|
Matthew
I tried to stay out of it to avoid throwing more oil on the fire. But it seems as I read everything anyhow I might at least try to give you my view that shows a difference if and when I see a rules change less severe.
For me the severity of a rules change heavily depends if the outcome can be achieved in a rule legal way or not:
GM enforces cost for resurrection in a module. No
Player willingly tithes the amount equivalent for a resurrection at the next opportunity. Yes
In this case while the GM 'changes' the rule he could instead ask his players to do it according to RAW to avoid any scrutiny.
GM gives away free resurrection in a scenario. No
Player gets the money / resources for a free resurrection in a different way
a) via Beginner Bash boon Yes
b) via PA earned in play Yes
c) via money earned in play Yes
d) via other means as the above None known to me
I stay corrected if someone comes up with a rules legal way to achieve the above.
In this case I can't see any rules legal way to achieve the same.
I don't know all the circumstances surrounding the whole issue. Circumstances are very important for me. How 'puplic' is an event. Is this a CON where people sign up, is this a module on invite only basis - something enbetween.
And as organizer I can think of at least one situation where even a free resurrection seems the right way to proceed. If a player was killed by a blatently wrong call from a GM and player and GM come to me to get it fixed - should I turn around and say - tough - I can't do that.
I'm not saying what PL did is right. But I don't have all the background and while rules should be followed I feel we shouldn't lose view of why we have these rules.
|
Thod, that was a good effort but I don't think that Dragnmoon or Matt M are going to come around and see it that way. As Bob said we are talking past each other. They don't see our point and we don't see theirs. There is little point in continuing this exercise.
Fortunately those who disagree don't play in the same region, and the differences are academic. I will continue to run my tables as I see fit, under the campaign rules as I interpret them. If players don't like the way I do things they are free not to play at my tables. I hit 400 sessions last night, so I think I'm doing it right. Painlord has the support & admiration of his regional players as well. This thread has become a moot point.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thod,
First, thank you for your input. I don't see it as 'fuel on the fire' if we can be civil.
I understand the disagreement for some seems to be a tightening of the rules is fine, but a liberalization isn't.
My concern really hit with your last paragraph "But I don't have all the background and while rules should be followed I feel we shouldn't lose view of why we have these rules."
Why do we have these rules? The rules are a lingua franca to me. A working language to make sure that we have consistancy. So I can play Rey at the Ravenstone, then if I go to Florida to see my parents, I can pick up a game there with Rey, and fly back.
Now just like 'English' varies by country (and region) but can still be understood, so does PFS. But just as ebonics (or for those of us who remember, 'Jive') takes the language and renders it unintelligble to the average English speaker (who can understand an Aussie, a Brit, or an Ohioan), so might the 'home rules' applied by a GM.
And if the "Play the module rules" are ignored (or tightened if you prefer) then why not other rules?
"I find ultimate combat unbalanced, if you play here, nothing from US is allowed."
"I don't allow wizards to buy spells. You can't have any spells besides your 2 every level."
How am I supposed to feel welcome in my hypothetical Florida store when I walk in (or am invited) and then told "That PFS legal character you have in the folder? That you've kept all the chronicle sheets for? You can't play him here because I don't like X."
If event organizers can waive/modify/ignore rules, and still call them 'official pathfinder society events' then how long before we go from lingua franca to "Stewardess. Stewardesss! I speak Jive!"
|
|
My concern really hit with your last paragraph "But I don't have all the background and while rules should be followed I feel we shouldn't lose view of why we have these rules."
To me rules are like laws - they should be followed.
But police can't just give you a penalty if they think you break them. For this there is a judical system with a judge and lawyer and a lengthy procedure to look at it from all different angles. And this also takes into consideration the circumstances.
To me rules are like laws - they need interpretation
And no - this doesn't allow you to use rules the way you want. But to me this makes them non absolute.
I hope this helps
(Thod - a law abiding citizen)
|
|
Painlord has the support & admiration of his regional players as well. This thread has become a moot point.
While I don't imagine this was your intent, I'm personally I'm offended by your comment Doug. I feel like you're telling me to shut up and go away because I don't play with Painlord so my opinion of how he does things doesn't matter.
I'm currently in Iowa but I consider the Bay Area my home and I'm clearly not supportive of Painlord on this issue. In fact I feel that his rules "changes/modification/restrictions/cute puppies" are discouraging me from visiting Endgame when I'll be in town in two weeks.
I do play with Painlord, (and generally enjoy it) and am really appreciate of all the effort he puts into making PFS the best it can be. However I find myself generally agreeing with his goals (I don't really like the module rules either) but constantly disagreeing with his specific choices. In this case I think he's breaking the rules. I see how some people think is he's not, but I still disagree with them.
Back on topic:
One point of interest that makes me think a bit:
I'm perfectly okay with saying today we're going to play monks only, or I don't like Chris Mortika's hair cut so he can't sit at my table.
These choices seem fundamentally different to me than only inviting players willing to delete extra consumables, but I'm having trouble articulating why. There's been some attempt at this but I'm not entirely satisfied with the results. Maybe they are the same and I'm wrong.
I think there's still room to explore this issue and it's not yet a moot point.
"speak what you think today in words as hard as cannon balls, and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict everything you said today." -Emerson
|
Rules do not exist in a vacuum. They do not exist simply to be followed and they are not an end and aim unto themselves.
When you lose sight of that, you are certain to plunge headlong off of the edge of a cliff, insisting all the while that “the rules are being followed”. As if that was the goal in itself. It isn’t and it never was.
First off, the alternative rules under discussion are not “new rules”. They are merely a continuation of the rules which otherwise apply in every other PFS session. You cannot reasonably argue that those rules are unfair or unexpected. They are the rules that are enforced at every PFS table everywhere.
The reason for the inclusion of less exacting rules in the PDFs accompanying sanctioned modules are there for other reasons that have nothing to do with improving the overall campaign experience. Given the nature of the “no penalty for death” and the “no consumption of consumables”, what these rules aim to accomplish is to provide a “total mulligan” for a player playing a sanctioned module. This is principally so that the developers at Paizo need not burden themselves with pretending to evaluate the sanctioned modules for “PFS play balance”. This “mulligan” approach to the PFS sanctioned play of a module removes any responsibility for the developers to even PRETEND to do so. Like Pilate, the rule allows for developers to wash their hands of the matter quickly and without worrying about the consequences.
In the result, the “total mulligan” approach to playing of sanctioned modules aims to wash everyone’s hands of any trouble by establishing a regime of play of a sanctioned module without any blowback of an adverse consequence. The inherent problem is, the very LACK of the possibility of an adverse consequences is itself an adverse consequence.
So now you want to tell my players they have to take a free raise dead in the name of ... what, exactly? Uniformity of play experience? To what end?
Can it be surprising that a player of a RPG like Pathfinder would feel that playing it without the possibility of adverse consequences is to cheat them of satisfaction of playing the game? Is that such an outrageous suggestion?
“That’s not for them to determine”, says you.
“B%#~$&!s”, says I. Oh yes it is. It is for me and my players to determine. If the players cannot enjoy the PFS play experience without the threat of real adverse consequences arising from play, then that is the players’ business – not yours.
That’s it; and that’s all. Let us not over-dramatize the “extra rules” under discussion here. What we are talking about is merely treating a sanctioned module like any other PFS scenario in terms of its impact upon the player characters who play it.
The purpose of a rule within PFS is to ensure that one PC does not have more treasure than another, so as to make one player feel that another with whom he plays was easily given rewards that he or she could not obtain or receive. The end result of that regime is to create within players a sense of unfairness and unbalanced play from one table to the next. Injustice is experienced by a player as an emotional reaction as it is a moral comparison of outcomes. The absence of that feeling of injustice is believed to improve the overall Organized Play campaign.
The voluntary adherence to ordinary PFS rules under these circumstances cannot result in such a reaction. Accordingly, your concerns are entirely misplaced. Instead, you are slavishly devoting yourself to rules without an evaluation of why those rules exist and why the uniformity of experience is believed to be important. That’s a mistake.
Uniformity is not THE Goal, it is merely a means to achieving THE Goal, which in this case, the “total mulligan” rule is actively preventing the players from attaining. The Goal is FUN and satisfaction while promoting the sale of Pathfinder RPG and accessories and books for the game.
It’s that simple.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Steel Wind.
Thank you for confirming that you can play with the no death and no consumables rule for PFS scenarios.
It's clear you must believe this is allowed. After all it's not a "new rule." And "They are the rules that are enforced at every PFS table everywhere."
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
A thought: if the current consequences of death in PFS-sanctioned module play were tweaked just a little, there would be ramifications for death.
Right now, dying in a module costs your PC one XP, 1 point of Fame, and a third of the money. Instead, if it cost 1 point of Fame, and a third of the money, but still gave your PC full 3 XP, then it would sting more.
|
|
Steelwind: I think Matthew Morris' portrayal of your position is a bit of a straw golem but I'm not entirely comfortable with how I see your position either.
Are you saying that Painlord's choice is against the rules, but the rules don't have to be (shouldn't be?) followed in this case because they don't support the goal of PFS (FUN) and won't result in feelings of injustice?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Steelwind: I think Matthew Morris' portrayal of your position is a bit of a straw golem but I'm not entirely comfortable with how I see your position either.
Are you saying that Painlord's choice is against the rules, but the rules don't have to be (shouldn't be?) followed in this case because they don't support the goal of PFS (FUN) and won't result in feelings of injustice?
I was going for reducto ad absurdium actually :-)
|
|
Are you saying that Painlord's choice is against the rules, but the rules don't have to be (shouldn't be?) followed in this case because they don't support the goal of PFS (FUN) and won't result in feelings of injustice?
Actually, yes.
However, I think we are inevitably going to get caught up in the debate of whether or not this is "breaking the rules" vs. "not breaking the rules" if we go there. While it is not an inherently dishonest debate -- I do think it is an unnecessary one.
Say instead that we have:
A) General Ruleset A = Applies to All PFS Scenarios;
and
B) Special Ruleset B = Mulligan for Sanctioned Modules
I believe that an individual player should be able to choose NOT to take the mulligan in the event of death, and I further believe an organizer is well within his rights and the spirit and intent of the rules not to force that mulligan upon the player, too. There is nothing wrong with the General Rules, after all. That is the default assumption under which we all play.
When we go further than that, I think we can potentially run into trouble. I am concerned with feelings of peer pressure and intimidation that one can feel forced into doing something he or she does not want to do (give up the mulligan) becaue the group and GM appears to prefer it. That's a dangerous situation which potentially CAN create feelings of injustice among players after the fact. I think down that road potentially lies unhappiness and injured feelings and those are incompatible with the goals of Organized Play.
But as long as the individual player is the one who makes the determination? I'm fine with his or her decision to not take a mulligan and I submit that everyone else should be fine with that, too.
In short, Genereal Ruleset A is the default assumption and it is only the application of Special Ruleset B which displaces it. If a Player wishes NOT to displace General Ruleset A by refusing to take a mulligan? I think that is well within the Rules and is a private matter which does not require adjudication.
The tricky bit is ensuring that it is a personal choice and not one foisted upon the player through peer pressure.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
When two groups of people believe conflicting things, no amount of reiterating the same points over and over will resolve that difference of opinion.
If Michael Brock thought Pain's suggestion was too badly out of line I suspect he would have said something by now. Instead he's said multiple times that something is going to change soon.
Rather than talk past each other for another 150 messages or so, don't you think it makes sense to hear what the guy who makes the calls says?
|
When two groups of people believe conflicting things, no amount of reiterating the same points over and over will resolve that difference of opinion.
If Michael Brock thought Pain's suggestion was too badly out of line I suspect he would have said something by now. Instead he's said multiple times that something is going to change soon.
Rather than talk past each other for another 150 messages or so, don't you think it makes sense to hear what the guy who makes the calls says?
If this was an argument about the Module rules I would agree with you, but this argument that has been going on is not about the Rules of the Modules, that was just a catalyst. The argument is about what leeway does an Organizer have to change the rules to fit better to what they think they should be.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
If this was an argument about the Module rules I would agree with you, but this argument that has been going on is not about the Rules of the Modules, that was just a catalyst. The argument is about what leeway does an Organizer have to change the rules to fit better to what they think they should be.
As Bob said, you were talking past each other. You assumed it was about whether it was cool to change rules. They were saying the rules weren't actually changed.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Dragonmoon,
It occurs to me that part of your concern is the distinction between people in Painlord's position versus someone who just tries to fill a table at a home game or in-store game.
You consistently capitalize "Organizer", when you speak of Painlord. Is it his official title as an Organizer of Pathfinder Society that gives you pause?
|
|
a lot of stuff
Though I understand what you are saying here Steel wind I do not agree with your method.
I understand that the organizers that are changing the rule example of this post are doing it because they don't like them and they don't fit their groups idea of what PFS play should be, but they are doing it the wrong way with dealing with it.
We are in an organization that expects the same rules no matter where we go, to ensure that we rely on the organizer in good faith to follow those rules and not change them.
If an organizer has an issue with a rule the right way to deal with it would be to post a reasonable contention to the rule here on the forums to start a conversation between the players/Gms/Organizers/VCs and Mike, the right way is not to just change the rule yourself because then you go against that faith I mentioned above.
There have been many cases of those posts I mention leading to changes to the rules and there are some good examples of posters doing just that and having a impact to the PFS has a whole.
Good examples of posters who have done that are Michael VonHasseln aka Arnim Thayer and Drogon.
I think I had some small part it getting Play, Play, Play! removed and adjusted in it's current format and clarification to playing-up and down.
You strongest weapon to get a rule changed is to bring them up and hope they will be changed which we have indication may happen with the Module rules, not to change them yourself and go against the Faith Fair and consistent play throughout PFS.
|
|
Dragonmoon,
It occurs to me that part of your concern is the distinction between people in Painlord's position versus someone who just tries to fill a table at a home game or in-store game.
You consistently capitalize "Organizer", when you speak of Painlord. Is it his official title as an Organizer of Pathfinder Society that gives you pause?
Actually I started using the Term organizer because I did not want Painlord thinking I was picking directly on him..;)
|
|
As Bob said, you were talking past each other. You assumed it was about whether it was cool to change rules. They were saying the rules weren't actually changed.
And I am ignoring that to a point because the rules where changed so those parts of the conversation are not relevant to what I am saying.
Edit: If you have a rule but you do the exact opposite that is a rule change, if people choose to ignore that that is up to them.
|
|
Dragnmoon
What do you do as organiser if someone blatantly circumvents the intention but stays within the rules.
I can generate an 8th level wizard for the Ebon Destroyer and give him 30k worth of consumables in form of scrolls. Everything up to 6th level is legal and who cares if I burn through 20K of consumables. After all it doesn't count.
I can't tell if this ever has happened. But after this discussion I wouldn't be surprised someone just doing this to proof a point.
But I'm in the rules and follow them.
I just would hope as organiser I do have leeway in such circumstance. I guess there is still the don't be a jerk rule that I can apply.
|
|
Dragnmoon
What do you do as organiser if someone blatantly circumvents the intention but stays within the rules.
I can generate an 8th level wizard for the Ebon Destroyer and give him 30k worth of consumables in form of scrolls. Everything up to 6th level is legal and who cares if I burn through 20K of consumables. After all it doesn't count.
I can't tell if this ever has happened. But after this discussion I wouldn't be surprised someone just doing this to proof a point.
But I'm in the rules and follow them.
I just would hope as organiser I do have leeway in such circumstance. I guess there is still the don't be a jerk rule that I can apply.
That is an interesting question and I will address it later, I have to go back to work.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Thod,
My two C-bills on 'hypothetical scroll boy.'
I would (before the game) ask if he had another character to play. If it was an open table, I'd sigh and let him play. Afterwords I'd have words akin to "If you do that again, my events will coincidentally be full up." (I have no issue with Painlord or anyone else closing a table because of player/player, player GM conflict. I consider it a positive. If I have an issue with a player (as a GM) I'd rather not GM him than have him whine to a VC "Matthew didn't like me and killed my character. He got digested by a grue, so I can't even get him back!" Obviously I'm talking about something like a weekend game, I've never ran at a convention so I can't speak to that. Chase him to another table maybe?)
But, if it's a legal character, I don't see any rules issue forbidding play. He's not breaking the rules, or ignoring them for the 'flavour of the game'. Such a 'burn character' is no different than a fighter optimized for PA in a regular game from a rules point of view. Is he going to spoil others fun? Yeah, likely. But if we start banning players from tables for being potentially disruptive, where do we stop?
What I don't see doing is introducing packs of augmented pugwampis to shatter his potions, fire elementals to ignite his scrolls, hoards of roaving street urchings with maxed out sleight of hand to steal scrolls etc suddenly appearing. That's me violating the letter of the rules, because I feel the person violated the spirit.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
|
|
Question for Painlord - and I apologise if you've mentioned this already, I didn't see it when I was reading the thread.
How do you handle the sanctioned modules which fall outside of the PFS level range using your rules?
Acadamae of Secrets and Tomb of the Iron Medusa, for instance. Both of these mods are too high for a legal PFS character to ever play them. Would you only allow retired level 12s to play these mods? Do you simply not offer them as playing options at your table?
|
|
I think he said this..
Ah yes, I found it! That's a shame, really. Both of the modules I mentioned are really fun, and I think it's a pity that only players with retired characters will have the chance to experience them.
I'd also be very interested to see how a level 12 party stacked up in Tomb of the Iron Medusa. I almost TPKed the level-appropriate versions of my group's characters when they ran it, and I think level 12s may just get gibbed.
|
|
I think it's a pity that only players with retired characters will have the chance to experience them
Reminder that the things Painlord and his players are doing is only in regards to that specific organized game. There is nothing preventing someone else from running those two modules, for those players, and allowing "level-ups." The players are in no way being denied access to those modules. They are just choosing not playing them and Painlord is choosing not to run offer them.
|
|
Reminder that the things Painlord and his players are doing is only in regards to that specific organized game. There is nothing preventing someone else from running those two modules, for those players, and allowing "level-ups." The players are in no way being denied access to those modules. They are just choosing not playing them and Painlord is choosing not to run offer them.
Not much of an issue with this anyway other then closing it to other players who don't have retired PCs, which though I would not do myself, it is within the rules for all the PCs to be retired.
|
Reminder that the things Painlord and his players are doing is only in regards to that specific organized game. There is nothing preventing someone else from running those two modules, for those players, and allowing "level-ups." The players are in no way being denied access to those modules. They are just choosing not playing them and Painlord is choosing not to run offer them.
I would only have a problem with anything painlord does if what he does is a public game, and is PFS. If it's neither of those, then I have argument against his or any other organizer who does this. I am under the impression that he runs a game that is public to his customers, and he supposedly running PFS scenarios under PFS rules, and altering them to fit his point of view. The rules say I can play a character fitting the listed rules for whatever module, and if I showed up to his public event, I would expect the right to play, because it is a public, sanctioned PFS game. It is not a player/GM conflict issue, it's a "I don't like the rules, so I'll alter them, and if you want to play at my store/game, you'll follow my rules" issue.
Regardless of region and where I currently am, I expect the ability to play anywhere there is legal PFS sanctioned games, because I do travel, and would be upset if they had similar rules to this in Atlanta where I'm headed this next fall or anywhere I go.
|
|
Dan, I agree with you to a point, but just because an event is held at a public venue does not necessarily make it a public event. It could be that, while held at a FLGS, the players are "invited" by the organizer. I have done this a few times myself.
Of course, most of our thoughts regarding Painlord's specific event is speculation since we really do not have all the particulars. And I am sure that, at this point, Painlord has no interest in responding so he can get his brains beat in, albeit politely, I'm sure. :-)
Seriously, we have gone waaaay off topic and in a number of different directions in this thread. I think if any of the topics herein are interesting to anyone, start a new thread where it can, hopefully, be explored in a more focused manner.
|
|
Dan, I agree with you to a point, but just because an event is held at a public venue does not necessarily make it a public event. It could be that, while held at a FLGS, the players are "invited" by the organizer. I have done this a few times myself.
Of course, most of our thoughts regarding Painlord's specific event is speculation since we really do not have all the particulars. And I am sure that, at this point, Painlord has no interest in responding so he can get his brains beat in, albeit politely, I'm sure. :-)
Seriously, we have gone waaaay off topic and in a number of different directions in this thread. I think if any of the topics herein are interesting to anyone, start a new thread where it can, hopefully, be explored in a more focused manner.
The sad part is...I don't remember what the original topic was without checking. >.<
|
Dragnmoon, I don't think anyone would agree that you can change PFS rules as you see fit. That is a slippery slope and not a good policy if local players go to a convention where the 'home brew' rules aren't in occurrence.
Now, you characterize Painlord of changing the rules. I think that is where people are in disagreement.
|
|
Dragnmoon, I don't think anyone would agree that you can change PFS rules as you see fit. That is a slippery slope and not a good policy if local players go to a convention where the 'home brew' rules aren't in occurrence.
Now, you characterize Painlord of changing the rules. I think that is where people are in disagreement.
Because he is changing the rules. I don't see any way to say that he is not.
The rules for modules are X, Painlord is running them with rulset Y instead. That, by definition, is changing the rules.
Once you get into changing any rules, where do you stop?
If Painlord can, unilaterally, decide to run modules under scenario rules, what is to stop some other GM from running scenarios under module rules?
|
|
Because he is changing the rules. I don't see any way to say that he is not
And that is the crux of the issue. Some are claiming that he is changing the rules because the RAW is absolute. Others are saying what he is doing is not changing the rules, but working within a more limited version than what the listed rules require. RAW is not absolute, but sets limits which he is operating within, not beyond.
The two sides are talking past each other because the basis of the argument lies in whether or not what was done should be considered a change in the rules. Each side has their own definition of what "change" means and will therefore not be able to move on to the related questions. We are at a fundamental impasse. No resolution is to be had.
|
|
And that is the crux of the issue. Some are claiming that he is changing the rules because the RAW is absolute. Others are saying what he is doing is not changing the rules, but working within a more limited version than what the listed rules require. RAW is not absolute, but sets limits which he is operating within, not beyond.The two sides are talking past each other because the basis of the argument lies in whether or not what was done should be considered a change in the rules. Each side has their own definition of what "change" means and will therefore not be able to move on to the related questions. We are at a fundamental impasse. No resolution is to be had.
Slightly different thought...
But by using that logic on why it is not a change there is nothing stopping organizers and groups from making 15 point Build PCs or eliminating traits..or similar stuff
That is following the same logic so I assume you have no problem with that?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
And that is the crux of the issue. Some are claiming that he is changing the rules because the RAW is absolute. Others are saying what he is doing is not changing the rules, but working within a more limited version than what the listed rules require. RAW is not absolute, but sets limits which he is operating within, not beyond.The two sides are talking past each other because the basis of the argument lies in whether or not what was done should be considered a change in the rules. Each side has their own definition of what "change" means and will therefore not be able to move on to the related questions. We are at a fundamental impasse. No resolution is to be had.
Slightly different thought...
But by using that logic on why it is not a change there is nothing stopping organizers and groups from making 15 point Build PCs or eliminating traits..or similar stuff
That is following the same logic so I assume you have no problem with that?
Nothing.
Though you are going to have a heck of a time drafting new players if you tell them characters they bring in from other PFS games aren't allowed.
What you suggest isn't very compatible when you go from one group to the next. "Modules play like scenarios" is essentially doing what people are used to doing and there are no issues with bringing a character in or out.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Nothing.
Though you are going to have a heck of a time drafting new players if you tell them characters they bring in from other PFS games aren't allowed.
What you suggest isn't very compatible when you go from one group to the next. "Modules play like scenarios" is essentially doing what people are used to doing and there are no issues with bringing a character in or out.
Dennis,
This goes back to my concern though. If 'Modules play like scenarios' is fine, why isn't 'scenarios play like modules' ok too? People might be used to playing modules after all, and 'death doesn't count' might make it easier to draft new players...
And that's what the confusion boils down to for me. The consensus I'm gathering from the 'it's fine' group does seem to reflect the "It's using rules, just another set" but when I sugggest reversing the tables, people say it's different. How is it different, I ask.
Edit: Likewise, I see you agree with the argument that disallowing traits and lowering the point build is fine. Like I pointed out above, the rules are limits, both a minimum and a maximum. So if you're saying it's ok to take the rules "use 20 point buy" and "All points must be spent" and change those to "Use 15 point buy" or "You don't have to spend all the points" Why isn't it ok to say "Use 25 point buy" or "You can spend more than 20 points"? Again, it's the exact same thing, but in the opposite direction. If you're inferring from the rules that the limits are a maximum and not a minimum (when it doesn't say that) why can't I infer they're a minimum and not a maximum?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Matthew,
Because that's how rules always work.
Your fighter is allowed, for whatever reason, to strike for half damage within the rules. That doesn't mean that my fighter is allowed to strike for double damage.
Barring any minimum posted, you're allowed to drive at half the speed limit. That doesn't mean I'm allowed to drive at twice the speed limit.
Painlord's players are allowed to throw away consumables and gold even though the rules don't require it. That doesn't mean that other players are allowed to keep consumables and gold when the rules do require them to be thrown away.
To be precise, Painlord isn't enforcing scenario play-rules during modules. He's offering a contract: he agrees to run players through a module, and in return his players agree to throw away consumables, etc. Presumably, the economics of game-play in his area is such that some players think he's offering a reasonable contract.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Matthew,
To be precise, Painlord isn't enforcing scenario play-rules during modules. He's offering a contract: he agrees to run players through a module, and in return his players agree to throw away consumables, etc. Presumably, the economics of game-play in his area is such that some players think he's offering a reasonable contract.
Semantics :P
Seriosuly, thank you Chris. While I don't agree with the interpretation, that is the clearest reasoning I've had so far. With that reasoning, the question then becomes "Can the organizer offer the contract?" Using your reasoning I don't see why he can't. Are there any penalties if the player breaks the contract afterwards? (Yes, he can not be invited back, but I remember in another thread it was argued that a GM could just not assign a chronicle sheet to the player who left midscenario, or worse, kill the character. Please note, I'm not saying any GM would do that, just talking what ifs)
Because that's how rules always work.Your fighter is allowed, for whatever reason, to strike for half damage within the rules. That doesn't mean that my fighter is allowed to strike for double damage.
Barring any minimum posted, you're allowed to drive at half the speed limit. That doesn't mean I'm allowed to drive at twice the speed limit.
I agree, but my point on the 'point buy scenario' is that there *is* a minimum number of points you can spend in PFS, 20. Character creation doesn't say anywhere you can spend less points. In fact it's the opposite.
Each character receives a number of points to spend on increasing his basic attributes. In this method, all attributes start at a base of 10. A character can increase an individual score by spending some of his points. Likewise, he can gain more points to spend on other scores by decreasing one or more of his ability scores. No score can be reduced below 7 or raised above 18 using this method. See Table 1–1 on the next page for the costs of each score. After all the points are spent, apply any racial modifiers the character might have.
(Emphasis mine.)
Now if someone is wanting to 'burn' a trait so they only have one, that can be done mechanically. Take Heirloom weapon: proficiency (weapon that the character is already proficient in). Voila, you're still legal (you have two traits) one is just effectively worthless. :-)
|
|
Matthew,
Because that's how rules always work.
In a Home game sure, Not in Org play..
Here are a few lines from the Guide..
Because an organized play campaign takes place in a shared-world environment, a few additional rules are required to ensure a similarity of experience by all players at all tables, no matter who is running the game. This guide outlines these special rules, ensuring a level playing field for all. Please read over the contents of this guide carefully.
Also this..
The unique nature of a shared-world campaign requires some minor alterations to the standard Pathfinder RPG rules in order to ensure that certain rules are enforced the same way at every table, even if each of those tables is run by a different Game Master.
The Nature of Org play assumes as stated in the Guide "similarity of experience by all players" No matter where you go and what GM you have, by supporting the right of Organizers/GMs to deviate from these rules you ruing the faith of players that they will get that and ruin one of the core ideas of Org play. I think that right there is why I am so adamant that we should not be supporting stuff like this, I know it will happen, but we should not support it.
You may disagree that it is a Change of the rules, which I still don't get how you could, it is a deviation which is a change which goes away from the one of the core *IMO* reasons to have Org play, and ruins my faith that I will have the same rules no matter where I go.
|
Despite some annoyance on both sides of the issue (including myself) I think I've managed to figure out the issue, I at least would like an answer to.
Are the PFS rules for character risk vs rewards(etc) set rules or set maximums?
I think we all (99% at least) agree that you can't go over the listed rewards and reward extra. This leaves the question, can one arbitrarily award less? (I know the chronicles list max gold and it's possible to receive less then that and not find some items but that's not what I'm talking about here)
(There's also another interesting but likely inflammatory argument regarding if/when coordinators/gms should follow the rules and when they should break them, but that's a horse of a different color)
I would also like to thank everybody for remaining largely civil, especially after my initial posts riling everything up.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I think we all (99% at least) agree that you can't go over the listed rewards and reward extra. This leaves the question, can one arbitrarily award less? (I know the chronicles list max gold and it's possible to receive less then that and not find some items but that's not what I'm talking about here)
Just thought I'd clarify something on my posts...
I don't think 25 point characters, free raise deads in scenarios, etc are fine. I just don't think (outside of 'gentlemen's agreements') additional restrictions are a good idea either. I'm more pulling the devil's advocate that if a GM can put restrictions on a scenario, when the rules either forbid it (as Dragonmoon cites above) or are silent on the matter (which seems to be the argument I'm reading*) Then why isn't liberalization equally permissable?
In the way Chris phrased above about the GM/player contract, I don't see that as much of an issue (with one caveat** after re-reading) if by the society rules, they're allowed to make that contract.
Additional Irony. Anyone who works with me would find my arguing for rules to be consistant funny as hell.
*
**
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Matt,
I draw a distinction between a well-advertised local game versus a private game, even if both occur at the same game store on the same day. I would give the local gameday organizer less slack to be weird about that sort of thing than the fellow running the home game.
That's true whether it's a question of "only 15-point buy characters welcome" or "you have to agree to discard consumables and/or kill your character if the module demands it" to "no gunslingers need apply".
By the way, what was the name of the original Star Trek episode where nations were playing at computer-simulated war and had to enter machines that actually killed you when the simulation indicated that you were a war casualty? Painlord's offer reminds me of that.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
A Little Taste of War, IIRC was the title.
And I understand in Painlord's example it is a 'home game' as it were. (Which is why I'm sticking with hypotheticals) As much as I hate slippery slope arguments* I think for something as delicate as organized play it is an issue.
For the "15 point games" argument, again I don't care if Gene the GM runs games in Newark Ohio (note, AFAIK, no one is running games there, I'm trying to start something) every weekend advertising them as PFS games, reporting sheets, etc. The issue would be if he and his group run an 'open table' (like BTOLM has a Ravenstone) with his 15 point builds, and he tries to have an issue with a player showing up with a 20 point character.
Of course to me it circles back to if GM A can run a 15 point game, why can't GM B run a 25 point game? The guide says 20 points, the CRB says you have to spend them all. Would those 15 point characters be PFS legal? Would characters that spent stuff on items that by the rules they didn't need to? I'm not talking about a character writing down 'tithe to the temple of Desna' I'm talking when you take the character to a con or another event and the GM there asks why you paid for a raise dead because you died in Feast of Ravenmoor. Does, "We use house rules" fly?
*
|
|
"A Taste of Armageddon"
Doesn't Kirk destroy their computer system at the end, so that if they want to fight they'll have to have all the destruction that goes with it and will instead make peace?
Another issue I'm seeing coming up here is the difference between a "public" PFS game and a "private" PFS game.
I would have expected that they all follow the same set of rules, but some people seem to have a problem with extra restrictions in a public game but not in a private game.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
For what it's worth, Matt, I'm not in the "15-point buy PCs are legal" camp. I think a precedent was set with the pre-gen iconics for Master of the Fallen Fortress, but were I king od the world (or Mike B, which is much the same) I'd say that the pre-gens there were a mistake, and I'd say that characters need to start as 20-point-buy to be legal PFS characters.
In particular, I would make a distinction between "what you need to do one a one-time basis for me to let you into this game" versus "the way you have to permanently cripple your PC for me to let you into this game".
(This is also the reason that I have fewer problems with "you have to agree to dump consumables, even though the rules say you don't" than I do with "you have to agree to kill your PC if she dies in the module, even though the rules say she'd just get less experience, fame, and gold.")
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
@Pirate Rob
Thanks for the correction!
@Chris Actually I was kind of surprised when I looked at the PFS pregen Kyra and saw she was 20 points. I'd assumed that using the 15 point iconics was a 'tax' on not playing your own character.
I actually would like the modules to cost consumables and keep the 'less experience/fame/gold' bit. No consumable cost *does* affect a lot of behaviour, but, on average, the modules are a bit deadlier than the scenarios. Often because you don't have as much a chance to rest and reload in a module that you would between three scenarios.
|
|
This is actually a very good thread, in my opinion.
So what position does an organizer or a GM have on running a PFS event.
Now I have a very high respect for Pain. I havent met him but I have read many of his postings on these forums, I think his efforts are good as well as his intentions.
To change rules in an organized campaign should simply be illegal as far as organized play goes. I am not allowed to VC forums nor am I privaleged to communication he may of had with Mike.
While I believe intentions of the rules being altered are great for a linear storyline, as well as great for roleplaying. It would be great for an event outside of PFS. Players and contracts are fine but I believe these implications should not exist at all. Will these players have the same resources available when they retire? How will these players and their characters interact at large conventions?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Red-Assassin,
.
I think that players who agree to treat consumables in a module the same way they treat consumables in scenarios, will find their PCs to have resources equal to those PCs who have seen only scenarios.
.
People whose characters "play up" as often as possible, and who live, will have a much more dramatic wealth advantage. PCs who have had to buy a raise dead and a couple of restorations will have significantly fewer resources.
.
And, flippantly, who cares what a PC's resources are, after she retires?