What was the rules dispute that caused the most controversy in your group? What forced you to go to the forums for rulings, seek out dev clarification, and have heated debates on your group's Facebook page?
Attacks of Opportunity made a long time player/friend quit gaming entirely.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh...? Disagreements on how alignment functions in the game world, actually. Some people just have a very .. limited ability to dissociate their real world biases and morals from what they find in the game world. Either that, or they lose focus for a second and don't realize the slip, and their actions get colored a bit by their real world perspectives.
For example, the (false) belief that most people in the world are Good at heart and that by having the occasional urge to be generous to others makes you Good. No, 'Good' is not just the occasional urge to do good, it is a willingness to sacrifice to the point of personal loss to help others, because you value that other persons life as much as (or nearly as much as) your own. Even Evil characters have the occasional benevolent urge to be 'good' to others, though those particular urges are more often directed at specific people that they value, though not as much as their own life.
That's pretty much it. We rarely have issues with the other mechanics.
Actually, in my experience, it has been the rules lawyers attitudes, not any specific rules themselves, that have caused problems at tables I have played at. Heat remains even no one remembers what the argument was about in the first place.
Attacks of Opportunity made a long time player/friend quit gaming entirely.
I'm so curious about this. It's not even an obscure rule, these are some of the core game mechanics.
AD&D, wild magic effect; you and another person switch personalities at random.
What is your 'personality?'
This argument caused everyone, DM included, to quit that adventure that night.
The next?
The DM, just being surly, argues that my character doesn't know where North is without a survival skill rank.
That's not a skill! I argue. Just common knowledge!
DM goes well I don't know where it is right now (on Earth)
Well just because you're a moron who apparently needs training to know 'up'on a map doesn't mean my character who spends all his time traveling the kingdom wouldn't know where common North is I respond.
This DM and I are best friends. We just argue a lot over the past 29 years playing. ;-D
Crafting and leadership. It's easier to just ban both as players have shown themselves to be resentful if allowed in any sort of non-power gaming fashion.
|
the biggest issue I had was when my players hit level 10, and they faced their first "real" flying threat (They were getting stomped, it was supposed to be a really hard fight, but their choices reaaaallllyyy mad it a lot more difficult. I mean two of them accepted the challenge to a duel)
anyway, the enemy was hovering 15ft above the group, after taking out the one guy that had magic flight, and was full attacking them from the distance. The two remaining melee characters wanted to make full attacks in return by jumping, and were aghast that I would only allow them standard actions after making an acrobatics check to jump. This was after having an argument that no, you can't ready an action to attack a creature that is hitting you beyond your reach. It went on for about 45 minutes.
@Erpa, I'd argue you needed a survival check for that as well unless you had a compass. I mean, you would be surprised how many people have no clue how to discern north. Even when the sun is up.
@Erpa, I'd argue you needed a survival check for that as well unless you had a compass. I mean, you would be surprised how many people have no clue how to discern north. Even when the sun is up.
Oh, very much so, I quite agree!
In the context of the adventure, we were playing in our home kingdom, on roads we commonly frequent, and were just starting going in the general direction of 'the place.' we did have a survivalist with us, who would take over tracking, but I refused to concede that I wouldn't know the direction of just 'north.'
Attacks of Opportunity made a long time player/friend quit gaming entirely.I'm so curious about this. It's not even an obscure rule, these are some of the core game mechanics.
I don't remember all the details, but let me see what I can dig up from my memory. I've known this guy over 30 years, but this occurred in about 2002 in a D&D 3.0 game. We had had a house rule (or maybe it was official. I can't recall) since 1e that if a foe turns to run you get a "free shot" at them, be it ranged or melee. When he ran through an adjacent space to the foe and was hit by the AoO he got mad. It happened again. Then he demanded an explanation of how it happened and why (he didn't own a 3.0 rulebook so had relied on using a friend's to create his character). I answered his questions and he still said they made no sense to him. He said it wasn't fair that the enemies got to do this to the PCs. Insisted on that, in fact.
So, advance 2 weeks at the next game. His character got whacked with an AoO. This time he threw down his character sheet, hurled his dice around the room, and sat there and sulked the rest of the evening because he had ridden to the game with his roommate, who wasn't about to leave. He stopped gaming after that and a few years later, after he was married, he quit buying comics and action figures and put every single article of gaming material he owned on the curb in milk crates. Fortunately, his former roomie saw them and rescued them from the garbage collectors.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Illusion magic...it amazes me how many people just assume it is mind affecting just because it involves a will save. It also amazes me how many people seem to think just looking at an illusion gives you an automatic save attempt.
I will not even consider using illusion magic in a game any more unless I have discussed it in detail with the GM in advance.
I once had an hour long argument with a DM over whether or not you could stand ontop of an unseen servant. According to him, the object made of force can only hold 50 pounds of weight. According to me, its made of Force magic and thus should be solid under any amount of weight ala a wall of force and the 50lbs is only its carrying capacity.
I just wanted my Dwarf Wizard to be able to look a guy in the eye for an intimidation check, thats all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shroudedinlight,
Unfortunately your take on the unseen servant would allow it to hold of a collapsing mountain, useful but a bit OP for a low level spell. If the situation comes up again consider having the servant hold an object as a ladder steady for your dwarf, as the ladder will support most of your weight, with the servant's portion of the load is within its capacity. Think like a Dwarf, tools are more than just your friends, they are your life.
Were it a Force effect like I thought at the time, it could certainly hold up a mountain. Exactly however much space the unseen servant occupied and nothing more. It wouldn't protect anything around its location, would crush anything trying to hide underneath it (since it couldn't hold the weight up it would be "crushed" underneath), and would be trapped under a mountain of rubble unable to apply sufficient force to escape.
Unfortunately, as was pointed out to me, the Unseen Servant while a "force" is not a "Force" and is listed as a [Creation] effect not a [Force] effect like wall of force. Additionally, we like to think of Unseen Servant as occupying a specific location but it is "shapeless" so while it occupies a square it does not do so as a small invisible force robot but rather an insubstantial mist of potential. Additionally, as it isn't a Force Effect the Unseen Servant is subject to AoE damage and can be easily destroyed despite being basically a shapeless extension of your willpower given physical limitations.
I did have a step-ladder handy, but it made me severely reconsider the spell being worth a slot in my preparation list just to avoid further...discussions over its functions. I'll probably get over it eventually, its too useful not to keep around in my tool-box.
I once used it to ah...distract a group of Jiang-shi by having it attempt to sweep away the dust of any of them that collapsed.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had a AD&D 1e DM who was a very two-dimensional thinker, so he presumed every PC/NPC was as well. You would literally never get details about anything above a forward plane of vision unless you specified you were looking up. This came to a head when our PC group was surprised (as in, suddenly in melee with no warning) by an enemy walking on the ceiling of a 10' tall corridor. I had to resort to sketches to show that not only would his head be at our chest level, but his cloak would likely be dragging on the floor.
I remember having a DM in 1e who would make you look in every direction, up, down, and all around. If you didn't you were guaranteed to have a monster pop up.
|
A simple automatically linked word in the flavor text of a mythic ability on the d20pfsrd web page broke a game once. As read on that website, it automatically applied the pin condition. A big point of debate that ended up with us banning an ability.
Back in 3.5, there was a huge argument about whether a scroll with multiple spells written on it would trigger all the spells in the action to use the scroll. It happened early in a session, and pretty much dissolved that group.
A channel energy user picking up control undead always brings me GM stress, because the rules are disparate, spread out across multiple spells and feats (max HD over here, what you can do with them over there, how intelligent undead respond in a third location). Pain in the butt.
Blind vs. blinded.
Agree with the difficulty with this condition. We almost never argue at my tables, because we understand that the game is nothing to get really upset over or anything like that.
That being said, blinded isn't really clarified in much detail so it gets interpreted in several ways.
It already has serious mechanical penalties that hamper characters, but when you read the text (you can't see).... that really totally eliminates you from doing anything at all. You cannot navigate, cannot target, no line of sight, cannot attack, cannot defend, cannot find items, cannot read. You literally are doomed, unless you're a giant bat with 120 foot blind-sense. And it's granted as a permanent effect from a 2nd level wizard spell lol!
We eventually concluded that it is a form of light blindness or vision obstruction but not total blindness, and that you can still act normally, but are only limited by the mechanical penalties.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
None.
I apply the rules as I understand them. If a player disagrees, I'm fully open to having that player help me understand their interpretation of the rule. Once we've both read the rule in the book, we almost always agree on how to apply it (which means one of us realizes we were wrong, admits it, and we move on).
On those occasions where a rule is ambiguous and the player and I can't immediately resolve it in an agreeable fashion, I ask the other players to essentially vote on how we as a group want to handle this rule today and going forward. Everybody gets a voice. A minute or two of discussion and usually we have a majority. This can also result in house rules being created, as long as the group as a whole likes the solution.
On those rare occasions where we can't get a majority opinion on an ambiguous rule, I just suggest something like "OK, how about we try it this way today and see if we like how that works out and we can try it a different way next time if we need to." This lets us get right back to gaming instead of arguing about rules and everybody knows that if they didn't get it they way THEY wanted at this time, it might be their way next time if today's temporary solution doesn't work out.
I've never had any players who had any real problems with that.
Fortunately, most of the people I game with are easy to get along with, and don't get too bent out of shape over rules questions. For home games, what matters most that a peaceable agreement is reached and the result applied consistently, and that you don't waste too much of your precious gaming time getting there.
For organized play, of course, you do need to occasionally consult the hivemind in order to determine the current "best" interpretation. I usually find that to be as easy as consulting other experienced GMs at the table or venue, or sometimes resorting to a quick search on the forums. We have some solid veterans among the regulars at our venue, and the players generally trust their educated judgments.
I find that the broader experience and knowledge base that I can tap into through PFS does make my home games better informed about the rules, too. Everyone in my current home campaign also plays PFS, so it's generally easier to conform to that standard for most games, to save the effort of having to remember which GMs rule which way. (Most of my "house rules" are just limits on character options--what sources are available for use in my game--rather than actual changes to the way rules work.)
What *does* cause stress is when a player has had a basic rule explained to them over and over, session after session, and it Just. Doesn't. Ever. Take. Hold. I don't have any of those in my home game any more, thankfully, but our local PFS community tends to have one or two players who everyone dreads GMing for because of their stubborn obtuseness.
Rules don't create much of an issue. We go by RAW in my usual table, If there is dispute, the GM says how it is going to work and the later we check on it.
I would, funny enough, say there is far more dispute on golarion setting things haha. Ultimately there are clashes from people who read material after material and those who wing it, which ofc doesn't offer a faithful depiction of the god/city...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no disputes at my table.
If you present a decent argument for why you need something to work a certain way for your imaginary character to work the way you want in my fantasy world, then I generally allow it. RAW/RAI be d@mned.
I play fantasy games for the fantasy aspect, not the "it says this in that book" box of thinking. By all means, please give me a legitimate reason for your character to be exactly what you want it to be.
We don't argue about the number of free actions, we don't argue about BS like Slashing Grace mechanics with Bladed Brush... take the feats with their prerequisites and make/plead your case. I will listen.
Rounding dice up or down, all those petty things are not points of contention at my table, generally. I just want everyone to have fun, and I am capable of increasing the difficulty of encounters if they start having too much fun with what I allow them to do... which is hopefully/literally everything they want their characters to be able to do.
It is a completely BS imaginary, fantasy game... why would you ever spend a single second arguing about rules? Lol!
With the exception of my earlier post about my friend and AoO's, I've never had an argument about rules. We're too laid back and just there to have fun, not recite rules and rules by rote. We have stopped a game for a few minutes to work out a way to implement an idea not covered in RAW/RAI, but mostly we bend, break, and ignore certain rules if they're going to hamper our good times.
I don't remember all the details, but ...Attacks of Opportunity made a long time player/friend quit gaming entirely.I'm so curious about this. It's not even an obscure rule, these are some of the core game mechanics.
Yeah sounds like a new player. That's a pity that it ended that way, but I guess we live and learn.
Thanks for sharing.
My group learned pathfinder by playing it, stopping and figuring out the rules as we ran into them.
I think one session was purely us trying to figure out how grapple & grab work as lvl 2 characters vs a crocodile, but that is the group I play with that enjoys rules arguments instead of wanting to get on with playing.
Another group the most disputes come when the GM fudges something for ease of play, and one of my fellow players gets bent out of shape trying to figure out what he was doing with the rules.
I'll try to think of one, but we've had so many bad ones that I've kind of blocked them out.
Mostly we get stressed when rules change.
Same.
On those occasions where a rule is ambiguous and the player and I can't immediately resolve it in an agreeable fashion, I ask the other players to essentially vote on how we as a group want to handle this rule today and going forward. Everybody gets a voice. A minute or two of discussion and usually we have a majority. This can also result in house rules being created, as long as the group as a whole likes the solution.
This is how I've been doing things for a long time as a DM. I've made some bad calls along the way and learned some difficult lessons along the way. Sadly, I was not the best player when one of my players wanted to try DMing 4e when it was new and I was the only one that wanted to try it. The first version of Stealth in 4e was terrible and it lead to a rather lengthy rant. Not an argument, just me raging at the rules. After that, some characters were changed and my approach to the game changed and things got better, though 4e only lasted through most of the way into Tier 2.
The only other arguments I've had over the years have been related to alignment. I've been the Paladin that was given an immediate alignment shift from one act created from a very deceptive and problematic series of events. Four out of six characters had their alignment shifted because of this and it fell to me to argue about it as the most affected. I learned a lot about handling alignment in game from that single event. This particular DM was amazing at Call of Cthulhu and... not so good... at every other game he tried. This probably stemmed from his flawed assumption that characters in every game were expected to be as expendable as they were in Cthulhu.
Free/swift/move actions.
Every game we have to talk about it.
Opening a door in combat, picking up a key, multiples situational skill checks...
Those come up in my games sometimes. We're getting better at them.
The fact that you can't downgrade a standard-action to a move-action and/or a move-action to a swift-action has never made a lick of sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that you can't downgrade a standard-action to a move-action and/or a move-action to a swift-action has never made a lick of sense.
Yeah, we outright ignore that peculiarity, just like we ignored allowing racial spell-like abilities to count as 'spellcasting requirements' for prestige classes back when Paizo allowed them. If someone wants to use their 'move' or 'standard' action to use another swift action equivalent ability, we let them.
I can understand the dev team wanting to limit the number of certain types of actions. I'm not sure how necessary it is, but I can see the game changing considerably given the ability to get three swift actions out in a round.
I have yet to see anyone attempt to exploit the mechanic and the only thing I could immediately think of that might be exploitable is with using quicken metamagic (and rod) to get three spells out in a nova attempt. Which, of course, is highly wasteful of higher level spell slots, or repeatable as many times as they've purchased rods (which are fairly expensive for quicken).
The worst case I've personally seen was an eldritch archer combining spell combat, rapid shot and spellstrike, to get 3 arrows off in one round at level 2. The GM didn't understand the rules regarding spell combat and spellstrike very well, and the rapid shot FAQ wasn't found until the next day. The GM nerfed the character hard and left the player with bad feelings. After that the GM was quick to pound the character first every time so that he couldn't do his bit. It didn't go well.
The fact that you can't downgrade a standard-action to a move-action and/or a move-action to a swift-action has never made a lick of sense.
I'm not sure, but if I'm reading this correctly then you'll be happy to know you're wrong.
You can take a move action in place of a standard action in Pathfinder.
Just to be clear what I'm saying, you can take 2 move actions in a turn by giving up your standard action (you cannot take 2 standard actions by giving up your move action though).
If that's not what you meant then disregard this pots.
Mr. Charisma,
Wasn't the heartache that they couldn't take the idea one step further and swap a move action for a swift action, which has some more serious exploitable effects. I have allowed such ideas to work one time (to paraphrase the great Roger) because it was fun, but a certainly would never allow them on a regular basis. Some players live for clever exploits though, and feel great heartache when their logic leaps and clever misapplications are shot down.
What stat generation method to use and whether to allow 3rd party products.
Mr. Charisma,
Wasn't the heartache that they couldn't take the idea one step further ...
You're right, you can't take 2 swift actions in a turn, and from a realism standpoint that's kinda weird. I didn't address that at all.
I wasn't quite sure what Slim Jim was saying (still not quite sure), but the way I read it he wanted to be able to do 2 things, and didn't realise that 1 of them is actually fine by the rules. If i misread that then ignore my post.
What was the rules dispute that caused the most controversy in your group? What forced you to go to the forums for rulings, seek out dev clarification, and have heated debates on your group's Facebook page?
My characters bonuses. I have a pyrokineticist character and she gets a small handful of bonuses and one member likes to remind me often that it sounds like im making them up even tho i have shown him where i get all my bonuses multiple times. Another one that caused a big arguement wasnt necesarily a rule arguement but involved the specifics of a rule involving my characters searing flesh ability amd how much contact a character was making with mine so id know how much damage to deal to him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There aren't as many arguments about rules at our table as there is just forgetting rules.....we drink a lot when we play
|
The one issue that comes up in PFS every once and a while is the Weapon designation vs. Weapon size and that Feats do not put a weapon on a sliding scale.
To wit, one can never wield two (2) Earthbreakers (Or any other Two Handed weapons) and TWF with them. They are not of the designation One Handed or Light weapons.
The Campaign Clarification for Thunder and Fang ended this for a lot of players trying to use it in this way.
It would be only a minor exaggeration to say that every campaign I've played in has involved someone misinterpreting the readied action rules and getting very upset about it.