|
You are saying two contradictory things.
1. The rules are ambiguous.
2. It breaks game mechanics.
If a rule interpretation is literally breaking the game mechanics, then it isn't ambiguous, the interpretation is wrong.
Regardless, here is the advice I give for PFS in regards to ambiguous rules: "If a rules element can have multiple reasonable interpretations, build your character using the least permissive interpretation (or don't use it at all)."
The hardest part of that whole sentence is being able to admit that your interpretation isn't the only possible one. Maybe the player can present a well-reasoned argument in favor of something but in the absence of a FAQ/errata/clarification the GM is the decider. And if you have to argue with the GM, it's not an enjoyable play experience for anyone.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
I very much agree with Kevin, I had a character that had rules elements that were not 100% clear (my first character was a hunter, it eventually was clarified) but one my first GMs was really not happy that I had brought this issue to his table.
Over the years I started to GM way too much and usually, I have a limited time slot. If a player informs me about something unclear I can usually research it and present the player with my interpretation before the slot stars, but quite often that is not the case.
If I have to do research at the table, that will cost the players, either they will have less time to RP, or in some cases they might not be able to finish the scenario in time, resulting in a lackluster chronicle sheet and an unrewarding ending.
For GMs I recommend that you should be as prepared as you can be, since every minute you re-reading a special ability, is wasting the time of 3-6 other people. It tends to kill momentum and is a bit disrespectful in my opinion.
Obviously, the GM cannot be expected to be prepared for everything but if the scenarios include monsters build for grappling in a swimming pool, the GM should be familiar with the rules for grapple and swimming, and able to remind players (or provide a handout in case of more complicated rules).
Of course, players also have a bit of prep to do. I expect players to know how their build works, try to minimize the time they need for their turn and to be able to answer questions like "how did you get to AC 35 at level 8".
Reasonable prep might include printing (or otherwise preparing for quick and easy access) spells, items and class abilities, but could also involve keeping your ITS readable and your chronicle sheets in order.
If your build is quite unusual or depends on the interpretation if a controversial rule, I expect players to make to do their research and present the arguments for their interpretation and those against to provide the GM with the resources he needs to make a short term ruling.
I remember an unpleasant situation where a player broke several rules and bent others, he provided the GM with an obscure old forum post by a designer that didn't want to be quoted for the purposes of rules questions, while being unable to find the FAQ that directly contradicts him.
That left a bad taste, and I never ended up playing the third scenario in that trilogy.
---
As a player I try to avoid and unclear options, while this has prevented a couple of fun builds, it really is not worth the hassle.
---
As a GM I want to rule most rule interpretations in favor of the player - at least for a short term temporary ruling - but it also has to be reasonable.
"This ability lacks a range, other similar abilities have a 30 ft. range so I would argue that the same should apply here" seems like a reasonable proposition.
"This ability lacks a range, so I should be able to use it from orbit" does not seem to be reasonable.
As a GM, you can usually compare options to similar options, and make a ruling. There are certainly corner cases, and if you are unhappy with the interpretation of your GM you can always try to appeal to a VO (if something negatively affected your character), but there are some areas where the GM really has to interpret things and the local VOs might not have enough information to rule out any interpretation.
I hate to say this, but in that case, you either have to accept the interpretation of the GM or avoid/leave that table.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No.
Having seen a few examples of what you consider ambiguous and what you consider a more enjoyable play experience you are going to be disappointed a lot. PFS IS run by the rules but it's not run by the rules the way you're reading them. You're going to need to defer to other players for rules interpretations.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Online—PbP
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you talking about most enjoyable play experience for one player, or for the entire table? Breaking the game mechanics will never be the most enjoyable for everyone at the table, but only for the one player involved.
I would argue that one player does not have the right to make their fun outweigh the fun of everyone else at the table.