| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-what a long term minion (animal companion, familiar) can do outside of encounter mode.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do you use the word fiat which has implications of tyranny or whimsy?
A major part of a GM's job is adjudicating awkward situations. These decisions shouldn't be read as fiat, assuming the GM's being objective & rational. To me, that's normal GMing.
So do you think that's fiat? By which I mean is having some situations officially under the purview of the GMs a bad thing?
Paizo has recognized there are many such awkward situations where a GM has a better perspective and can make a more reasoned decision than a set rule could. Or where a set of rules would delve into too much minutia to bother with...while still leaving gaps & exceptional situations. Who needs a system to determine how to convert armor based on size/gender/type/etc.?
I appreciate that Paizo's savvy to this and focuses the rules on moving the narrative along. I've experienced arguments several times (3.X/PF1) over the two characters in one square issue because the rules lead to ridiculous physics so I'm glad that's up to GMs.
And I'm glad Paizo treats GMs like reasonable agents.
I think this shift is part of the development goals much like a lot of the scrying, divination, & teleportation effects have been made Uncommon so a GM can balance that against any plans for espionage. PF2 is much simpler, yet still tuned for veterans. So while I've noticed several times Paizo explicitly saying a situation was for GMs to decide, I have appreciated each instance so far.
Thank you for reading my tangent.
Cheers
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Castilliano, while I agree with you in general (including all your examples), there are some spots left too lacking in rules or at least GM guidance. Paradozen just gave one of the most glaring, that I really hope is addressed in the GMG.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess Gamemastery guide will solve some. But for all purposes, PF2 is more 1978 (or, heh, 2018) than 2008 in terms of defining things and shifting the onus on the GM to come up with whatever she thinks that suits her and her players. You can't expect the same level of granularity and "this is how it works" PF1 had.
Absolutely everything in a game like this are within the range of GM fiat.
Since if the GM says "hey, we're not using armor class" or "elves no longer exist" or literally anything that does not result in the loss of all of their players, then that's the way things are.
So putting the frame on "this is left up to GMs" as opposed to "this is unclear or ambiguous, and clarity would be helpful" is barking up the wrong tree, since the GM is the one person at the table who can literally ignore the rulebook when it suits them.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do you use the word fiat which has implications of tyranny or whimsy?
Why are you trying to load the word? "GM fiat" is a pretty well established term in D&D when it comes to ambiguous mechanics. It has nothing to do with tyranny or whimsy, it just has to do with noting places where the rules are ambiguous.
OP doesn't even have any judgement in it, they're just asking for help cataloging places where the rules are left open. It seems needlessly hostile and cruel to try to inject malicious intent into that.
So putting the frame on "this is left up to GMs" as opposed to "this is unclear or ambiguous, and clarity would be helpful" is barking up the wrong tree, since the GM is the one person at the table who can literally ignore the rulebook when it suits them.
Yes, but there's a difference between "Rule zero exists" and "The book explicitly leaves this decision up to the GM."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience, an understanding DM knows how to take such decisions within the spirit of the rules, without actually having a rule spelled out in the CRB. A few examples:
1) Familiars. Familiars are like super pets. Clever and "something more" than simply animals. Many people in the real world think their pets are really smart, maybe even human-level smart, and while they might be wrong about that, it seems plausible that familiars could fill a similar role. Lassie could act independently and go and bark to find help if Timmy fell down a well. A familiar should be capable of similar antics, and more. The notion that familiars are on a one-round leash to their master's commands doesn't hold water with me, so DM fiat will allow a lot more leeway than people who advocate the one-round leash seem to be suggesting.
2) Accidentally ending up in the same square: This was discussed ad nauseum several other threads, like with unseen servants or other invisible critters or characters occupying squares that another unaware creature might try to pass through or occupy. I don't think we need a hard rule to let the bigger and/or stronger critter push the weaker/smaller critter aside, or be blocked. Similarly, it seems eminently reasonable for the invisible party to simply step aside and allow another creature to move through, even though it's "not their turn" and they don't possess a "step aside" reaction as such. The turn-based action system is a game conceit we use to simplify adjudicating game results, and shouldn't be a hamstring for logical situations. Another case of DM fiat hard at work.
I don't mean for us to argue these specific points yet again in this new thread. And I do realize that another DM could well rule differently. That's the nature of our hobby. There are good DMs, and better DMs, and just-plain-different DMs, and yes, sadly, there are bad DMs for a whole host of reasons. But most of us learn from our mistakes and move on.
Like the time (with PF1) I had a bad guy use bestow curse at range, forgetting it was a touch effect, directly leading to a character death. Ouch!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Similarly, it seems eminently reasonable for the invisible party to simply step aside and allow another creature to move through, even though it's "not their turn" and they don't possess a "step aside" reaction as such.
Personally, I disagree with that approach. In my experience (not that I've tested this in PF2), invisibility is a really harsh condition for non-magical PCs to have to deal with. Blundering into them at random is one of your few options for tracking them down. Giving invisible creatures a free dodge (100% reliable, not costing a Reaction) makes it even more frustrating.
A clever DM could count the near miss as locating the invisible enemy. As discussed in those other threads. I agree with you Matt, but in the absence of hard rules, the DM has to determine the outcome, as fairly and in as interesting a way as possible. And in a way that doesn't lead to increased frustration on the part of his players.
-The GM may allow you to target a space with some spells or other abilities, if you think an undetected creature is there. However, the flat check for targeting a hidden creature applies, and if you fail you won't know whether it's because you targeted the wrong space or missed due to the flat check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also cringed at the use of the term fiat. It feels unnecessarily negative and paints the relationship in an oppositional light.
Arbitrariness sounds better, no?
Don't take my snarky remark with too much salt. Many people just don't like it when two GM's can make totally different calls when confronted with virtually the same situation. Which is especially true if you change your GM's often, e.g. organized play.
And to add something to this tread, GM decides how effective you assist when you help somebody (our yourself) fight persistent damage (page 621).
Since we can't FAQ anything 2e related yet, maybe this list could be our initial FAQ list?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would have gone with GM adjudication or GM judgement.
I fully agree there are plenty of corner cases where more advice is warranted and in some cases, needed, but let’s not assume GMs are going to behave in bad faith in an arbitrary manner. If they do they won’t have players for long.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also cringed at the use of the term fiat. It feels unnecessarily negative and paints the relationship in an oppositional light.Arbitrariness sounds better, no?
Don't take my snarky remark with too much salt. Many people just don't like it when two GM's can make totally different calls when confronted with virtually the same situation. Which is especially true if you change your GM's often, e.g. organized play.
And to add something to this tread, GM decides how effective you assist when you help somebody (our yourself) fight persistent damage (page 621).
This to me is an example of them doing it exactly right. They list a specific example of how it works but then leave it up to the GM to decide how effective various actions will be.
We need more rules like this where useful examples are given!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many people just don't like it when two GM's can make totally different calls when confronted with virtually the same situation.
Not to put too fine a point on it, those people should probably not play an RPG. GMs making calls is at the very foundation of what an RPG is.
Sounds like the people you are referring to are looking for a computer game, or perhaps a boardgame.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also cringed at the use of the term fiat. It feels unnecessarily negative and paints the relationship in an oppositional light.Arbitrariness sounds better, no?
Don't take my snarky remark with too much salt. Many people just don't like it when two GM's can make totally different calls when confronted with virtually the same situation. Which is especially true if you change your GM's often, e.g. organized play.
And to add something to this tread, GM decides how effective you assist when you help somebody (our yourself) fight persistent damage (page 621).
This to me is an example of them doing it exactly right. They list a specific example of how it works but then leave it up to the GM to decide how effective various actions will be.
We need more rules like this where useful examples are given!
Ninjaed! Hahaha. Exactly what I was thinking.
And to add something to this thread, GM decides how effective you assist when you help somebody (our yourself) fight persistent damage (page 621).
Reference rules text for Persistent Damage. There is a whole side bar that offers guidelines.
And to add something to this thread, GM decides how effective you assist when you help somebody (our yourself) fight persistent damage (page 621).Reference rules text for Persistent Damage. There is a whole side bar that offers guidelines.
And? In the end it is still GM "fiat" if your "stop, drop and roll" just lowers the DC or immediately ends the effect, so this is what this thread asked for.
|
Many people just don't like it when two GM's can make totally different calls when confronted with virtually the same situation. Which is especially true if you change your GM's often, e.g. organized play.
The rules as written in the CRB are optimized for ordinary home play, not SFS. If the Organized Play team decides that SFS play requires additional rules and restrictions to promote table-to-table uniformity, those belong in an SFS-specific document, not the CRB.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
GMs making calls is at the very foundation of what an RPG is.
Well at least we agree to disagree. ;)
First GM's and players experiencing an epic story and having fun is the very foundation of what an RPG is, not GM's having to rule everything by hand because the set of rules provided is not clear enough.
Second it is all about rate of occcurence, respectively how often GM's should have to make their own calls. To pack it into PF2's own terms:
Common occurances: Should be covered by the rules with almost no variation or room for interpretation.
Uncommon occurances: Should be covered by the rules but allow for at least some degree of variation.
Rare occurances: Should still be covered by guidelines, but also allow for a maximum of variation.
The thing is, I don't need or want rules that are so watertight that I could use them in court, and of course the GM can bend or break rules if it helps to move the story forward and provides more fun for everybody, however in my opinion the fewer calls a GM needs to make on his own all the better.
And as an example to bring this into context of PF2: Invisibility, stealth and initiative are such common occurances in an RPG that I am a little astonished about how badly these topics are covered / worded by the current iteration of the rules, as judging from the multitude of similar threads in this forum alone there seems to be a lot of confusion on how things are or should really be handled.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is a fundamental difference between a game that fundamentally requires GM intervention to even function much like how ability checks function in D&D 5th Edition and one where GM judgement is applied in specific cases called out by the game like Apocalypse World. Pathfinder 2 as written reminds me a lot more of Apocalypse World than Fifth Edition.
Broadly the game is very good at providing tools to help the GM make the calls they need to make.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Castilliano, while I agree with you in general (including all your examples), there are some spots left too lacking in rules or at least GM guidance. Paradozen just gave one of the most glaring, that I really hope is addressed in the GMG.
I'd also like to add that I think some of long-term minion exploration should still be left to the GM. Just a bit of guidance along the lines of typical memories and tasks performance will be nice.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is a fundamental difference between a game that fundamentally requires GM intervention to even function much like how ability checks function in D&D 5th Edition and one where GM judgement is applied in specific cases called out by the game like Apocalypse World. Pathfinder 2 as written reminds me a lot more of Apocalypse World than Fifth Edition.
Broadly the game is very good at providing tools to help the GM make the calls they need to make.
I am glad I am not alone in thinking it reminds me of that system, and that is my absolute favorite game system outside of Pathfinder.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also cringed at the use of the term fiat. It feels unnecessarily negative and paints the relationship in an oppositional light.
From dictionary
"an authoritative decree, sanction, or order:
a fixed form of words containing the word fiat, by which a person in authority gives sanction, or authorization.
an arbitrary decree or pronouncement, especially by a person or group of persons having absolute authority to enforce it:"
It only means its a decree made by someone with authority to enforce it O_o; Where the heck everyone is getting it being negative term?
Seriously, I have NEVER before heard of GM Fiat being considered a negative thing
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lots of folks view the term DM fiat as negative. I think we should just own it - and own up to it. A DM has to know when yo use that authority and when not to.
It is excellent to have a giant's strength, but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also cringed at the use of the term fiat. It feels unnecessarily negative and paints the relationship in an oppositional light.From dictionary
"an authoritative decree, sanction, or order:
a fixed form of words containing the word fiat, by which a person in authority gives sanction, or authorization.
an arbitrary decree or pronouncement, especially by a person or group of persons having absolute authority to enforce it:"It only means its a decree made by someone with authority to enforce it O_o; Where the heck everyone is getting it being negative term?
Seriously, I have NEVER before heard of GM Fiat being considered a negative thing
Do you not consider an "arbitrary decree" to be a negative term?
Hmm. Different strokes I guess.The whole tone of that definition doesn't suit collaborative gaming. And while we're comparing experiences, I've only heard the term used to denigrate (funnily enough by those with a dislike of authority), so maybe we shouldn't use personal experience as a barometer, okay?
So following your cue, let's look up "arbitrary":
1. based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
"his mealtimes were entirely arbitrary"
synonyms: capricious, whimsical, random, chance, erratic, unpredictable, inconsistent, wild, hit-or-miss, haphazard, casual; More
unmotivated, motiveless, unreasoned, unreasonable, unsupported, irrational, illogical, groundless, unjustifiable, unjustified, wanton;
discretionary, personal, subjective; rarediscretional
"an arbitrary decision from the top"
antonyms: rational, reasoned
2. (of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.
"arbitrary rule by King and bishops has been made impossible"
synonyms: despotic, tyrannical, tyrannous, peremptory, summary, autocratic, dictatorial, authoritarian, draconian, autarchic, antidemocratic
(End definition, numbered for clarity)
I stated "GM fiat" smacks of tyranny & whimsy and here we can follow the roots right back to "tyrannical" (in 2) & "whimsical" (in 1). Note how 2 specifically references authority. Yeah, this is all negative.
So maybe the term's gained some neutrality in your circles, but for the sake of the community (especially those translating from English), maybe we should prefer a different term, maybe even a positive one.
Cheers
P.S. I'm a bit too tired to brainstorm, but there are simpler terms like "GM's choice" or "GM's call" that lack baggage while saying what the OP says he thought he was saying.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Getting back on topic
* Skillchecks, most of the time the GM sets skill DCs
* Retch checks, it isn't guaranteed that a NPC will make them
* Cover and Greater Cover granted from other creatures, entirely GM fiat
* Recall Knowledge, entirely up to the GM what information you get and how the difficulty of the check is modified.
* Earn an Income, Entirely GM fiat what jobs are available in the world
* Most Uncommon and rare spells, items, options
* Rest between combat
* Improvised Weapons, the damage and properties are GM fiat
* Hero Point Awards, GM fiat outside of the replenishing one per round
* Story EXP awards, GM fiat, no guidance as to how much each accomplishment is worth at each level.
* Carrying excessive amounts of negligible bulk items, GM fiat as they can make them count towards bulk.
* Retraining, GM fiat
* Social impact of slathering yourself in gizzards and subsisting in a pile of horse dung is entirely GM fiat compared to someone who chose to expend for a comfortable living.
* Environmental Damage, gm fiat as to what category a falling tree is
* Inclines are mentioned when it comes to terrain and climb checks but no specific degree based amount before this counts, could be 25degrees for one gm and 70 degrees for another.
*Social interactions
* Minimum Proficiency, some things like thievery vs locks dictate what the minimum proficiency is. But for things like recall knowledge it is entirely in the GMs hands.
* Crafting, it is up to the GM to determine whether the player has enough of a workshop / tools / resources to craft with.
* Tracking, vague DC examples. Doesn't give niche examples, GM fiat
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Literally non of the things posted so far fit under the category of things I must decide by “arbitrary decree”. Many of them are things that were equally up to the GM in PF1. The difference between rules silence on many of these things in PF1 and PF2 making it clear it is a judgement call for the GM.
The decision to use the rules is as much "gm fiat" as adjudicating ambiguous rules or deciding to ignore a rule. The rules only exist to help the GM run the game, and when they are in the way of running the game there shouldn't be any expectation on the GM to be bound to them - "GM fiat" and "normal gameplay" are a misleading dichotomy.
I think a better way to describe what this thread talks about (which I take from my experience working in leasing about four years ago) is "the rules are silent on this issue".
|
|
I think a better way to describe what this thread talks about (which I take from my experience working in leasing about four years ago) is "the rules are silent on this issue".
That is true for some of them but a large number of the examples cited are explicitly "up to the GM" which means that the rules are not silent. In PF1 the rules were silent on many of these issues. In PF2 the rules call out that it is a judgement call for the GM.
Take Persistent Damage. There is an example given of how the GM could rule it.
Many of the rules call out that the GM could offer a higher or lower bonus depending on the circumstances such as the case of Cover.
If this thread was "the rules are silent on this issue" I think it would be a more worthwhile endeavour (in the hopes of rulings or guidance) so I do support what you are saying, but many of these examples are not that.
I would see these case of things being left to GM discretion primarily as a problem in PFS, where GM discretion is meant to be kept to a minimum.
In a home game, the GM usually has enough information to make a judgment call early on. If you are planning on taking a character option that is dependent on his interpretation of unclear rules, you may want to discuss this with him before the campaign.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would see these case of things being left to GM discretion primarily as a problem in PFS, where GM discretion is meant to be kept to a minimum.
I agree that it's only truly a problem in PFS, but I think many home GMs would greatly appreciate more guidance in some of these matters. That doesn't make them problems, but does make them likely FAQs (in the literal sense).
Oh yes -- Solving the problem for PFS is quite likely to be helpful for many home games as well.
That, or a round or two of FAQ answers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Literally none of the things posted so far fit under the category of things I must decide by “arbitrary decree”. Many of them are things that were equally up to the GM in PF1. The difference between rules silence on many of these things in PF1 and PF2 making it clear it is a judgement call for the GM.
This is where I stand.
That doesn't mean it wouldn't be helpful to have additional examples and such for a GM to work with. And maybe that's where a list like this would be helpful?
I for one appreciate a list of things that used to have precise specific rules that no longer have precise specific rules,
I'm not sure where you are getting that. Though it does bring up a good point, the lists in this thread would likely be more useful if the points had links to actual rules text.
|
|
Literally none of the things posted so far fit under the category of things I must decide by “arbitrary decree”. Many of them are things that were equally up to the GM in PF1. The difference between rules silence on many of these things in PF1 and PF2 making it clear it is a judgement call for the GM.This is where I stand.
That doesn't mean it wouldn't be helpful to have additional examples and such for a GM to work with. And maybe that's where a list like this would be helpful?
I agree 100%. Have no problem with creating a list of “things we would like more guidance on”. That would be helpful. This list is not that so far.
I disagree with a lot of grognards list. I mean if an nox retching or not is GM fiat then so is literally every action a npc could take. And combat rest period? I mean yeah, in so much that literally every story event is because those aren't dictated by the rules, might as well say all of any given game is gm fiat. Unless of course we think, "what happens when" should be rules?
Yup, most of the game is fiat.
Here is another one
* View distances in different conditions is now GM fiat, no longer quantified how much different degrees of weather reduces view distances.
* Perception modification, no longer clear rules for each 10ft step of distance
|
|
okay then help it and list points you feel need more guidance.
Sure, happy to. None of the points listed fall into that category for me but ones that do:
- whether concealment applies to magic missile (I suspect yes)
- whether you can ready actions outside of encounter mode (I suspect no)
- whether familiars can take an action in exploration mode (I suspect no)
- a number of PFS specific issues like earning income and how they are supposed to work.
None of these are GM fiat though, just candidates for FAQ.