| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want an example of how to respectfully and consistently argue for a reduction in gameplay variation due to GM interpretation, give Graystone's post history a read through (https://paizo.com/people/graystone/posts). They play with multiple GMs and don't like rules that rely on GM fiat, which is a completely fair stance to take. Notably, they argue based on their own experience without making sweeping generalizations, and they don't constantly complain about their pet peeves.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like graystone! This is a graystone appreciation post.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
CorvusMask and many others who have said they wouldn’t let you do thatPFS for sure won’t let you do that
Harmless sparkles or floral scents or fake rain in a 5x5 space while your bard performs a sad song isn’t covered by rules so PFS won’t allow it
Its already been said to you by many people, many times, but once more; I strongly recommend you actually play some Pathfinder Society before continuing to try and tell people authoritatively how it works in all sorts of fashions, or what GMs do and do not allow in their games. In the kindest light it comes off as repeated misunderstanding and not paying attention when informed better, in another less kind light, it looks like actively trying to spread misinformation and drive people away from Society.
And once again, as has been also mentioned repeatedly, calling out what individuals who have had conversations elsewhere have said as 'evidence' for or against the points you are trying to make is at best rude, at worst harassment (let alone doing so in a way that inaccurately portrays what people have said).
I asked in an organized play discord in a rule questions channel
The answer was no
This is a lie.
The answer was as follows:
If this question was "will some little scene like this with no mechanical impact be ok at a table?" it is largely gonna be "Ask your GM" without having some specific ability to do so.If you try to make it a universally applicable rules question "can I guarantee that I can do this at every table?" then the answer would be no, without some specific ability, because no one is going around distributing pamphlets to every GM saying "these are the exact limits of what you should accept as minor flavor descriptions, and this is where you demand RAW backing."
But, with the context of the forum threads and multiple discussions
Buddy, take a breath, and reread. There's a difference between "will some little scene like this with no mechanical impact be ok at a table?" and "will some little scene like this with no mechanical impact be ok at every table?"
The first is implying that they answered it won't be acceptable at any table whatsoever. The latter implies that while it won't be acceptable at every table, it will be acceptable at some (maybe even most), but since every GM is different, the answer can't be a yes or no "always acceptable".
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like graystone! This is a graystone appreciation post.
Thanks guys!
If you want an example of how to respectfully and consistently argue for a reduction in gameplay variation due to GM interpretation, give Graystone's post history a read through (https://paizo.com/people/graystone/posts). They play with multiple GMs and don't like rules that rely on GM fiat, which is a completely fair stance to take. Notably, they argue based on their own experience without making sweeping generalizations, and they don't constantly complain about their pet peeves.
It's REALLY hard sometimes not to always jump in when it's a pet peeve [and DM fiat as a default rule sure applies as one to me], but sometime you have to hit pause and step away from a thread and consider if it's REALLY the hill you want to die on or if you've already said your piece and it's time to move on. That and you can sometimes get better perspective on things that way than when you are 'in the trenches' arguing your point. I'll also sometime step away from a thread if it seems like it's stuck in a loop with the same people ending up saying the same things back and forth, especially if one of them is me: once the most active people in a thread have entrenched themselves, repeating yourself isn't going to change their minds most times.
I like graystone! This is a graystone appreciation post.Thanks guys!
If you want an example of how to respectfully and consistently argue for a reduction in gameplay variation due to GM interpretation, give Graystone's post history a read through (https://paizo.com/people/graystone/posts). They play with multiple GMs and don't like rules that rely on GM fiat, which is a completely fair stance to take. Notably, they argue based on their own experience without making sweeping generalizations, and they don't constantly complain about their pet peeves.It's REALLY hard sometimes not to always jump in when it's a pet peeve [and DM fiat as a default rule sure applies as one to me], but sometime you have to hit pause and step away from a thread and consider if it's REALLY the hill you want to die on or if you've already said your piece and it's time to move on. That and you can sometimes get better perspective on things that way than when you are 'in the trenches' arguing your point. I'll also sometime step away from a thread if it seems like it's stuck in a loop with the same people ending up saying the same things back and forth, especially if one of them is me: once the most active people in a thread have entrenched themselves, repeating yourself isn't going to change their minds most times.
Alright
So like "I'm going to make the firelight flicker dramatically with magic" as scene-setting is a thing I don't need a rule or a spell to allow to happen. Much like how I wouldn't question why a character with thievery and performance can juggle or do card tricks.And designers still bend over backwards to not allow even simple magic effects coming from unobvious source and undefined actions. 'Message' generates shining runed circles and demands pronounced spell apart from the message itself. 'Ghost Sound' demands gestures, a clearly said spell and also generates shining magic circles. Nice useful 'stealth' cantrips.
So you and others, who critique GMs asking for ways to justify magical effects by something, should address this to the game designers. It's how the game is made.
Alright, you think devs seen our posts here?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, you think devs seen our posts here?
They have almost certainly heard about it. Whether by directly reading it, or from the forum moderators passing the information along.
We aren't likely to hear any news about upcoming changes though. Especially if those changes are planned far in the future. There is a business effect from announcing new things that stifles sales of the existing things. Also, if they announce something and then the released version is different than what they announced, that is also taken badly by the public - so it is better to only announce things after it is fully developed.
I've thrown sparkles into the air with Prestidigitation in Society games, and no one has ever said I could not.
Heads up
I’ve been talking to Jon, who is the Paizo Community and Social Media Specialist, in email and I sent him the following message:
“Hello,
Thanks for reaching out.
I do have a question
While I am sure reasonable GMs will let your character do things like create sparkles, illusionary rain in a 5x5 space while your character performs a sad song, glowing eyes or create floral scents, the concern is with PFS, GMs who are very strict and only allow “RAW”, and WM/Living Worlds. Those three things are why I feel prestidigitation needs to allow for fun flavorful magic tricks like the ones I listed.”
Here is his response:
“Hi Captainrelyk,
Thanks for the reply. I can understand why you would want something like that with more flavor. Unfortunately, PFS needs to run with a much wider eye to things like game balance, and while you may use such a power for purely roleplay reasons, someone else might use it to break the game or create a shortcut somehow that causes issues for the GM running the game. PFS needs to be balanced at a much higher level than a regular game of Pathfinder, as may players are competitive about playing the game.”
So… according to Jon at least, those players creating sparkles are in the wrong and are breaking the rules