A More specific - how would you respond to this request?

[Janx]

I think the GM did mess up a bit.

The encounter is in a limited resource zone (desert, need water in a hurry to put out a fire).

People come up with non-standard solution ideas WHEN resources are limited.

Therefore he needed to be mentally prepared to consider and accept ideas that have a hint of plausibility.

All he had to do was say "yeah, it might help, but since it isn't directed, it may be unpredicatable

So let the PC cast the spell, and roll a 50/50 chance to see if it worked or not. Or do a % roll and that's how much of the fire in that square it puts out.

A simple resolution that rewards clever thinking.

It's not like the spell was written specifically to rob another class of its function. Nor may the spell work that well for every fire (a desert is full of dust and sand, so it seems reasonable to allow that kicking a ton of it up may work fine here, but not back in normal-land)

 

[Umbran]

A simple resolution that rewards clever thinking.

We should note, however, that it is normal for us, who aren't on the spot, to come up with bright ideas and solutions. The tone of the discussion he was in matters a great deal in assessing how he went about things.

And, a highly relevant question that may have been answered, though I didn't see it - how much experience does this guy have as a GM? Are we talking a 20-year veteran, or a guy who's had only a year or two behind the screen?

 

[korjik]

The decision speed is directly a result of the DMs "convince me" attitude. Had he just said yes or no and moved on, problem solved. So yes, decision speed is part of the problem I have but it's only part of the bigger issue here (see below).



The two big issues at play here (for me) are time and trust. By adopting the attitude he did, on the first encounter of the first session, the DM has conveyed two things to his players:

First that any nonstandard decision will literaly stop the game and require a secondary debate with the DM. Basically the players only other choice is to try as hard as possible to only think inside the box and only with "standard" solutions to any problem (whatever that even is). I don't think this is something to be encouraged.

I am with you here. The DM is there to make a decision and move on. Debating the point is not a good thing.

Second, and more importantly, that the DMs attitude toward the players is "I don't trust you, convince me why I should" and yes I do think that this type of attitude will lead to a worse game. The DM has essentially stated "I'll default to no unless you convince me otherwise", and of all the attitudes to addopt I think this is among the least conducive to a good game (IMO of course).

You lose me here tho. The group I play with are friends I have had for a couple decades. They trust me with their kids, and that trust is reciprocated. I would still have asked for a justification for a non-standard spell use like that tho. The difference is, whether I answered yes, no, or beer, it would have been a 2 second decision. It could simply have been the DM not seeing how the spell would do the job and wanting to know what the player was thinking.

IMO the best games result when the players trust the DM (Not in a "nothing bad will happen to us sense" but in a "we know the DM is going for the best gaming experience sense") and that's not likely to happen if the players get the impression right of the bat that the DM has no trust for them.

It seems from a rather causal perusal of the other thread and this one, that you were looking for a 'yes, do it' answer. I disagree with that, as it can cause things to get really out of whack if abused. Yes is not always the best answer.

The problem you described in this thread is a problem of a DM not making a descision and moving on. It should not have been a debate, it should have just been:
Player: 'I want to use this spell."
DM: 'How?'
Player: 'Like this.'
DM: 'Hmmmmmmm......... Sure. It counts as this many buckets of water'
DM: 'next player..'

Personally, I would have let the spell put the fire out, then have several people freak out about the 'attacking Djinn' or something along those lines.

 

[Janx]

We should note, however, that it is normal for us, who aren't on the spot, to come up with bright ideas and solutions. The tone of the discussion he was in matters a great deal in assessing how he went about things.

And, a highly relevant question that may have been answered, though I didn't see it - how much experience does this guy have as a GM? Are we talking a 20-year veteran, or a guy who's had only a year or two behind the screen?

that's true, the GM could get into a discussion rat-hole, where he's stuck debating something he didn't intend to.

However, that is the point of the "Say Yes" initiative. To train DMs to not stonewall or negate as their initial reponse to to player proposals. It results in smoother game play, because the GM isn't trying to decide yes or no, he's trying to determine how to resolve the impact of allowing it.

This mental preparedness is a lot like emergency training or martial arts training. it preps the mind for having a plan for the unplannable, rather than being stuck at the moment, not having a course of action.

I've not fully embraces the "Say Yes" philosophy, but I do see where it makes for smoothing out rough GMing moments with the players.

 

[Stormonu]

Here's another situation to mull over, which came up in my game:

One of the players, a fighter, kept a sack full of flour and bag of pepper with him wherever he went. When he ran across an invisible, mirror imaged or otherwise obscured enemy, he'd throw the bag of flour at that foe.

As for the pepper, he'd throw the (opened) bag at an opponent's face to blind them.

In both cases, whenever he needed to, he'd restock back in town.

Would you allow this to work and to what extent?

[sblock]
If this player's action hadn't been so annoying, I might not have been as thoughtful in my response to his actions. But not only was he insistent to make this part of his "standard repertoire", he insisted that it work, and that success be automatic. I wasn't about to allow that - I don't let players dictate terms; they're not the DM.

I ruled that for both cases, he needed to make a touch attack roll to hit with the bag. For the flour, the target could take a standard action to "dust themselves off", for the pepper, it was a Fort save DC 14 to avoid being blinded for 1d4 rounds.

I didn't want the fighter overusing this tactic, and using a 2 cp bag of stuff to thwart the likes of improved invisibility or invisibility sphere. At the same time, I didn't want to have him make seek out something like Hellground Flourpowder to thwart high-level invisibility. [/sblock]

 

[Mort]

We should note, however, that it is normal for us, who aren't on the spot, to come up with bright ideas and solutions. The tone of the discussion he was in matters a great deal in assessing how he went about things.

And, a highly relevant question that may have been answered, though I didn't see it - how much experience does this guy have as a GM? Are we talking a 20-year veteran, or a guy who's had only a year or two behind the screen?

True, I think being "on the spot" is a factor. Though one DMs need to work to overcome.

I can't fully answer your last question, as I was not there and it's not my group.

One last bit of information I do have (which may be of use to JamesonCourage as well)

This group has been playing pathfinder for over two years under a different DM. The current DM was a player at that time.

The group (as a whole) became extremely frustrated with the prior DMs treatment of this very issue. Anything nonstandard took forever and generally resulted in a negative answer. This DM stepped in as a "change of pace." So his reaction here must have been almost surreal to the group.

Hope this sheds some new light.

Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk

 

[JamesonCourage]

Yeah, it sounds like it's a length of time issue, not a "say yes" or "say no" issue. Though I can understand it being surreal to the other players. The new GM must have caught that style from the last GM, but I bet he'll grow out of it once he's comfortable enough with the players, with the system, running the game, and improvising. It takes time, but I would bet on him getting past this issue, which is probably just a relic of the old GM's style. As always, play what you like

 

[Mort]

I am with you here. The DM is there to make a decision and move on. Debating the point is not a good thing.

You lose me here tho. The group I play with are friends I have had for a couple decades. They trust me with their kids, and that trust is reciprocated. I would still have asked for a justification for a non-standard spell use like that tho. The difference is, whether I answered yes, no, or beer, it would have been a 2 second decision. It could simply have been the DM not seeing how the spell would do the job and wanting to know what the player was thinking.[/qoute]

I only meant trust in a gaming context. I do think the "convince me" right of the bat, can easily set the wrong tone (though context masters a lot).

It seems from a rather causal perusal of the other thread and this one, that you were looking for a 'yes, do it' answer. I disagree with that, as it can cause things to get really out of whack if abused. Yes is not always the best answer.

I will certainly admit to being biased toward yes, that does not mean I won't say no to a player, just that I look for ways to say "yes."



Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk

 

[Mort]

Yeah, it sounds like it's a length of time issue, not a "say yes" or "say no" issue. Though I can understand it being surreal to the other players. The new GM must have caught that style from the last GM, but I bet he'll grow out of it once he's comfortable enough with the players, with the system, running the game, and improvising. It takes time, but I would bet on him getting past this issue, which is probably just a relic of the old GM's style. As always, play what you like

I think the hesitancy to say yes (or no frankly) caused the time issue. Hopefully it will improve with time.

Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Here's another situation to mull over, which came up in my game:

One of the players, a fighter, kept a sack full of flour and bag of pepper with him wherever he went. When he ran across an invisible, mirror imaged or otherwise obscured enemy, he'd throw the bag of flour at that foe.

As for the pepper, he'd throw the (opened) bag at an opponent's face to blind them.

In both cases, whenever he needed to, he'd restock back in town.

Would you allow this to work and to what extent?

[sblock]
If this player's action hadn't been so annoying, I might not have been as thoughtful in my response to his actions. But not only was he insistent to make this part of his "standard repertoire", he insisted that it work, and that success be automatic. I wasn't about to allow that - I don't let players dictate terms; they're not the DM.

I ruled that for both cases, he needed to make a touch attack roll to hit with the bag. For the flour, the target could take a standard action to "dust themselves off", for the pepper, it was a Fort save DC 14 to avoid being blinded for 1d4 rounds.

I didn't want the fighter overusing this tactic, and using a 2 cp bag of stuff to thwart the likes of improved invisibility or invisibility sphere. At the same time, I didn't want to have him make seek out something like Hellground Flourpowder to thwart high-level invisibility. [/sblock]

I was a bag of flour user back in the day but I would not let it work as described. IMHO the flour that lands on the invisible creature disappears along with the creature. My tactic was th hole the bag of flour and swing it around filling the air with flour dust. disturbances in the flour dust or tracks would indicate where the invisible foe reducing the invisibility to concealment.

The pepper would be an improvised weapon attack unless he invested in some alchemy to make it more effective. Though I might allow auto success where he had surprise with the pepper.