|
An expiration system is probably not the best route.
HOWEVER,
If there was some way to show the history of an evolving determination over the years, to explain where the thought process began, and where it is heading...
...yeah, that's unlikely to happen until the Singularity, given the amount of words we've put and continue to put on this forum.
That's not a jab at anyone, the amount of data-sifting that would have to happen intelligently is simply that overwhelming from this humble perspective.
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it odd that I wish we did not have to pin down every grey area of the rules? Although some campaign clarifications are very necessary, I also like there to be a little open space in the campaign for GMs and players to work things out without every little thing being defined.
♫ I feel this song rise within me
Let me say this without shame
We don't need to pin down every rule
In our shared world game
Too late for Keifer's blessing
Too late to worry 'bout power creep
It's time to trust my instincts
Roll the dice and leap!
It's time to defy
Gran-u-larity
We'll try to defy
Gran-u-larity
And you can't pull me down! ♫
Apologies for the musical interlude... You may go back to your discussion now!
Hugs
Hmm
|
So, again, saying you want the process to be better is fine. Saying until Paizo makes the process better, we're going to ignore things they've said that we know are out there and reduce conflict among the participants in the game, because we don't like the process, doesn't make any sense.That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying you need to have both aspects in place:
- A good documentation system
- Expiration dates on everything that's not in that document systemI'm not suggesting implementing only the second part and then hoping for the first.
Until and if we actually get a good documentation system, then it makes an expiration date a moot point.
Because you can't implement an expiration date on campaign rulings without some way to replace that ruling, else then we are left in a worse position than we are now with a poor documentation system.
And once we get a good documentation system, then it also makes an expiration date a moot point.
Because once you have a good documentation system and all things posted end up in it in a timely fashion, then you don't need an expiration date, because everything will have been handled already.
|
Sorry Hmm, I feel differently about things.
Why do we need such exacting precision in our GMing and our play?
So that everyone knows what they’re going to get when they sign up for a PFS game. That being said…I’ve had perfectly rule legal things not allowed. If I were rolling a character for PFS I would make sure there were no rule ambiguities, or if there were, I could live with the most unfavourable interpretation of the ambiguity.
What are the requirements for a GM (particularly in PFS) in regards such a concept?
RAW Everything? That being said, with more and more things being changed, like the ACG, Ultimate Intrigue, Horror Adventurers, Adventurers guide, its hard to keep track on everything – and that’s coming from a Rule Lawyer, hopefully of the Praecepta leges pulchritudinous variety. I shudder to think about those who don’t have internet access when they game…how many erratas have been posted on the paizo boards, that if you had no internet access you would have no way of knowing?
How do we preserve speed of play (both as GM and as Player) while minimizing this?
Generally vet their character sheets before game starts. Once game starts – trust your GM tingly sense. If the numbers don’t seem too far off – just let the player claim however the ability works. If it is really far off – then ask how they arrived at those numbers. At the end of the day it is a matter of how much you trust the player in question. If I know that the person locally has a reputation of pulling a fast one with the rules or constantly gets rules concerning his character wrong, I tend to eye him with prejudice, and ask for how he arrived at the numbers. If the person in question is another rules lawyer (of the neutral or good variety), I figure that there will be an explanation and generally close one eye.
When is a good time for this sort of attention detail, and when is a bad one?
You should, as a PFS GM, vet all the characters signing up for your game, and at least get an understanding on how they work. Unfortunately, the way games and cons are organized, most of the time you do not have a chance to. Make sure you see their character sheets before gaming. Getting caught flatfooted by an ability which you never knew existed in the middle of the game is bad >.<
The good news is I generally spend time reading rules, so I have a rough idea on what most characters (even if it is of a class I have not played before) can, or cannot do.
Where does the mindset come from that exceptionally dense detail is better than a casual working observation of a given ruleset?
To ensure fairness throughout the player base so that they, at all times, know what standards they have to adhere to. A casual working observation of a given ruleset, interpreted by different people can mean vastly different things. Eg. A GM might think its cool that you can jump up 10 ft in the air and grapple the flying BBEG. That jump check would be a….DC 40 acro check RAW, not counting double the DC if you don’t have space (10 ft). So yeah casual working observations and RAW can be very, very different.
Thus the rules must be obeyed in great detail as possible.
*proudly exudes an aura of law*
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Raw everything doesn't solve anything.
1) RAW has a terrible track record of being designer intent. It tends to be faq'd to RAI anyway, meaining that its the most likely reading that will get your character yanked out from under you.
2) PFS is not a sola raw campaign. RAW in pfs means RUN the game as written. The scenario
3) RAW readings tend to be the most abused, cheesey, munchkiny options. Using them gets things banned, not fixed
4) and most importantly for this conversation, "It's RAW" tends to be the absolute LEAST consistent way of interpreting the rules, in no small part because of people trying to use "Raw" for their own mechanical advantage. RAW, despite what it's adherents say, absolutely does not parse out automatically into one coherent meaning. It needs to be read and interpreted and reading without sense or reason is like driving on a road without any painted lines. Yes, sometimes the lines are wrong, but most of the time they'll point you in the right direction if you follow them.
|
|
If it is FAQed I will follow it. RAI is fine to say – but since you aren’t the developer, how do you know what was their intent? How can YOU put yourself into their head and say yes, this is what they meant with 100% accuracy?
People will find things to complain about all the time, whatever way you run things. If you run RAW – and players complain – point them to relevant section in (insert book) then say – that’s what the rule book said.
If it was written that way – then the developers should learn to write it better? I don’t make the rules, just live with them as they are written.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it is FAQed I will follow it. RAI is fine to say – but since you aren’t the developer, how do you know what was their intent? How can YOU put yourself into their head and say yes, this is what they meant with 100% accuracy?
You cannot. But since raw doesn't work with 100% accuracy either this is a speciest argument. Since raw doesn't work with 100% precision either this argument is completely nonsensical. You are inviting in all of the nuttiness that RAW requires and gaining absolutely none of the stated benefit because no two raw advocates read raw the same way. If anything sola raw folks tend to be much further apart from each other than folks reading with a mixture of raw, rai, sense, and with an eye for a balance of power.
People will find things to complain about all the time, whatever way you run things. If you run RAW – and players complain – point them to relevant section in (insert book) then say – that’s what the rule book said.
The complaints will be more justified when you increase table variance and you increase the innanity.
If it was written that way – then the developers should learn to write it better? I don’t make the rules, just live with them as they are written.
The developers have stated, repeatedly, ad nauseum, that they are using conversational english intended for a rational DM to interpret. Reading that as a computer program or a technical manual when they have explicitly said that that is NOT their intent is deliberate inanity.
What you're doing here is exactly the sort of binary, either or logic that makes raw so nutty in the first place.
|
|
If there are variations in interpretations in RAW, then it is up to the GM to determine how it is to be interpreted – and when the VC asks about it – you tell him how you interpreted it – as per RAW(and your reasoning behind the interpretation). If he’s got an issue, he can reverse the decision, but at least you covered your own @ss.
If you RAI it, then your VC asks you why you didn’t RAW, well you got some explaining to do, don’t you?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. You really don't have any explaining to do. I'm kind of a lone spot in the wilderness here and don't interact with the command structure much in meatspace, but the vast majority of the the ones that didn't hit my ignore list in a real hurry are aware of how nutty trying to go sola raw is, don't try it, and definitely don't demand the other DMs try to do it the same way.
Despite the cries of many a munchkin, this is not breaking the rules of the game or pfs. There are other, better paradigms of rules interpretation beyond "its raw"
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In some cases, there is no way to determine RAW when two or more rules intersect. You have left interpretation of RAI, common sense, and consideration of balance.
Most situations where discussion of RAW becomes an issue, they fall into such a situation. Circumstances turn RAW on its head often enough that you can't fall back on RAW as a defence.
|
|
In some cases, there is no way to determine RAW when two or more rules intersect. You have left interpretation of RAI, common sense, and consideration of balance.
Most situations where discussion of RAW becomes an issue, they fall into such a situation. Circumstances turn RAW on its head often enough that you can't fall back on RAW as a defence.
This was one of the things that has been lurking in the back of my mind since I thought about my OP, and since then, and this is the first time it is directly addressed by several posters.
It's a bit of a paradox, then, we need enough definition to be able to function, but not so much that we cannot?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Different environment we both are BNW - for me at least, VC is around the corner(not more then 100 km away =D), so if anyone complains, I get to explain.
And since we are the sum of our experiences, I will say that my experiences have shaped me to become what I am now.
The OP asked to give an opinion, I gave it. And my reasoning for it. There will be people who disagree - but that's all about differences in opinion.
Two rules intersect - specific overrides general.
|
|
In some cases, there is no way to determine RAW when two or more rules intersect. You have left interpretation of RAI, common sense, and consideration of balance.
Most situations where discussion of RAW becomes an issue, they fall into such a situation. Circumstances turn RAW on its head often enough that you can't fall back on RAW as a defence.
This was one of the things that has been lurking in the back of my mind since I thought about my OP, and since then, and this is the first time it is directly addressed by several posters.
It's a bit of a paradox, then, we need enough definition to be able to function, but not so much that we cannot?
Exactly it. I think the current paradigm is about the right balance.
|
|
Different environment we both are BNW - for me at least, VC is around the corner(not more then 100 km away =D), so if anyone complains, I get to explain.
And since we are the sum of our experiences, I will say that my experiences have shaped me to become what I am now.
The OP asked to give an opinion, I gave it. And my reasoning for it. There will be people who disagree - but that's all about differences in opinion.
Two rules intersect - specific overrides general.
There are more than enough intersections of rules where there is no specific to overide general. Or at least the hierarchy of rules is unclear enough to determine definitively which is specific and which is general.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Flawless RAW in even the most obscure things isn't really what PFS asks for. This isn't the Asmodean Monograph exam.
What PFS asks for is that GMs play by the rules, instead of making rules. Everyone has some pet thing in Pathfinder they wish was different, but you can't have an organized play campaign if everyone starts "improving" different things.
There's a difference between "my player is telling me it works like this but that sounds a bit weird, I'll need to look that up after the game so that I know for sure next time", and "I know it's normally one way according to the rles but I think that's OP/unrealistic/bad writing/lame and I'm going to change it".
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
No. You really don't have any explaining to do. I'm kind of a lone spot in the wilderness here and don't interact with the command structure much in meatspace, but the vast majority of the the ones that didn't hit my ignore list in a real hurry are aware of how nutty trying to go sola raw is, don't try it, and definitely don't demand the other DMs try to do it the same way.
Despite the cries of many a munchkin, this is not breaking the rules of the game or pfs. There are other, better paradigms of rules interpretation beyond "its raw"
No there isn't anything better than RAW interpretation. Your issues are a fundamental problem of Paizo not being able to write a book correctly.
EditAid another builds are something that went from vague rules interpretation to yeah no you can't do that so it's not like their writing isnt improving.
Wait, what happened to aid another builds?
|
|
Raw everything doesn't solve anything.
1) RAW has a terrible track record of being designer intent. It tends to be faq'd to RAI anyway, meaining that its the most likely reading that will get your character yanked out from under you.
2) PFS is not a sola raw campaign. RAW in pfs means RUN the game as written. The scenario
3) RAW readings tend to be the most abused, cheesey, munchkiny options. Using them gets things banned, not fixed
4) and most importantly for this conversation, "It's RAW" tends to be the absolute LEAST consistent way of interpreting the rules, in no small part because of people trying to use "Raw" for their own mechanical advantage. RAW, despite what it's adherents say, absolutely does not parse out automatically into one coherent meaning. It needs to be read and interpreted and reading without sense or reason is like driving on a road without any painted lines. Yes, sometimes the lines are wrong, but most of the time they'll point you in the right direction if you follow them.
I agree strongly on all points except #4. It is not the "Least consistent." Probably second to least. The LEAST consistent is the current PFS system where players simply don't know how rules will be interpreted before they sit down at the table.
As for solutions to Ganularity in PFS, I really like my own idea of allowing GM rulings to be written on the character's chronicle sheet and just have the player go with that. Obviously open to abuse, but at least the player could expect to have the same rules from table to table.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In some cases, there is no way to determine RAW when two or more rules intersect. You have left interpretation of RAI, common sense, and consideration of balance.
Most situations where discussion of RAW becomes an issue, they fall into such a situation. Circumstances turn RAW on its head often enough that you can't fall back on RAW as a defence.
This was one of the things that has been lurking in the back of my mind since I thought about my OP, and since then, and this is the first time it is directly addressed by several posters.
It's a bit of a paradox, then, we need enough definition to be able to function, but not so much that we cannot?
Something that probably needs to be said every once in a while is that it is *impossible* to design a system of natural language rules that are free of paradox or contradiction.
Not difficult. Impossible. Formal proofs of this exist.
Adding additional clarifications *necessarily* increases the number of paradoxes and contradictions, by increasing the overall complexity. It has nothing to do with whether or not the developers are "good" -- this would happen even with perfect developers acting with infinitely deep knowledge.
Which is to say, the more you insist on perfectly defined, crystal clear RAW, the less you will achieve it.
The beginning of wisdom is to know that the system is not perfectable. From there, you do the best you can.
I'm not saying things can't be better, or that we shouldn't seek to clarify or improve them. Just that it is important to have appropriate expectations.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for solutions to Ganularity in PFS, I really like my own idea of allowing GM rulings to be written on the character's chronicle sheet and just have the player go with that. Obviously open to abuse, but at least the player could expect to have the same rules from table to table.
I could not and will not agree to that as a GM. I'd stop GM'ing period if I was forced to adhere to previous GM rulings, especially if those rulings were flat out wrong.
Sure, a player has the right to expect a certain level of consistency in the campaign, and the campaign has done its level best to ensure this. However, the game, Pathfinder, is, at its core, a highly situational set of rules. Where-in, the ruling may change drastically based on the situation a character might find themselves in. And the vastness of the game means that unintended rules interactions cause even more fluidity between situations.
Each GM has to have the right to rule things as they see it based on the situation. And the more you start making GM's adhere to an iron-clad set of rules the less they have the ability to rule based on the situation and how that impacts the rules sets.
Then what happens when you have 2 or more players at your table, with similar builds, all with different rulings from different GMs written on a chronicle? And now as a GM you have to rule differently for each of those players? Nightmare!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is a simple paraphrased example just from looking at the open item with the most FAQ on it: "Do Bardic Masterpieces work when you have another Bardic Performance going?"
Solution 1: No.
Solution 2: Yes.
Solution 3: some mix based upon the combination (longer than a round; costs more than X rounds of performance; whatever)
Note that the player's alternative in #1 (and eventually to solve those in #3 that do not mesh together initially) may be just wait until level 10, and then get Virtuoso Performance.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/v/virtuoso-performance/
It really should not be that hard to codify after 2+ years.
And why should PFS be different from "regular" Pathfinder? Can't we just have one PDF document {the Guild Guide alone - condense everything else into it} to list out PFS differences (no leadership feat; most crafting banned, happy side of medium is your hit points after 1st level, 20 point buy, etc....)?
Do we really need to reference separate blog posts [over several people and years], errata [separated by book], campaign clarifications [271 items on that page have "—" {= just a quick way to get an approximate count}], additional resources, the iconics [people actually look at them to find how the rules should affect their abilities], and the Guild Guide?
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Appalachia
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For one thing, JoeElf, it would require level of coordination between Organized Play and the Development Team that has always been the ideal but never quite realized.
I know its going to sound like a cop out, but believe me and the survivors from other organized play systems - this really is the best its ever been. It can be better. It will be better, but to expect perfect coordination is just not ever gonna happen.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think everything JoeElf is asking for is practical, but some of it ought to be;
1) Make the regular PF FAQs into a single long document with "read more" collapsible sections, formatted in such a way that you can Ctrl-F search your way even through collapsed sections. Much easier to find the answer to cross-book rules interactions.
2) Keep the Guild Guide short (it's the "daily business" principles).
3) Finish the process of moving rulings from AR to Clarifications so the rulings really are in a single place.
4) Merge the Clarifications and PFS FAQ.
5) Incorporate blog post/forum rulings into either the PFS or the base PF FAQ, depending on what they cover.
That would reduce the mess from about 10 separate FAQs, 3 PFS documents and an unknown number of blogs, to just 3 documents.
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
6) Bring in a trusted VO team to create the merged document. That way, PFS Leadership only has to review it, edit it and put it up on the website.
We know that all the Paizo staff are overworked or this would have been done long ago. I'd rather have John, Linda and Thursty creating new adventures for us rather than trying to bring the whole ruleset together.
Hmm
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm all for the volunteer crew helping out the campaign, under the right circumstances. We did see an example of that with the season 8 guide, so I imagine the team has a sense now of how much work that will save. I absolutely appreciate the effort that was put into the season 8 guide by the volunteer crew, and ultimately I think we now have a better guide in season 9 than we would have otherwise. However, there were issues with the season 8 guide as well. It was a big rewrite, so that was probably inevitable whether it was a volunteer effort or not, but to a certain extent, some of the interpretations of rules in the guide felt guided by the volunteers' views of how things should work. Which makes sense as well, because if something is unclear and you want to make it clear, you pick an interpretation and go with that. It just wasn't always successful or consistent with what leadership eventually clarified. What resulted was people involved in that effort clarifying things on the forums, which is just an amplification of the issue we're looking at here. Do we then accept those clarifications as binding? Or did the campaign staff change the wording intentionally? How do we know months later whose posts to search for to find the clarifications? I'm trying to think of a specific example. Maybe the wording on when you can/should play a pregen, or the wording on what level characters can play a tier 1 module.
The point is not that anyone did a bad job, and I hope no one takes this post that way. It was a huge undertaking, and I think the volunteers did a fantastic job with what they were tasked with. The point is that it still required a significant amount of involvement from the campaign staff, because it's not always apparent which clarifications are still in effect and which have been superseded without campaign leadership being involved. And the volunteers don't have the authority to make clarifications themselves. I would think that the campaign staff now has a pretty good idea of whether that process ultimately saved them any time or not.
An example of a simpler version of this, which did not make any interpretations of the clarifications, and did seem to generally be successful, was Jiggy's effort years ago to simply catalogue all of Mike Brock's and other campaign leaders' posts into a single list. No rewriting of the clarifications, consolidation of documents, or trying to determine how the clarifications apply. Just a forum post linking to all of them. Because even Mike Brock couldn't remember all of the clarification posts he made. Then, at a later time, when Paizo had the resources, most of those made it into the FAQ and the ones that needed to be clearer became clearer. I'd offer that may be the place to start. Simply searching for any clarifications on the forums, checking to see if they are covered by the FAQ, guide, additional resources, or campaign clarifications, and making a list of what's left that is a sticky post at the top of the forum. I'd put anything in there that might still be in effect, or might be contradicted by a newer FAQ, like Mike's clarification about race boons and characters with 3XP or less.
I'd be more comfortable with a volunteer crew compiling a list than with the rewriting all of the campaign rules documents. And it sits better with me as someone who is sometimes paid to write. If someone is writing/rewriting the actual campaign rules documents, they should really be doing so as a paid freelance job. It's at least as much work as writing a scenario, if not more.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If someone is writing/rewriting the actual campaign rules documents, they should really be doing so as a paid freelance job. It's at least as much work as writing a scenario, if not more.
Thanks for your well thought out post. I just wanted to comment, as the guy who was in charge of that guide revision team, on this point right here.
I agree. Not that I felt like I needed to get paid. I was happy to volunteer all that time. But one thing I've realized, after working on such a project, and seeing how other crowd-sourced projects progressed with-in the VO corps, is that many do not put a priority of time on such a volunteer exercise. I'm not discluding myself from that comment.
The point is, as a volunteer exercise, life, other PFS responsibilities, other hobbies, family, etc. all take precedence. We got it done, but we certainly ended up rushing at the end to meet our deadline (and had to ask for a 1 week extension.) And even though my deadline was 1st week of May, and we ended up getting it to Tonya and John second week of May, that's right in the middle of convention season, and so the guide got pushed back so scenarios could get to people early. And it didn't get the attention it deserved from the volunteers or the staff who put the final document together.
If you give it to a trusted freelancer and pay them to do it, then they've made a professional commitment. So they better meet their deadline and have it done with minimum of error and maximum of clarity, else they might jeopardize future work with the company.
That being said, most of the freelancers I know of, are not PFS players. There are a couple within the last year or two that have broken into general Pathfinder freelancing. But for the most part they are non PFS players. So they would not have the knowledge experience of PFS that a long-term VO would have, and I think any document they created would reflect that. The errors and lack of clarity or changes that removed clarity would reflect their lack of familiarity with the campaign rules and their evolution over the years. Additionally, such a freelancer would need to either have full authority to make choices for clarity or have frequent contact with the PFS team to discuss which choice was appropriate. Such frequent meetings would then take up a fair amount of the PFS leadership team's time, that they would have hoped to save by hiring a freelancer or forming a volunteer review team.
Ideally, they could find a way to get some of these things done without taking up staff time. But the way that the PFS development process has been set up to date, where the PFS developer(s) need(s) to see and review (develop) every campaign document, then you don't save any staff time, not really.
There is no perfect answer. But certainly I think finding a way to pay someone to do this work for you as a freelancer is a better answer than another volunteer team. I don't think crowd-sourcing this sort of thing really works. And that comes from someone who had a team of 3 to 5 hard workers and spent lots of hours working on the guide revision project over several months and am quite proud of the team, the work we put in and the product that we submitted to campaign leadership.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks Tallow, for your well thought response. I agree with it wholeheartedly.
An example of someone I'd have thought would be a good fit before he was hired for Starfinder is Thustin Hillman. He's had enough experience writing for the campaign, I'm certain he could do a good job. I'm certain a lot of the venture officers could, too, even if they are not freelancers by trade. I'm also sure there are other people who have done extensive work for the company who could take it on. Until Thursty was hired, I didn't realize Paizo was using freelancers for development work in addition to writing. I would think there's someone in that pool who might be a good fit as well.