in court, I would duck, or hand over the money. :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The implication of the phrase "Rules as Written" is that the word "Written" refers to the text in the official published documentation for the rules you are referencing. Unless you are specifically referring to house rules, RAW generally refers to rules written in published Paizo material, not rules that exist inside Rhedyn's head, or rules sharpied into his/her CRB for that matter.I usually have sticky notes in the book as well as a secondary document with house rules. Less messy and doesn't bleed through the page that way.Writing down house rules somewhere is a very good idea.If your fighter turns into a unicorn after every critical hit because the GM said so, then that is RAW.RAW = Rules As Written.
Thus not quite. Unless, I suppose, your GM takes a sharpie to his Player's Handbook.
Oh I know what the term means; I was simply mentioning how I dealt with notes in the book.
As far as RAW goes, I consider it the beginning of the conversation rather than the end. I enjoy RPGs and the writer's work. This does not always mean I agree with everything as written -- heck, neither do they sometimes! A sticky note lets me see what I changed, where, and what the original text is so that I can see why I changed it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I realize my posts may make me look like a totalitarian dictator, but I'm actually a very reasonable GM (and player).
I just wanted to bring to light the idea that there seems to be a group of people who's viewpoint is essentially this:
"I am right about X, and unless you can show me proof that this isn't true, I will maintain my position."
They often don't (can't) produce any evidence to support their viewpoint, they instead skirt around it, citing rules SIMILAR to what they are going for, but not actually being able to support their assertions, sometimes things that (to others) clearly violate the rules.
As a GM, I have stamped this out in my group, telling my players that if they want to argue rules, they can mention it ingame (with book/page reference) and I will quickly look at it.
If this doesn't resolve it quickly, I am willing to discuss it after game. If, after THAT we don't agree, argument is over.
GM wins. Don't like it, don't play.
At this point I am ranting, and I apologize. I'm gonna stick to questions from now on and try to keep my posts a bit less emotional.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
realize my posts may make me look like a totalitarian dictator, but I'm actually a very reasonable GM (and player).
You don't come off as totalitarian. You come of as a GM. You NEED to be a little authoritative to keep the game running I find.
Being a GM is really a lot of roles and jobs rolled up in one:
1) You're the friend of the other players most of the time.
2) You want to make sure everyone at the table has fun.
3) You need to keep the game moving because if it slows down it can get less fun.
4) You are the storyteller.
5) You are the final arbiter in what happens.
6) You are expected to present enough of a challenge to the players that they feel, well, challenged.
7) At the same time, you don't want to overdo it and wipe them out.
Etc.
The point is, rules arguments get in the way of a lot of this. They reduce overall fun at the table (2), slow down the game (3), disrupt the story VERY frequently (4), and are challenging the GM's role of arbiter (5). This can harm the friendships you've formed, too (1).
This isn't to say that players shouldn't present any arguments at all concerning the rules. They just need to know when it's RIGHT to make a rules argument and when they should ask "May I talk to you after the game about that rule / at our next break?"
I often have 30 minute breaks in my games, so if anyone has a rules question or concern, I let them talk to me about it then.
I feel like I'm being infringed upon.
Don't let me stop you, though. <3
|
|
This isn't to say that players shouldn't present any arguments at all concerning the rules. They just need to know when it's RIGHT to make a rules argument and when they should ask "May I talk to you after the game about that rule / at our next break?"
I agree wholeheartedly.
My rule about rules arguments is players are welcome to address something they feel I got wrong, and I'll actually go ahead and temporarily derail the game to talk about it. If I am not convinced, the player gets one "but...", and if that rebuttal doesn't convince me, the topic is temporarily done and my ruling, ultimately right or wrong, stands until it can be revisited outside active play.