| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I know, staff very occasionally weigh in on discussions, but not as a rule. A lot of that has to do with designers, writers, and creative leads occupying different roles and having different perspectives on the rules. I feel like they were much more active before staff started getting quoted ad nauseum and having their responses taken out of context or used to justify some more radical stances.
I think the official stance from Paizo is, "We won't comment on rules discussion until we have settled on an errata internally," as it causes less drama and whisper-down-the-lane scenarios.
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
There used to be a time when Designers engaged in public discussions, FAQs were more regular, and there was even a Designer who focused their efforts for a good year on getting questions answered, but that was all back during 1E, and 2E seems markedly less responsive.
Of course, this last year has been especially difficult, so maybe in better times there will be more engagement.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, Paizo as a whole is MUCH smaller than WotC, which is backed by the monolithic Hasbro. Paizo can't afford to have one dedicated "rules master" without taking significant time and energy away from more profitable projects they could be working on instead. WotC on the other hand, can afford an entire team or department of staff where that's their sole purpose.
Even more than that though, is the unfortunate toxicity of the vocal minority in the community any time they do make a ruling which, after several years of abuse, has caused them to withdraw further and further from such off-the-cuff action.
|
Makes sense, but having one rules Czar seems like it would be helpful.
Perhaps, but Paizo doesn't typically write that way, at least not when it comes to system rules. It is a collective effort by the entire design team ans as such, they rarely post off-the-cuff or individual commentary. They meet on an issue and work it out both how it relates to what has been printed how it interacts with future planned materials. Its why it can take months or longer sometimes to get an official response. It can be frustrating, but there were too many times where a staffer posted their "official" position in 1E and it made matters worse because it wasn't quite thought out as thoroughly as it should. And the gaming community can be unforgiving at times.
Also, remember the design philosophies of the two systems are different. Pathfinder is intentionally more layered and complex than D&D5E which makes official rules ever more reliant on thorough analysis.
Just the rules are vague/poorly-written in places. More than 5e (simpler rules) or Pathfinder 1e (had 3.5 to build off of).
Often that is by design as they do not write the rules for a specific campaign or game style. There are times where they leave some amount of ambiguity so GMs are more comfortable making their own decisions without inquring the wrath of argumentative players many of whom have a stern dislike for "house rules."
Not to mention, as others have eluded to, answering our often petty questions generates zero revenue for Paizo so there isn't a tremendous amount of inclination to pour through all the grrr and vitriol in the forums to find meaningful, impactful places to comment when that time could be much better utilized writing new material for us to buy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, Paizo as a whole is MUCH smaller than WotC, which is backed by the monolithic Hasbro. Paizo can't afford to have one dedicated "rules master" without taking significant time and energy away from more profitable projects they could be working on instead. WotC on the other hand, can afford an entire team or department of staff where that's their sole purpose.
I've often heard this argument but the fact that Paizo used to do this for Pathfinder 1e while remaining a profitable business kind of suggests that Paizo could afford it if it were a priority to them, like it used to be. I agree though that the toxicity of the community is a major deterrent.
The toxicity is weird because (a) you don't really see the equivalent toxic reactions to Jeremy Crawford--who incidentally does a *ton* of things besides answering rules questions on Twitter; and (b) neither the PF2 discord nor the Arcane Mark discord seem toxic at all. In retrospect perhaps deleting their forums was a super smart move by Wizards of the Coast.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Answering rules questions on Twitter should not be the default at all. I mean, look at his Shield Master rulings. Anyway, much better to not answer directly and go through official channels like errata if necessary.
What shield master rulings? I totally agree that's a poor format for answering rules questions. A great many people don't really bother with the hot garbage dumpster fire that is Twitter.
I've often heard this argument but the fact that Paizo used to do this for Pathfinder 1e while remaining a profitable business kind of suggests that Paizo could afford it if it were a priority to them, like it used to be.
They learned a lot while they grew as a company.
The toxicity is weird because (a) you don't really see the equivalent toxic reactions to Jeremy Crawford--who incidentally does a *ton* of things besides answering rules questions on Twitter; and (b) neither the PF2 discord nor the Arcane Mark discord seem toxic at all.
Probably because they aren't giving out individual rulings for people to bicker over. They learned their lesson from the past, or from others who experienced it. If they change that policy though, give it time. Those communities will get rocked too.
In the end, this all transpired BECAUSE Paizo was such as great company early on they spoiled us rotten. We bit the hand that fed us, and so now we only get fed on an as-needed-basis at the end of a long pole.
In retrospect perhaps deleting their forums was a super smart move by Wizards of the Coast.
I will NEVER agree to this sentiment. That was an awful move on their part if you ask me. It disenfranchised a huge section of their consumer-base. Just scattered them to the winds for no practical reason. Since then, there have only been small, isolated communities scattered across the net with no cohesive central community hub with which to gather. I have never played in a 5E game that didn't include a half a hundred house rules because there is no official place for people to reach a consensus on how the rules work. That's no longer a community, but rather isolated tribal mobs. It makes hopping from one group to the next nearly impossible without having to endure a LOT of adjustment. Every game of 5E feels like playing a different game. When every game feels like a different game, then there is no game.
I've often heard this argument but the fact that Paizo used to do this for Pathfinder 1e while remaining a profitable business kind of suggests that Paizo could afford it if it were a priority to them, like it used to be.They learned a lot while they grew as a company.
But my point is simply that from a pure financial standpoint, it is possible to answer questions and without the business becoming unprofitable. Whether it is wise or optimal are separate questions. I'm just objecting to the often-repeated "They are too small of a company to even be capable of doing this" line.
The toxicity is weird because (a) you don't really see the equivalent toxic reactions to Jeremy Crawford--who incidentally does a *ton* of things besides answering rules questions on Twitter; and (b) neither the PF2 discord nor the Arcane Mark discord seem toxic at all.Probably because they aren't giving out individual rulings for people to bicker over. They learned their lesson from the past, or from others who experienced it. If they change that policy though, give it time. Those communities will get rocked too.
Huh? Jeremy Crawford very much gives out individual rulings for people. You can tweet him yourself and he will answer your questions, and all of those conversations get archived into Sage Advice. I've asked him several questions on Twitter and received a reply 100% of the time. They've been doing this for nearly 7 years.
EDIT: Oh I see, you mean the Discords. Which, fair enough, but moderators in the PF2 Discord give out unofficial answers and I never see the bickering that we have here on the forums. And sometimes Mark does answer questions in an unofficial capacity on his Discord (I mean there was a thread here that cited one instance of that a couple days ago, no?) And these forums are toxic in the status quo and they aren't even answering questions here.
In retrospect perhaps deleting their forums was a super smart move by Wizards of the Coast.I will NEVER agree to this sentiment. That was an awful move on their part if you ask me. It disenfranchised a huge section of their consumer-base. Just scattered them to the winds for no practical reason. Since then, there have only been small, isolated communities scattered across the net with no cohesive central community hub with which to gather. I have never played...
Well, I mean, a) the Paizo forums certainly is not the largest community of PF2 players. The Facebook group, subreddit, and Discord(s) are all more active. And b) they get answers to anyone who asks without the associated toxicity, and we don't, so as much as I liked those forums, I can't argue with the results.
I think a factor in that may be one of perception. Both from the perspective of the persons doing the answering in that they do not have to tolerate even the slightest amount of misbehavior where on an "official forum" there can be more of a perception of being expected not to just say "you bugged me, so I blocked you."
That's a fair point. I certainly think these forums should be moderated more aggressively and I'm sure there are volunteers who would provide that labor for free.
And from the perspective of the people asking the question, there's a definite difference tossing a tweet at someone that maybe they respond to eventually and being on the official forum and not getting the response you desire. I refer to it as the Sandwich Error Tolerance Variance; if someone makes you a sandwich, but it's not quite how you wanted it to be, what you perceive the relationship to be affects how you react - such that if you feel someone was doing you a favor making the sandwich you're unlikely to even complain that it's not perfect, but if you feel it is the person's job to make you a sandwich it's more a question of whether your complaint will be reasonable or over-the-top than it is of whether you'll feel it's worth complaining about.
So I've received responses from Jeremy Crawford 100% of the times I've tweeted at him. Mike Mearls is hit or miss but only Crawford's answers count as official so that's okay. And I really don't see people arguing with Crawford, he pretty much ends all arguments because he wrote the rule. Presumably also he could just block people if they are jerks, which speaks to your point about forums vs other social media.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the most part, PF2 is set up to enable "it works like it's supposed to work" interpretations for most things which are even kind of serious. There's also enough "you should ask the GM" just built into the rules that stuff like "can I be an ancient half-elf?" is okay to allow table variation on.
Basically, he changed his ruling about whether you could do the Shield bash before you Attack. My point was that answering rules questions and treating them official on Twitter (or a forum) is not a good idea. I'd be fine with changes to rules, but put them into official errata!Answering rules questions on Twitter should not be the default at all. I mean, look at his Shield Master rulings. Anyway, much better to not answer directly and go through official channels like errata if necessary.What shield master rulings? I totally agree that's a poor format for answering rules questions. A great many people don't really bother with the hot garbage dumpster fire that is Twitter.
See, I kind of thought his approach there was particularly admirable. He gave a thoughtful explanation of why he ruled it one way the first time, and then what led him to change his mind eventually. That kind of transparency with respect to designer goals, intent, and thinking is fantastic. One thing I miss about the really old school rule books is that they used to go into detail about the motivations behind the rules, and I think that stuff really helped people decide whether & to what extent they should house-rule things. And really, what's the harm in occasionally getting something wrong and changing your mind three years later?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like, sans an official errata, going with the view of the designers on their forum of choice isn't a bad thing. They have their own opinions yes, but they would have way more insight into how the rules were written than any of us.
Now if they post a rules opinion which contradicts an official errata, and you insist their post is still "official" that's where the problems lie.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My list of complaints about 5e go on for miles. That said, one thing they do very well is answer questions and provide (via third party) an online resource to find all the tweets discussing the rules. One may disagree with the format or the ruling given, but the fact that there is a clear and easy way to get answers to ambiguous rules is great. When I was playing 5e, Sage Advice was a bookmarked site.
Paizo can very easily select one person to be the rule czar. That person would have the final say and be able to give direct answers to rule questions. Some may not like what final arbitrations are made, but it’s better than leaving it to player debate.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My list of complaints about 5e go on for miles. That said, one thing they do very well is answer questions and provide (via third party) an online resource to find all the tweets discussing the rules. One may disagree with the format or the ruling given, but the fact that there is a clear and easy way to get answers to ambiguous rules is great. When I was playing 5e, Sage Advice was a bookmarked site.
Paizo can very easily select one person to be the rule czar. That person would have the final say and be able to give direct answers to rule questions. Some may not like what final arbitrations are made, but it’s better than leaving it to player debate.
Maybe not final say, but more guidance on how rules should should while they work on errata. That way it can't be used as an arguing point after they officially fix an issue.
Paizo can very easily select one person to be the rule czar. That person would have the final say and be able to give direct answers to rule questions. Some may not like what final arbitrations are made, but it’s better than leaving it to player debate.
I'd even be okay if they sometimes said "Hey, this is an issue where we think both interpretations have merit, so your GM will have to decide (pending errata)." I suppose they might have to arbitrarily pick one for PFS, but that's no worse than the status quo and I don't really care b/c that doesn't affect me.
I mean, then individual designers could provide some transparency about how they think about the rules and how they would run things, which would be cool, and if people don't like it and can't deal with their emotions appropriately they can be blocked.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe not final say, but more guidance on how rules should should while they work on errata. That way it can't be used as an arguing point after they officially fix an issue.
If only you'd been around for the last 15 years you'd know why this does not work.
Paizo took a step back from doing this because it DID NOT HELP, it only made things way, WAY worse. The personal opinions that don't have "final say" only stir up more problems and trouble than they are EVER worth. Unofficial rulings only cause confusion and if you even look at the history of them for PF2 you'll see that the few that did make their way out were either malformed rulings or just flat out did not align with the final decision updated via official errata.
Now, do I wish that Paizo had more people working on FAQs and Errata updates? Absolutely!
Do I wish that they'd release just TINY little rulings, say even one at a time as they meet to discuss the question/ambiguity? Most certainly!
But... do I want clearly unofficial opinions on how individual contributors feel a given rule is supposed to work before the rest of their design staff formally reviews it? Hell-no! Until they release officially clarified FAQs and Errata we are objectively better off left in silence to use Rule 0 for our own games.
Maybe not final say, but more guidance on how rules should should while they work on errata. That way it can't be used as an arguing point after they officially fix an issue.If only you'd been around for the last 15 years you'd know why this does not work.
Well it seems there is some disagreement about whether and why this didn't work, much of which would arguably be solved if they nuked the forums / empowered volunteer moderators to aggressively moderate. Especially since, as has been argued extensively above, other communities have managed to do this sort of thing successfully.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of note - Joe Pasini serves as exactly that role for Starfinder. The Starfinder Rules forum is a much quieter place than the PF2 one, but he still swings by every few months, looks at the most FAQ-flagged rules questions, and updates the official FAQ with answers.
I think for PF2, some of the most commonly asked questions don't have easy, cut and dry answers, which contributes to the lack of action on them. Rather than spending a long time on crafting a multifaceted FAQ entry for something like polymorph battle forms, they seem to be happy enough leaving it to individual GMs for now. Honestly, I don't blame them.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's also the fact that they don't get paid enough to deal with constant rules questions.
If you accepted the frankly depressimg wage these guys get in order to at least be a writer for a hobby you love, then have to be a forum version of a call center operator, you'd get fed up quick.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo can very easily select one person to be the rule czar. That person would have the final say and be able to give direct answers to rule questions. Some may not like what final arbitrations are made, but it’s better than leaving it to player debate.
From what I can tell, Paizo works pretty hard to create a collaborative environment and not create "czars". It's not so much a single personality that has created the rule-set as it is a team of creative people working together.
DnD, of course, comes from a single person asserting authority in spite of the major contributions of others. It's not uncommon for companies to retain the personality aspects of their founders, and it appears that Paizo choose a more team-oriented approach. No one individual is knowledgeable about every rule.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo can very easily select one person to be the rule czar. That person would have the final say and be able to give direct answers to rule questions. Some may not like what final arbitrations are made, but it’s better than leaving it to player debate.From what I can tell, Paizo works pretty hard to create a collaborative environment and not create "czars". It's not so much a single personality that has created the rule-set as it is a team of creative people working together.
DnD, of course, comes from a single person asserting authority in spite of the major contributions of others. It's not uncommon for companies to retain the personality aspects of their founders, and it appears that Paizo choose a more team-oriented approach. No one individual is knowledgeable about every rule.
There is nothing stopping community effort with having a final authority. As was mentioned in another post on this thread, Starfinder has someone operating in that function regarding the rules. Why are you dichotomizing it? Why does having a final authority take away from the collaboration of a group?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I commented on this recently, and I’ll say essentially the same thing here:
- many many game companies and designers, both larger and smaller, are much more pro- and re- active to rules questions
- in many cases, getting responses within days clarifying what the design intent was when a rule was written
why that is not the case here ... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
none of the suggested reasons for why this is so which have been posted in this or the other various threads where this has been commented upon hold any weight - at least not with me
in my gaming experiences of the past decade plus, where online access is near universal, what has happened with PF2e is an anomaly
oddly unique to this gaming corner
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rather have the designer's thoughts than not.
this is me
I have zero interest in a ‘some assembly required’ dealI, and my group, have significant interest in knowing exactly what the designers’ intents were when they designed their game
not sure how knowing that is controversial
yet trying to get that here has been shown to be exceptionally challenging, if not simply all but impossible
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It disenfranchised a huge section of their consumer-base.There were barely triple-digit numbers of active users when they decided to shut it down, you're being hyperbolic.
I'm really not. I was there for close to ten years. Was there on the last day.
Saying it was only triple digits is hyperbolic.
I was there for close to ten years. Was there on the last day....and I wasn't?
Saying it was only triple digits is hyperbolic.No, my comment about triple digits wasn't hyperbole, it was an actual measurement.
Had I said something like "Nobody was even around anymore" that'd be hyperbole. Or if I tried to characterize a forum that easily had 5,000+ concurrent users online on some of it's better days as if it having just a few hundred of them still hanging around were anything but a small portion, that might be hyperbole too.
I was on those forums for nearly 15 years, going back in the gleemax days, and this fits my recollection as well -- by the end, the forums were a shadow of their former glory.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was on those forums for nearly 15 years, going back in the gleemax days, and this fits my recollection as well -- by the end, the forums were a shadow of their former glory.I was there for close to ten years. Was there on the last day....and I wasn't?
Saying it was only triple digits is hyperbolic.No, my comment about triple digits wasn't hyperbole, it was an actual measurement.
Had I said something like "Nobody was even around anymore" that'd be hyperbole. Or if I tried to characterize a forum that easily had 5,000+ concurrent users online on some of it's better days as if it having just a few hundred of them still hanging around were anything but a small portion, that might be hyperbole too.
I understand the definition of hyperbole. I just don't recall ever seeing those numbers dip under four digits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe they don't want to deal with a bunch of Lawful Neutrals :p
All kidding aside, yes it can be frustrating that questions are not answered in a timely manor but maybe they all got burnt out on answering all the endless questions that got thrown at them during their PF1 days?
Just like the pirate code, its a set of guidelines not rules set in stone. Rule #1 in the Book tells you if you and your group don't like a rule, then change it.
That is the most important rule in the book. When I do change something, its because it works differently in my world since I use my own setting and not Paizo's and its a setting I've been working on for a very long time.
For those that play in Pathfinder Society then I can see how that might cause some frustrations since its suppose to be ran by RAW yes? but for the rest of us GM's that don't, sometimes you just have to make a rule on it and move on.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
For those that play in Pathfinder Society then I can see how that might cause some frustrations since its suppose to be ran by RAW yes? but for the rest of us GM's that don't, sometimes you just have to make a rule on it and move on.
For Pathfinder Society, Run as Written means not to alter the published adventures or the encounters therein. Because all game rules are interpreted by necessity, Society GMs are told to use their best understanding of the rules to ensure the table has fun. There is no expectation that society GMs be robots bound to strict readings without nuance or consideration.
For those that play in Pathfinder Society then I can see how that might cause some frustrations since its suppose to be ran by RAW yes? but for the rest of us GM's that don't, sometimes you just have to make a rule on it and move on.For Pathfinder Society, Run as Written means not to alter the published adventures or the encounters therein. Because all game rules are interpreted by necessity, Society GMs are told to use their best understanding of the rules to ensure the table has fun. There is no expectation that society GMs be robots bound to strict readings without nuance or consideration.
Thank you for the NFO! I never have played PFS so I was ignorant of how it all worked :) Thanks for the enlightenment :)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
it’s better than leaving it to player debate
Its only left up to player debate outside of the game. If the GM is doing their job, debates are few and far between. They can make a ruling just as well as a designer can and it be just as definitive. Just because you GM's name isn't Mike Mearls or Jason Bulmahn doesn't make their ruling any less binding to their campaign. We need to stop acting like we need the designers to arbitrate ever aspect of the game every interaction of game rules down to the smallest minutia. You're the GM. Consider your options. Make the best decision in good faith. Move on!
wage
Meh. Weak argument. If you don't like your job, go do something else. Course that presumes that (1) they don't like their job and (2) their job includes answering questions. Neither of which seems to be true.
There is no expectation that society GMs be robots bound to strict readings without nuance or consideration.
I'd like to introduce you to some people ;-)
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just wanted to add here:
I often see the remark here PFS = RAW.
I looked it up for other reasons today but thought the bit about table variation does shed some more light about what a GM is allowed to alter and what he isn't allowed
[quote:PFS2 Organized Play]Table Variation
A goal of the Pathfinder Society program is to provide a fun, engaging, consistent experience at all tables. GMs should run Pathfinder Society adventures as written, which means:
No change to major plot points and interactions
No addition or subtraction to the number of monsters other than scaling directed by the scenario
No changes to armor, feats, items, skills, spells, statistics, traits, or weapons.
No alteration of mechanics of player characters,
Nor banning of legal character options
Beyond the above, GMs are encouraged to make choices which would result in the most enjoyable play experience for everyone at the table and that emphasize PCs are the heroes of the story. Some examples of GM discretion include the following.
Creatures tactics that have been invalidated by the player actions.
Unclear rules, or situations or player actions not covered by the rules.
Terrain or environmental conditions described by the scenario, but not given mechanics. (If the mechanics are included, however, they cannot be altered.)
Reactions of NPCs to good roleplaying, and the effect that has on the outcome of the encounter.
Alternate or creative skills used to bypass or overcome traps, haunts, and skill checks. (Although the DCs and results of the check are part of the mechanics and should not be changed.)
Aspects of the scenario’s description and story as appropriate for the players at the table as described in the section A Welcoming Environment on pages 485–486 of the Core Rulebook.
Changes required to comply with the Acceptable Content provision of Community Standards.
Creative solutions presented by players in overcoming obstacles.
Moving plot points missed by players to encounterable areas (this does not include moving missed treasure bundles).
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And from the VC largely responsible for editing the Guide to Organized Play:
[rant]
I am becoming very tired of people saying "you cannot do this fun thing because I, as a GM, have abdicated my responsibility to make GM judgements, and insist that all other GMs do so as well.
I am even more tired of people say this in the cause of PFS being "Rules as written" so no variation is allowed. Setting aside the inherent absurdity of the idea that Paizo's writing is so clean and unambiguous as to lead to a single interpretation of Rules as Written, the entire concept of "Rules as Written" is mentioned *NO WHERE* in *ANY* of Guides I have *Ever* seen.
So to say PFS requires rules as written when it is no where written that it does is the height of intellectual dishonesty
If you are going to GM, do your job. If you are not the GM, get out of the way and let them do their job.
[/rant]
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why are rules questions not getting answered?
I have ranted about this other places, and more than once (no link additional links)
but the short answer is:they are exercising their right to remain silent, and doing so rightfully so
It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.
the game is not internally consistent
in many places, it is nonsensicalin many more, it is vague, ambiguous, and/or nonsensical-adjacent
often, purposely so - the myriad places where the rules say “the GM will usually ...”, “the GM might ...”, and similarly worded phrases in relationship to game mechanics is staggeringly disappointing (and I am not referring to things such as ‘the GM will usually tell you if any uncommon options are readily available’, or ‘the GM might allow optional rules from the GMG’)
given that is what has been memorialized in published form, no one should be surprised by the vast silence of Fifth Amendment invocation
surprised, no
disappointed, yes
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
After 10+ years of being told their decisions are wrong, their rule/s are stupid, etc. if I was a staffer at Paizo, I wouldn't engage the public either. So, while I would love to see a lot more responsiveness, I cannot in good conscious blame them for being silent.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why are rules questions not getting answered?I have ranted about this other places, and more than once (no link additional links)
but the short answer is:they are exercising their right to remain silent, and doing so rightfully so
It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.the game is not internally consistent
in many places, it is nonsensical
in many more, it is vague, ambiguous, and/or nonsensical-adjacent
often, purposely so - the myriad places where the rules say “the GM will usually ...”, “the GM might ...”, and similarly worded phrases in relationship to game mechanics is staggeringly disappointing (and I am not referring to things such as ‘the GM will usually tell you if any uncommon options are readily available’, or ‘the GM might allow optional rules from the GMG’)given that is what has been memorialized in published form, no one should be surprised by the vast silence of Fifth Amendment invocation
surprised, no
disappointed, yes
Frankly, if I were a professional figure with a product, I wouldn't want to approach someone like you with a 39-and-a-half-foot pole, even if I had the utmost confidence in my work and believed your objections 100% baseless.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the game is not internally consistent
in many places, it is nonsensical
in many more, it is vague, ambiguous, and/or nonsensical-adjacent
often, purposely so
For many of us, this is actually an asset as it provides the GM much more freedom/latitude to tailor the game to fit our own campaign needs without players constantly arguing "that's not what the book says."
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even if they didn't plan on doing it long term it is healthier for a game in its infancy to actually answer some bigger questions.
Just because a GM can make rulings doesn't mean it is good for them to have to make frequent rulings. That introduces a lot of table variances and results in players who play at multiple tables feeling like they have a lack of control / betrayed expectations.
Rulings are not like houserules, they are harder to document.