Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Definition of PFS General Discussion


Pathfinder Society® General Discussion

1 to 50 of 77 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Michigan—Alma

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, what is it? Because the last several weeks a TON of threads keep getting thrown other places when they contain valid PFS related concerns. Are we only supposed to BS in the thread like some do? By continuously tossing them into other forums, they easily get misplace/ignored by those that could answer the questions best, those that actually care about PFS.

I can understand the occasional thread that has nothing to do with PFS, but more and more those that do have something to do with it get moved. Who's doing it and why? Someone new to the boards/PFS could very easily get pissed off at his thread vanishing and not being able to find it and could leave for good. Seems pretty stupid for some small technicality. Just because a rule could be answered by the forum at general, doesn't mean they don't want only PFS members answering.

[/rant]

Silver Crusade **

Amen to that. The rules board gives no answers, just suggested houserules and "how I would rule it" answers. And PFS is its own animal. It doesn't hurt to have some silly threads around, so *please*, quit moderating without a good reason.


Alexander_Damocles wrote:
Amen to that. The rules board gives no answers, just suggested houserules and "how I would rule it" answers.

And when the same questions get posted in the PFS forum, you get answers like "it works normally, the same way it works outside of PFS".

There isn't really a good solution to getting "official" answers, fast.

Osirion

I absolutely agree. I had this happen to me. I wanted to create a background for a PFS character and choose a faction and such. But, because I mentioned that I originally used the concept for a World of Warcraft character and wanted to rewrite the PC for PFS, it got shunted to the "conversion" forum where it has been summarily ignored.
The few responses it did get included non-legal options for PFS. The only place to properly discuss these things and get legal responses is in the PFS forums. That's why it's supposed to be "general". I know there's various moderators for different forums, but, whoever is doing it is getting *way* too zealous about pulling stuff out of this forum.

I understand the point of moving stuff, but, when our players have to start putting a statement at the beginning of their posts saying, "Please don't move this thread", there's a very real problem that needs to be addressed.

Silver Crusade **

hogarth wrote:
Alexander_Damocles wrote:
Amen to that. The rules board gives no answers, just suggested houserules and "how I would rule it" answers.

And when the same questions get posted in the PFS forum, you get answers like "it works normally, the same way it works outside of PFS".

There isn't really a good solution to getting "official" answers, fast.

But you tend to get some decent answers fairly quickly, and TPTB tend to be quite active online and respond really quickly. It beats the alternative.

Andoran *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexander_Damocles wrote:
Amen to that. The rules board gives no answers, just suggested houserules and "how I would rule it" answers. And PFS is its own animal. It doesn't hurt to have some silly threads around, so *please*, quit moderating without a good reason.

Seeing a new PFS Rules subforum on here is my big wish right now, lol.

The movement of the threads can be obnoxious, but I have seen much worse. At least when they get moved you can go back to your posts under the 'My Wishlists' thing at the top of the screen to find out where it moved.

On a Pokemon website I visit, their moderators are always in hardcore offtopic=locked mode with no other explanation than 'this doesnt belong in this forum'. I even tried making a thread (in the general discussion area, mind you) about maybe the mods should inform the posters where the post should be instead of just saying 'not here'. It was locked with no response within an hour or so of creation. :/

Andoran *****

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

I have not seen all of the posts that have been moved, but the ones I have seen moved were sent to where they belong.

We have seen a rash of Rules questions in the PFS forums, and that is not the location for them.

I can fully understand you may not like all the responses you get for those questions, but that does not mean they don't belong there. I would just suggest that you mention that you need to stick to RAW as close as possible due to PFS.

Most of the Time if a rule is not stated as different in the Guide, FAQ or additional resources then it is not different in PFS.

So just be aware that if you post a question on how Rules work it most likely will be moved.

I think we do need a PFS Character advice forum though.

Edit: Also usually they wait to move it until it really starts rambling on Rules.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

W. Kristoph Nolen wrote:

I absolutely agree. I had this happen to me. I wanted to create a background for a PFS character and choose a faction and such. But, because I mentioned that I originally used the concept for a World of Warcraft character and wanted to rewrite the PC for PFS, it got shunted to the "conversion" forum where it has been summarily ignored.

The few responses it did get included non-legal options for PFS. The only place to properly discuss these things and get legal responses is in the PFS forums. That's why it's supposed to be "general". I know there's various moderators for different forums, but, whoever is doing it is getting *way* too zealous about pulling stuff out of this forum.

I understand the point of moving stuff, but, when our players have to start putting a statement at the beginning of their posts saying, "Please don't move this thread", there's a very real problem that needs to be addressed.

Wow, they moved the discussion on how to convert a character from another game to PFS?

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

If a post is PFS specific, it will remain here on the PFS message board. If you don't feel it should have been moved, PM me. I am more than willing to take a look and move it back if necessary. If I choose not to move it back, I will let you know why.

PFS doesn't override any rules in most instances (with a few exceptions of crafting and the like). However, if there is a post on why the double hackbut is still allowed because it is broken, that thread doesn't belong on the PFS boards. If you ask how darkness works on the PFS boards, it works the same as it does in the Core Rulebook and thus, does not need to be a PFS topic.

It belongs on another message board. PFS isn't in place to fix rules. We are here to try to incorporate the rules as best we can that are in place in printed products.

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

W. Kristoph Nolen wrote:

I absolutely agree. I had this happen to me. I wanted to create a background for a PFS character and choose a faction and such. But, because I mentioned that I originally used the concept for a World of Warcraft character and wanted to rewrite the PC for PFS, it got shunted to the "conversion" forum where it has been summarily ignored.

The few responses it did get included non-legal options for PFS. The only place to properly discuss these things and get legal responses is in the PFS forums. That's why it's supposed to be "general". I know there's various moderators for different forums, but, whoever is doing it is getting *way* too zealous about pulling stuff out of this forum.

I understand the point of moving stuff, but, when our players have to start putting a statement at the beginning of their posts saying, "Please don't move this thread", there's a very real problem that needs to be addressed.

I went back and found your thread. I don't know why it was initially moved, but I have moved it back to PFS General discussion.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Alexander_Damocles wrote:
Amen to that. The rules board gives no answers, just suggested houserules and "how I would rule it" answers.

Frankly, that's half of what you get here, too.

------+------

I second Seth's idea of a PFS subforum for rules questions. Right now there's a "rock and a hard place" situation like Hogarth described, so having a spot to put those questions would be nice.

I guess even nicer would be to get people in the Rules boards to read the damn rules and give actual helpful answers, but until the Senate and House approve my Unilateral Control of All Sentient Minds bill, I'm not sure how to implement it.

***** Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Boston aka Harley Quinn X

I will agree with what many posters here have said, as well as what Mike said.

I think the confusion is what would qualify as a "PFS" Rules Question. A lot of the rules questions which have shown up here are ones which have no clear answer (even outside of PFS), like the Oils/Potions as Weapons discussion. There's no easy answer to that clearly available in the core rules, and yet we expect a ruling to just be made on the fly for PFS? That's wishful thinking. It can happen, but it would be incredibly rare.

My personal criteria of whether something is a PFS rules question or not is if it can be prefixed with "I know how it work normally, but...". I would love to see a PFS rules forum, if the community could police itself and not pop in with "in a home game.../I would personally say..." answers.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

David Montgomery wrote:
I would love to see a PFS rules forum, if the community could police itself and not pop in with "in a home game.../I would personally say..." answers.

Fortunately, I think people respond well to being told that they're in the PFS section, and I think just having the threads within this section would help anyway.

As for not popping in with "I would personally say..." answers, well, I've been trying to get PFS GMs to stop that for about a year now. I'm open to suggestions.

***** Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Boston aka Harley Quinn X

Jiggy wrote:
As for not popping in with "I would personally say..." answers, well, I've been trying to get PFS GMs to stop that for about a year now. I'm open to suggestions.

I would personally say "offer them cake and cookies to stop", and -- Oops.

In seriousness, having our own PFS rules forum would help a bit as that would regulate the types of responses questions get. But shouldn't there be some sort of quideline as to what qualifies as a PFS question vs a Pathfinder RPG question?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

David Montgomery wrote:
But shouldn't there be some sort of quideline as to what qualifies as a PFS question vs a Pathfinder RPG question?

Your rule of thumb ("normally X, but in PFS...", where X is something other than "ask your GM") would be great.

But the type of subforum I'd like to see is one for PFRPG rules questions, answered by PFS regulars/GMs.

*****

Jiggy wrote:
But the type of subforum I'd like to see is one for PFRPG rules questions, answered by PFS regulars/GMs.

I agree, that would be nice and in some from I think is doable .. however, the variable factor is the denizens of the pfs forums that don't play but consider themselves experts, unfortunately it can be hard to segment them out from the actual players and those with first hand experience.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
But the type of subforum I'd like to see is one for PFRPG rules questions, answered by PFS regulars/GMs.
I agree, that would be nice and in some from I think is doable .. however, the variable factor is the denizens of the pfs forums that don't play but consider themselves experts, unfortunately it can be hard to segment them out from the actual players and those with first hand experience.

Even that would be an improvement from the regular Rules forum, while still avoiding cluttering up the GD section.

Qadira ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is an interesting meta-topic, btw.

* * *Draft thoughts* * *

Random Thought Tree:

1) We know that there are some hugely annoying RAW/RAI rules in Pathfinder that Paizo has been slow to fix/clarify.
2) We know that Mike/Mark's stance is that they will defer such questions to the rules team, yadayada.
3) We know that this leaves too much ambiguity and such for PFS play. If we are expected to play RAW, then Paizo should be held more accountable for timely rulings, clarifications, and updates.
4) Mike/Mark probably don't have any way to speed up decisions like that. Their hands are tied and can't take a position on such things.

My thought: Let's do it ourselves. Let's get a committee together to rule on things that Paizo won't and we, as a community, can agree to abide by them.

No, it won't be RAW. However, it will be what the PFS Community thinks is best for the PFS Community. Sure, Local Coordinators and GMs can ignore it...no doubt some will.

But, on the other hand, if the VOs and forces of nature on this board can agree to follow those rulings, then we'll have more certainty in our games.

I, for one, believe that the Community is responsible for such things when Paizo won't address them.

Could we get 3 yahoos (like Baird, Jiggy, & VC ???) to act as the PFS Rules Triad? I wonder.

-Pain

*****

Jiggy wrote:
Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
But the type of subforum I'd like to see is one for PFRPG rules questions, answered by PFS regulars/GMs.
I agree, that would be nice and in some from I think is doable .. however, the variable factor is the denizens of the pfs forums that don't play but consider themselves experts, unfortunately it can be hard to segment them out from the actual players and those with first hand experience.
Even that would be an improvement from the regular Rules forum, while still avoiding cluttering up the GD section.

yep... which is why I agreed with you.

*****

Painlord wrote:

This is an interesting meta-topic, btw.

* * *Draft thoughts* * *

Random Thought Tree:

1) We know that there are some hugely annoying RAW/RAI rules in Pathfinder that Paizo has been slow to fix/clarify.
2) We know that Mike/Mark's stance is that they will defer such questions to the rules team, yadayada.
3) We know that this leaves too much ambiguity and such for PFS play. If we are expected to play RAW, then Paizo should be held more accountable for timely rulings, clarifications, and updates.
4) Mike/Mark probably don't have any way to speed up decisions like that. Their hands are tied and can't take a position on such things.

My thought: Let's do it ourselves. Let's get a committee together to rule on things that Paizo won't and we, as a community, can agree to abide by them.

No, it won't be RAW. However, it will be what the PFS Community thinks is best for the PFS Community. Sure, Local Coordinators and GMs can ignore it...no doubt some will.

But, on the other hand, if the VOs and forces of nature on this board can agree to follow those rulings, then we'll have more certainty in our games.

I, for one, believe that the Community is responsible for such things when Paizo won't address them.

Could we get 3 yahoos (like Baird, Jiggy, & VC ???) to act as the PFS Rules Triad? I wonder.

-Pain

I see your point and think it has it's good points, however, If we are forum-mites makes up these rules, what happens to Tommy Three-Toes in BooYah, Center of Nowhere, World.. that doesn't visit the forums, how does he know about these common law rules?

If we're going to do something as a bandaid to help out until formal rules can be put into place then they really should be adopted across the board 100% or the community as a whole is no better off than we are now with different interrpretations and different ways of doing things.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

@Painlord: Not a bad idea, and I would be willing to be just such a yahoo. Especially if that could be my official title. ;)

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Eric Clingenpeel wrote:
So, what is it?

From the forum description:

"Talk about Pathfinder Society rules, factions, character creation, and player-based game play experience."

Shadow Lodge **

Clearly something must be done. I understand Paizo is busy, but it takes months to get official rulings (or at least seems so to me) after a board discussion has largely cleared it up.

I'd personally like to see Paizo get better about keeping RAW current. I'd also like to see more flexibility to allow for RAI as adjudicated by VOs and store coordinators.

However failing that (and I don't expect my dream to EVER happen) I'd be happy to see something like what Painlord suggests. It would at least give us some more control and speed the rules process for organizations (like us here in the Bay Area) that do keep up with the boards.

...but then I've been wrong before! hehe

Andoran *****

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Especially if that could be my official title. ;)

I officially bestow upon thee the title of Yahoo.

You soon should be getting your Badge with your official title from the Grand Poobah Yahoo Bob.

Qadira ****

Yahoo Jiggy? or ... maybe Junior Yahoo Jiggy? does that mean you'll get something after your name like Judge Stars? maybe ??? question marks?

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Any rules fixes that people plan to agree to follow are not official and will not be deemed so, especially if a problem comes up where a character may be lost permanently due to one of these rules fixes. I want to make sure that people are aware of this before a lot of legwork goes into this sort of project.

As much as some of you want a fix immediately to every rule you don't agree with, for a rules change to go into affect in PFS, it would need to be errated by the rules team. I encourage you to continue to bring up overall, PFRPG rules issues on the Rules forum. If they affect PFS, I don't mind if you PM me so I can point it out to the development team. But, please don't expect a rules change within hours or days of when you point out a problem.

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Euan wrote:


It would at least give us some more control and speed the rules process for organizations (like us here in the Bay Area) that do keep up with the boards.

And this is the crux of the problem. What people in the Bay area may see as a problem, people in Michigan, Gerogia, Croatia, and Turkey may not. To go out and decide to make your own rules clarifications for your local area, and then the players get to a national or a different regional convention and find they are having to play under another set of rules than what they have come to expect, may scare off new players just as easily.

It becomes even more of a problem if this "rules board" decides one way to do things, and then an official rules errata or change comes down that is not close or not even similar to what this "rules board" decided on. Splitting the playerbase because your area feels a rule should be a certain way, when the rest of the world is not in sync with it sets a very bad precedent.

Osirion

Michael Brock wrote:
I went back and found your thread. I don't know why it was initially moved, but I have moved it back to PFS General discussion.

Mike, I cannot even begin to say thank you enough. I kind of felt like abandoning the character concept, because I don't know the campaign world well enough to know what to research to make a really good story. Your quick response makes me feel as though you guys really do listen to us, and try to make things better when you're able. That's the biggest thing that makes me love Paizo.

Hopefully, I will be able to make the character with some feedback from other players and make him PFS legal.
Anyone feeling like offering a little help on setting and faction could toss in their two cents here.
Thanks!

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Michael Brock wrote:

And this is the crux of the problem. What people in the Bay area may see as a problem, people in Michigan, Gerogia, Croatia, and Turkey may not. To go out and decide to make your own rules clarifications for your local area, and then the players get to a national or a different regional convention and find they are having to play under another set of rules than what they have come to expect, may scare off new players just as easily.

It becomes even more of a problem if this "rules board" decides one way to do things, and then an official rules errata or change comes down that is not close or not even similar to what this "rules board" decided on. Splitting the playerbase because your area feels a rule should be a certain way, when the rest of the world is not in sync with it sets a very bad precedent.

You do have a point, there. It might actually end up being counterproductive. Hrm.

Qadira ****

heck, I don't mind typeing things like the following on some of my posts...

from a real thread:

(Please do not move this to the Rules board, as I want to know if a player can do this in PFSOP, and the only thing I seem to get when I ask questions over there is wrong information, opinions, and comments about how stupid my questions are.)

and you know what? it worked. It stayed on the PFS board long enough to get me my PFS answers and then moved to the Rules forum, where Dragnmoon was kind enough to tell me it was a stupid question (and Jiggy pointed out it happened on the Rules board).

Osirion

nosig wrote:
heck, I don't mind typeing things like the following on some of my posts ... and you know what? it worked.

Hahahahahaha!

Yep, nosig, that's actually the post to which I was referring. I'm glad that it did work. I just wish that that you hadn't had the feeling that it might be necessary. :)

You know, in a perfect world, and all.

Qadira ****

sometimes it works the other way too though.

I had a question on how to sell a wizards spell book in PFS, and posted it in someone elses thread on Spellbooks (Kind of thread jacked it and felt bad about it), so I went out to the rules forum and posted the question there - explaining that the answer had to be RAW, as the character in question was a PFS character. The posting on the Rules board resulted in only two responses, one saying I was extreamly stupid and the other saying the poster would give me 12.5 gp ... and I should be happy to get that, as I had gotten the book for free. Meantime over here I got good responses - and a lot of different input, all from other Judges (I think) and most with references as to WHY the poster felt that was the right answer. (Ultimatly the result was that it can't be sold at this time, wait for a formal ruling.)

Qadira ***

Jiggy wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:

And this is the crux of the problem. What people in the Bay area may see as a problem, people in Michigan, Gerogia, Croatia, and Turkey may not. To go out and decide to make your own rules clarifications for your local area, and then the players get to a national or a different regional convention and find they are having to play under another set of rules than what they have come to expect, may scare off new players just as easily.

It becomes even more of a problem if this "rules board" decides one way to do things, and then an official rules errata or change comes down that is not close or not even similar to what this "rules board" decided on. Splitting the playerbase because your area feels a rule should be a certain way, when the rest of the world is not in sync with it sets a very bad precedent.

You do have a point, there. It might actually end up being counterproductive. Hrm.

I'm not sure I understand Mike's point. Or why it would be counterproductive, but that may be a problem with my explanation (I admit it was a thought-concept and draft).

So, let's walk through this again with an example.

1) Let's say the issue is Flurry of Blows*. As far as I know, Paizo has yet to clarify it (but I might have missed it). It's been two months.
2) This (or other issues like it) is *ALREADY* subject to different rulings depending on where you play PFS. Players are already subject to different interpretations by region and area because Paizo hasn't clarified the issue.
3) And suppose, we, the PFS Thread Community decide to commonly agree to cede our interpretation on this to a PFS Rules Triad until such time as Paizo actually rules upon it.
4) Participation is voluntary and willingness to bind yourself and your understanding of the ruling as a stop gap until Paizo officially rules.
5) I would wager that most people on this thread might be willing to get their groups to agree with this as a way to get more (but not perfect) community consensus. Of course, I could be wrong. However, it just might be a nice way to move on from contentious issues. For me, if Jiggy, Baird, and VO XYZ voted and agreed that fury of blows worked like ABC until a clarification came out, I'd go with it.

Now, how is this counterproductive? (I could be just missing it, of course, apologies.)

And how is this a Bay Area thing? How is asking the PFS Community to work together to clarify rules something that is not going to help other groups as well?

-Pain

*:

I'm not on one side of this debate or the other...only showing that there are some rules and clarifications that need to be addressed. I don't blame Paizo for taking long to address them (I'm sure they are doing what is important), but only that there *definitely* is some areas that need addressing for PFS.

I don't think anyone is disputing this: that there are some areas of the PFS/Pathfinder ruleset that need clarification.

Other issues might be:
Wands in an Efficient Quiver
Scrolls in a Wrist Sheathe
Crane Style + Rage
who knows what else...I'm not taking a side on any of them, but acknowledging that some need to be clarified.

Cheliax *

Hooray is this a "The rules board is a wretched hive of scum and villany" thread?

rules board= place where people go to be "right" and argue until they've beaten a dead horse into a few hundred posts.

PFS board= place where people go to get insight into how to build and play their PFS characters, DM, and get on with their lives without the pedantic BS.

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

Painlord wrote:

Now, how is this counterproductive?

Because less than 10% of our player base is on these forums.

Because a PFS Rules Triad has no guidance from an Official Pathfinder representative.

Because if you have a Rules Triad set up, and another group of players doesn't agree with the ruling and they set up their own Rules Triad. And a third group doesn't agree with either and they set up yet another Rules Triad. All you are doing is fracturing the fanbase and causing more arguments and divisiveness within the player base. Is more strife than what we currently have really what you want to cause?

Painlord wrote:

5) I would wager that most people on this thread might be willing to...

All 10-15 of them? Out of a playerbase in the 20,000s.

Painlord wrote:
I would wager that most people on this thread might be willing to get their groups to agree with this as a way to get more (but not perfect) community consensus. Of course, I could be wrong. However, it just might be a nice way to move on from contentious issues.

So, we take 10-15 groups of players from the thousands around the world and consolidate the rest of the groups how? How do you plan to get consensus if you don't reach out to every player and/or group out there to allow them to have a say on a Rules Triad? It is a noble idea but one I think would just cause more division and fracature in the player base than we currently have.

Cheliax *

Uh I'm with Brock on this Pain.
First of all who appoints your Triad? You? Because I sure as hell don't support your choice(s).

Andoran *****

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
nosig wrote:
where Dragnmoon was kind enough to tell me it was a stupid question (and Jiggy pointed out it happened on the Rules board).

No I called you an Idiot... Huge difference... ;)

Qadira ***

Michael Brock wrote:
Painlord wrote:

Now, how is this counterproductive?

Because less than 10% of our player base is on these forums.

Because a PFS Rules Triad has no guidance from an Official Pathfinder representative.

Because if you have a Rules Triad set up, and another group of players doesn't agree with the ruling and they set up their own Rules Triad. And a third group doesn't agree with either and they set up yet another Rules Triad. All you are doing is fracturing the fanbase and causing more arguments and divisiveness within the player base. Is more strife than what we currently have really what you want to cause?

Painlord wrote:

5) I would wager that most people on this thread might be willing to...

All 10-15 of them? Out of a playerbase in the 20,000s.

Yeah, not seeing it Mike. I believe in our Community to work together on issues like this. I have faith that it would help.

However, if you think that getting 10% on the same page (or mostly on the same page) is somehow going to be more divisive than *everyone* potentially being on different pages, I can't argue with that.

I'd take the 10% on these boards and be happy with it.

-Pain

Qadira ***

Alex Draconis wrote:

Uh I'm with Brock on this Pain.

First of all who appoints your Triad? You? Because I sure as hell don't support your choice(s).

I don't care who's on it. Definitely not me. Duh.

-Pain

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Painlord wrote:


I'd take the 10% on these boards and be happy with it.

-Pain

Because it is clear that the 10% here don't have a unilateral agreement on most things (1st level retraining aside).

Cheliax *

Michael Brock wrote:
Painlord wrote:


I'd take the 10% on these boards and be happy with it.

-Pain

Because it is clear that the 10% here don't have a unilateral agreement on most things (1st level retraining aside).

We are the 10%? Sorry couldn't resist.

On that note, see you next Friday. ; P

Andoran *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

A little unwanted Dragnmoon insight

This is how Dragnmoon sees it

There are 3 types of rules.

1. Clear and understandable Rules
2. Rules that are not very clear
3. Things with no rules.

For number 1, it is easy, run it as RAW
For Number 2, Dragnmoon has found for Dragnmoon that the Rules forums have done a very good Job of helping Dragnmoon understand rules that Dragnmoon did not find clear
For Number 3 Dragnmoon feels that is all in the GMs power to rule what is fair for the table at that time.

For Both number 2 and 3 PFS allows for GMs to make their own calls and Dragnmoon is fine with that, in fact Dragnmoon thinks we should trust and allow GMs to do this and just be willing to accept that their maybe table variance, mostly because really it is not that often and does not stop the fun of the game when the GM has to make those calls.

PFS Guide PG 26 wrote:
As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever calls you feel are necessary at your table to ensure that everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder Roleplaying Game source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com, but only you can judge what is right at your table for cases not covered in these sources.

Just a point, you notice Dragnmoon did not bring up RAW vs. RAI, there is a good reason for that, RAI has a tendency to be very opinion oriented and many time ones person RAI is not another, so RAW should be stuck to and not what you think the RAI is.

Andoran *****

I'm with Mike on this. Setting up a Triad is a bad idea.

Even if random board members decide to make one of these things, I make no promise that I will abide by the rules decisions they make.

Andoran *****

Dragnmoon wrote:

There are 3 types of rules.

1. Clear and understandable Rules
2. Rules that are not very clear
3. Things with no rules.

You are forgetting that #3 has two sub-categories.

3A. Things with no rules which generally don't need a rule (Are oils a weapon if you throw them, etc)
3B. Things with no rules which should NEVER require a rule (can a horse climb a ladder/rope, Can you make a ride check to avoid a hit to your mount while unconscious, etc)

Qadira ***

Seth Gipson wrote:

I'm with Mike on this. Setting up a Triad is a bad idea.

Even if random board members decide to make one of these things, I make no promise that I will abide by the rules decisions they make.

I'm not sure why it's a bad idea to you. If your group doesn't want it, then don't use it. It's as non-binding as your own internal rulings on things like Flurry or whatever.

However, some groups might want someone outside themselves to clarify things. And those groups could decide to use the Triad as they see fit.

Again, this is all a thought-project. I get that some people won't like it...but the arguments against it should be better.

-Rand

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

Painlord wrote:


I'm not sure why it's a bad idea to you. If your group doesn't want it, then don't use it. It's as non-binding as your own internal rulings on things like Flurry or whatever.

However, some groups might want someone outside themselves to clarify things. And those groups could decide to use the Triad as they see fit.

Again, this is all a thought-project. I get that some people won't like it...but the arguments against it should be better.

-Rand

The arguments for it would be better if there was more definition to what you want to establish. There was little forethought put into the creation and formation of such a thing, taking the complaints, arguments, rants, or whatever you want to call it from approximately 5% of the player base that posts here, and deciding to come forth with a "Rules Triad" idea that has little clarity to why it should be formed when you have no plan in place to join the entire player base. Initially you wanted a Rules Triad that could clarify rules for the entire player base to follow until Paizo makes clarifications, rulings, and/or errata on problem rules that cause divisiveness. Now, you advise it can be whomever wishes to follow it.

It doesn't make much sense to me why you would want others to go through the trouble of forming a Rules Triad that has no binding rules or jurisdiction to it, can not guarantee what they rule will be completely invalidated at some future point by an official ruling on a debated topic (and could cause their character to become invalidated due to poor choices of the Rules Triad), and that you have no interest serving on said Rules Triad.

I think I have shown that if something works for PFS, I am more than willing to give it some thought and even discuss it off board via email, Skype, IM, dinner at a convention, etc... Heck, I had a two hour dinner with you and another fan at Neon Con to discuss what was wrong and what was broken and what could be better with PFS. Some of those things have actually come to fruition. Others are in the works. The rest I didn't think would work or just wasn't a good fit for PFS because PFS is not other organized play campaigns that have come before it. But, it has to be more of a formulated plan than just, "This is a good idea. 15 people on the message board think so. Let's make it happen for the 25000+ player base, of which 23000+ don't even read the message boards."

On a side note, when you mention some groups might want someone outside themselves to clarify things. We currently have 110+ VCs and VLs. Every one of their emails are published and available at anytime. They are more than capable of making rules calls in their regions or else I would not have assigned them there.

Sczarni *

I think the potential for a 'split' would be way too problematic from having an unofficial Triad.

At our local PFS groups (which I sometimes attend), I always get asked rules questions because I've written a few scenarios. I only answer if I'm 100% sure on things, and if there's any room for rules quirks, I leave it up to the VL/VC..

By having this Triad, you're running the potential of having players reference 'Triad rulings' during PFS sessions. Inexperienced GMs who don't frequent the forums may be confused and run with it, and it could lead to frustration with VLs/VCs.

Honestly, I say that power should remain where it always has - with the GM or Venture staff. That is, until such time as an official ruling is made public by Paizo staff.

My 2.33 (repeating of course) coppers.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sorry Painlord, but although I liked the idea at first, and like the idea behind it, I think in the end it would create more problems than it would solve.

I think the best thing community members can do right now (in regard to rules questions) is to admit when we don't know, refrain from answering until we've looked it up, and leave our assumptions and traditions at the door.

Can we hold anyone but ourselves to that? No. But we can each decide to be the best judge we know how to be.

Qadira ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Can we hold anyone but ourselves to that?"
what's this, someone advocating personal responsability on the Board? what is the world coming too!!!

1 to 50 of 77 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Society® / General Discussion / Definition of PFS General Discussion All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.