The Play's the Thing

This didn't get written as "When tied over your eyes, this ragged strip of black linen gives you darkvision and a +3 item bonus to Intimidation checks." There were two ways to write this sentence, one of which implies that the item's owner gets a +3 item bonus to darkvision, requiring more cogitation of good-sense to parse correctly than the other way does.

I agree that this sentence was poorly crafted, assuming that darkvision checks are not a thing (though I suppose any perception check while you're in darkness could apply). In this specific case, such a sentence isn't likely to cause problems, but it can be indicative of sloppy writing in general, which has the potential to cause problems elsewhere in the rules. I hope this isn't the case, and those poo-pooing the pointing out of such things should ask themselves why it is that they don't prefer a rulebook with more precise sentence structure. It is far better to get it right the first time than be forced to use errata for clarification later. Errata is likely inevitable, of course, but its use should be minimized where possible, and for the sentence in question you don't even need to change the word count, all that needs to be done to make it clearer is to rearrange a few words.

I'd prefer not having a textbook thrown at me and the Core Rulebook actually be approachable. We'll have to see how jargon heavy it is and whether that makes PFSers happy and/or me unhappy. I expect they'll probably go somewhere in the middle and we'll both be unhappy to one degree or another ;)

COMPROMISE!

Edge93 wrote:

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Amaranthine Witch wrote:

Could we not have vague language in rules text going forward?

The dread blindfold says your allies become immune to it after about a week. How long is that? 5 days? 8 days?

This is why I find PFS so unsatisfactory. Do you have a human being adjudicating your games? If so, the GM decides how long "about a week" is.

Anguish wrote:

We've had a decade of RAW versus RAI, much of which could have been eliminated by editors questioning "what does this actually say?" I hope there's less of this sort of thing than in PF1, not because I can't cope with it, but because it just shouldn't be. IMHO (of course).

IMHO you get good GMs not by hardcoding every aspect of the universe, but by teaching them how to make good rulings. This sort of nitpicking is going to create something akin to the playtest which was jargon heavy and not in any way easy to approach.

I've had a decade of good gaming. I hope Paizo doesn't stop that run by creating a textbook that requires a 3 year degree in RPG Rules to understand and implement.

Yeah, this is the big reason I've honestly barely even considered trying to do PFS, and especially potentially GM it. I just can't do with the lack of allowing basic adjucation that I hear about, if it is indeed the case.

That said, maybe PF2S will be different.

PFS and OrgPlay in general still grant the GM fairly broad discretion to handle corner cases and adjudication of ambiguous rules or situations. But if it goes beyond that to a full houserule, there's a line. Like in PF1 even if the gunslinger is making the game no fun for anyone else at the table going first and killing the entire encounter on that first turn, you wouldn't be able to just say the attacks don't hit touch AC any more, even if that would make that particular table more fun for the other players.

Ahh, that's good to hear. Perhaps what I've heard has been exaggerated.

In that case I might just try PF2S, since I doubt there's anything in the CRB that would cause notable troubles under that.

Eh. I think the writing and ambiguity is fine.

graystone wrote:

I'll take the textbook every time as I'd like as little table variation as possible.

I don't habitually game with strangers* but instead game with the same group (my Pathfinder group also had multiple GMs). So I don't need precision in a book that is so unapproachable that it scares new players away. I just need people willing to give it a chance.

As I said. I doubt we're both going to be satisfied completely.

*In an ideal world

LOL I DO "habitually game with strangers" so I value not having to have dozens of vague things that need hammered out before play starts. IMO that would scare more people off that play my way that unapproachable writing.

But I do agree, we'll both most likely be dissatisfied to some extent.

I love the "about a week" phrase on the blindfold. It's a perfect fit for the kind of person who'd make or wear this item. I can just see the shrug of the shoulders and the "whatever" expression you'd expect to see on someone who's sociopathic enough to wear this thing in public.

I love the "about a week" phrase on the blindfold. It's a perfect fit for the kind of person who'd make or wear this item. I can just see the shrug of the shoulders and the "whatever" expression you'd expect to see on someone who's sociopathic enough to wear this thing in public.

And when a player subjected to it wants to know when they'll have an functional character again? Does the DM just grin and shrug?

Gwaihir Scout wrote:

I love the "about a week" phrase on the blindfold. It's a perfect fit for the kind of person who'd make or wear this item. I can just see the shrug of the shoulders and the "whatever" expression you'd expect to see on someone who's sociopathic enough to wear this thing in public.

And when a player subjected to it wants to know when they'll have an functional character again? Does the DM just grin and shrug?

"'bout a week."

I've never heard of a game where it mattered exactly when.

It is a level 17 item. I image by time you obtain it, you have downtime actions that could cover "about a week" of time, like crafting.

And I somehow doubt it this would be a common occurrence also due to its high level, though I just want to image a group that finds this, or a similiar item, and equips it without identifying it or knowing what it is, and you just ask the entire table, except the person who equipped it, to make a saving throw.

Gwaihir Scout wrote:

I love the "about a week" phrase on the blindfold. It's a perfect fit for the kind of person who'd make or wear this item. I can just see the shrug of the shoulders and the "whatever" expression you'd expect to see on someone who's sociopathic enough to wear this thing in public.

And when a player subjected to it wants to know when they'll have an functional character again? Does the DM just grin and shrug?

Please explain how having to make a single check after waking with your party members makes a character non-functional.

^ What Vlorax said. I think I'm missing why it's a big deal to be Frightened 1 for 6 seconds (is that right? is a round still 6 seconds?) once a day. I guess if you're ambushed while sleeping, that -1 on a check might come into play when it actually matters.

Tri, really? You've never known it to be helpful to know when a party member isn't penalizing the group with magical status effects? Really?

Gnome's Luck from Races of Ansalon (Dragonlance) is an awesome feat :3

^ What Vlorax said. I think I'm missing why it's a big deal to be Frightened 1 for 6 seconds (is that right? is a round still 6 seconds?) once a day. I guess if you're ambushed while sleeping, that -1 on a check might come into play when it actually matters.

Well, you answered the question, even assuming there aren't more significant examples of duration=shrug.

But more generally, the game mechanics live or die by the math, and the lesson/litany of the playtest (often repeated by staff and players alike) was 'every +1 matters.' Schrödinger's modifiers have no place in that kind of system.

Tri, really? You've never known it to be helpful to know when a party member isn't penalizing the group with magical status effects? Really?

I have never known a game where knowing the exact hour an ability began was relevant. Mostly because hours and days are always GM fiated rather than precisely tracked.

Slavish devotion to bean counting is counterproductive to the enjoyment of the game.

^ What Vlorax said. I think I'm missing why it's a big deal to be Frightened 1 for 6 seconds (is that right? is a round still 6 seconds?) once a day. I guess if you're ambushed while sleeping, that -1 on a check might come into play when it actually matters.

Even that assumes you sleep with the blindfold on, and even then, it's "the first time they see you in the day." It doesn't say "every time they see you after a nap."

Acting like this is a debuff to your party is absurd. Getting to used to in about a week is really just a flavor thing; it would never be a problem 99% of the time if the party never became immune to it.

The good/bad thing about the 'about a week' description is, that if the player's decide: "Yeah, put on that blindfold, we'll all do something else for that week, and meet up after again" I think any GM would be in his right to not rule, that the Immunity hasn't set in, because the other PC's aren't used to the mask, if they haven't experienced it for a week yet.

Would those who object to “in about a week” object to “in 5+1d3 days”?

I’m interested in whether it’s seen as bad that the duration is loosely defined or if the problem is there isn’t any guidance for the DM as to what the variance is.

Most often, this will happen just after daily prep when you invest the item, so if your ambusher is polite enough to let you finish prep to get that -1 on other people for 1 round, you already have an advantage over being ambushed during prep when the wizard hasn't recovered spells. The other major alternative is you just found this blindfold in the dungeon and invested it, in which case also it happens after you just had a safe break to invest the item. The final, somewhat less common, possibility is that the PCs have split up, or maybe have their own homes or rooms for the night, and you are prepping alone and meeting up later. In that case too, you're better off being ambushed after all the PCs are there, even if it's on that first round with frightened, than alone in your home without the other PCs.

Interesting that the one week timing is vague, and yet on the same item, the 24 hour immunity is precise.

Interesting that the one week timing is vague, and yet on the same item, the 24 hour immunity is precise.

I think this is the more important detail to be checked, as opposed to whether or not the PCs' allies takes a -1 penalty to all d20 rolls for 1 round. It's a slight contradiction in the timing for the effects of the item, and that could make for some confusion about the precision of the wording "about one week."

I think in live play, most of the time, you're going to see the GM just say, "Yeah, about 1 week is 7 days." The approximation is probably there to give the GM the opportunity to say, "Oh, you have Master Proficiency in Will Saves? It only takes 6 days for you." A little something extra the GM can do for players to reflect how the proficiency system matters.

This whole discussion about what a "week" means is sucking the life from my gaming body, and leaving it a desiccated and unhappy corpse.

But it's so emblematic, like a tiny capsule of all that's wrong with the fanbase :)

This whole discussion about what a "week" means is sucking the life from my gaming body, and leaving it a desiccated and unhappy corpse.

I understand your pain. Let me see if I have any diamonds around. What level are you? I can only do 15th and lower. ;P

I just figured, "about a week" means after the seventh time they needed to make a save for it.

IMO "about a week" ambiguity just gives the GM wiggle room to grease the wheels so the item works correctly. Like the PCs are going to get immune to it quickly, but that one guard you saw 7 days ago might not be.

This whole discussion about what a "week" means is sucking the life from my gaming body, and leaving it a desiccated and unhappy corpse.

I believe that would be the Drained Condition...

^ What Vlorax said. I think I'm missing why it's a big deal to be Frightened 1 for 6 seconds (is that right? is a round still 6 seconds?) once a day. I guess if you're ambushed while sleeping, that -1 on a check might come into play when it actually matters.

Because as I said in my earlier posts, this isn't about the magic item. The magic item is a proxy fight for arguing that all rules should be absolutely precise and that no GM adjudication should ever be necessary when it comes to rule elements. They'll come up with a long list of reasons WHY ambiguous rules are bad. But ultimately it comes down to "I don't trust the GM to adjudicate the rules of the game in a way that will allow me to enjoy the game."

Would those who object to “in about a week” object to “in 5+1d3 days”?

I’m interested in whether it’s seen as bad that the duration is loosely defined or if the problem is there isn’t any guidance for the DM as to what the variance is.

No. They won't object to that. Because it has removed the GM's ability to adjudicate the situation. The ability is now laid out by the rules and the only wiggle room the GM might have is deciding what constitutes a day.

The magic item is a proxy fight for arguing that all rules should be absolutely precise and that no GM adjudication should ever be necessary when it comes to rule elements. They'll come up with a long list of reasons WHY ambiguous rules are bad. But ultimately it comes down to "I don't trust the GM to adjudicate the rules of the game in a way that will allow me to enjoy the game."

Not true at all, for me at least. I have NO issue with DM rulings, JUST that the DM and I start off understanding the rules the same way: if the DM wants to alter the rules, like a houserule, that's 100% fine but it should be something known and talked about beforehand. For me this is important so that when i go to a new game, I have some idea what the ground rules of the game are and don't have to guess what that new DM is going to interpret a vague rule as. The more vagary the game has, the longer the learning curve is between a new group and a DM and the more things set in stone make the transition smoother.

NONE of it has a single thing to do with taking any ability of the DM to adjudicate the game: they are free to change things as they wish. Even if the ability says 'one week' vs 'around one week' they can say it works differently for someone: the only difference is I know one case is not normal while the other one isn't.

Steve Geddes wrote:

Would those who object to “in about a week” object to “in 5+1d3 days”?

I’m interested in whether it’s seen as bad that the duration is loosely defined or if the problem is there isn’t any guidance for the DM as to what the variance is.

No. They won't object to that. Because it has removed the GM's ability to adjudicate the situation. The ability is now laid out by the rules and the only wiggle room the GM might have is deciding what constitutes a day.

I'd be interested to hear from someone who actually does object to "in about a week" (you're not fussed by it, right?)

It's not clear to me that it's about DM adjudication for everyone - they seemed perturbed by the language being loosely defined, which can be easily resolved via DM adjudication, but I'm not sure if it's the loose language itself that is objectionable or the proposed resolution.

I'd be interested to hear from someone who actually does object to "in about a week"

Sure. *wave*

I'm not sure if it's the loose language itself that is objectionable or the proposed resolution.

Loose language 100%. I don't care if it's “in 5+1d3 days” or "in 6 to 8 days", both would give me a quantitative way to understand the game world and plan accordingly. "about a week" relies on an unknown quantity "about" which I have no way to quantify as "about" is going to vary from person to person so I have no way to plan for it: This means it's a different thing each new game I join.

Loose language 100%. I don't care if it's “in 5+1d3 days” or "in 6 to 8 days", both would give me a quantitative way to understand the game world and plan accordingly. "about a week" relies on an unknown quantity "about" which I have no way to quantify as "about" is going to vary from person to person so I have no way to plan for it: This means it's a different thing each new game I join.

"..about a week."

If you take your car into the shop to have something major repaired and the shop said, "It will be done in about a week." You're not going to complain that you don't know what "about a week" means depending on which service mechanic they assign to work on your car. You know if today was Wednesday it should be done like middle of next week anywhere from Tuesday to Thursday. Not likely more or less than that unless something strange happens.

It's just common sense.

Steve Geddes wrote:

I'd be interested to hear from someone who actually does object to "in about a week"

Sure. *wave*

Steve Geddes wrote:

I'm not sure if it's the loose language itself that is objectionable or the proposed resolution.

Loose language 100%. I don't care if it's “in 5+1d3 days” or "in 6 to 8 days", both would give me a quantitative way to understand the game world and plan accordingly. "about a week" relies on an unknown quantity "about" which I have no way to quantify as "about" is going to vary from person to person so I have no way to plan for it: This means it's a different thing each new game I join.

How were you even able to enjoy PF1 with the amount of loose and unspecified language there? From paladin's code to charm spells and a million things in between, PF1 was full of "vaguely described, GM's call" rules which gave birth to millions of thousands of posts full of nerds bickering about what it exactly means. And now you're up in your arms casting that long, anguished (not sorry this time, Anguish) look at "about a week".

graystone wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

I'd be interested to hear from someone who actually does object to "in about a week"

Sure. *wave*

Steve Geddes wrote:

I'm not sure if it's the loose language itself that is objectionable or the proposed resolution.

Loose language 100%. I don't care if it's “in 5+1d3 days” or "in 6 to 8 days", both would give me a quantitative way to understand the game world and plan accordingly. "about a week" relies on an unknown quantity "about" which I have no way to quantify as "about" is going to vary from person to person so I have no way to plan for it: This means it's a different thing each new game I join.

How were you even able to enjoy PF1 with the amount of loose and unspecified language there? From paladin's code to charm spells and a million things in between, PF1 was full of "vaguely described, GM's call" rules which gave birth to millions of thousands of posts full of nerds bickering about what it exactly means. And now you're up in your arms casting that long, anguished (not sorry this time, Anguish) look at "about a week".

How awful to expect Paizo to have learn a few things from PF1 failures

Eagerly waiting for PF0 release :-D

graystone wrote:

Loose language 100%. I don't care if it's “in 5+1d3 days” or "in 6 to 8 days", both would give me a quantitative way to understand the game world and plan accordingly. "about a week" relies on an unknown quantity "about" which I have no way to quantify as "about" is going to vary from person to person so I have no way to plan for it: This means it's a different thing each new game I join.

"..about a week."

If you take your car into the shop to have something major repaired and the shop said, "It will be done in about a week." You're not going to complain that you don't know what "about a week" means depending on which service mechanic they assign to work on your car. You know if today was Wednesday it should be done like middle of next week anywhere from Tuesday to Thursday. Not likely more or less than that unless something strange happens.

It's just common sense.

If I need my car on Tuesday, I want to know if it will be ready on that exact day.

If I need my car on Tuesday, I want to know if it will be ready on that exact day.

If you need your car at 9:18am on Tuesday, you need to know EXACTLY when your car is ready. Clearly all durations should be exact down to the minute.

The Raven Black wrote:

If I need my car on Tuesday, I want to know if it will be ready on that exact day.

If you need your car at 9:18am on Tuesday, you need to know EXACTLY when your car is ready. Clearly all durations should be exact down to the minute.

That item DOES have exact durations down to the min: it takes exactly 24hours for the immunity to fade. Not 23 hours and 57 min, not 24 hours and 7 min but 24 hours. It can be used once every min: not every 52 seconds or 76 seconds but exactly 1 min.

I'm just asking for the same exacting time frames be used across the board. It doesn't seem like asking too much to keep things the same does it? What benefit is there it vague durations right next to exact durations? What's bad with consistency?

It's just common sense.

Common sense isn't common. You see 'about a week' as +/- a day. Someone else might see it as +/-2 days or +/- a few hours or... If you don't ASK that shop what they MEAN by 'about a week', you can be waiting longer for your car than expected.

Chetna Wavari wrote:

graystone wrote:

Loose language 100%. I don't care if it's “in 5+1d3 days” or "in 6 to 8 days", both would give me a quantitative way to understand the game world and plan accordingly. "about a week" relies on an unknown quantity "about" which I have no way to quantify as "about" is going to vary from person to person so I have no way to plan for it: This means it's a different thing each new game I join.

"..about a week."

If you take your car into the shop to have something major repaired and the shop said, "It will be done in about a week." You're not going to complain that you don't know what "about a week" means depending on which service mechanic they assign to work on your car. You know if today was Wednesday it should be done like middle of next week anywhere from Tuesday to Thursday. Not likely more or less than that unless something strange happens.

It's just common sense.

If I need my car on Tuesday, I want to know if it will be ready on that exact day.

If the shop says: "... done in about a week" and you answer: "I need it be done on Tuesday", the shop might reply: "No can do", or "We'll try, but no guarantee", or even "Sure. We'll give it priority."

But if you as a player have the item and tell your GM that you need to have the blindfold not affect your allies in 6 days, your GM might answer: "No can do", or "You can try things, but no guarantee", or even "Sure. For the next few days, you bid your allies to intently take note of you wearing the blindfold, so they get accustomed to it faster. That takes about an hour out of your day and maybe 10 minutes of the days of your allies."

The Raven Black wrote:

Chetna Wavari wrote:

graystone wrote:

Loose language 100%. I don't care if it's “in 5+1d3 days” or "in 6 to 8 days", both would give me a quantitative way to understand the game world and plan accordingly. "about a week" relies on an unknown quantity "about" which I have no way to quantify as "about" is going to vary from person to person so I have no way to plan for it: This means it's a different thing each new game I join.

"..about a week."

If you take your car into the shop to have something major repaired and the shop said, "It will be done in about a week." You're not going to complain that you don't know what "about a week" means depending on which service mechanic they assign to work on your car. You know if today was Wednesday it should be done like middle of next week anywhere from Tuesday to Thursday. Not likely more or less than that unless something strange happens.

It's just common sense.

If I need my car on Tuesday, I want to know if it will be ready on that exact day.

If the shop says: "... done in about a week" and you answer: "I need it be done on Tuesday", the shop might reply: "No can do", or "We'll try, but no guarantee", or even "Sure. We'll give it priority."

That still complies to the initial "about a week", but that can't be directly translated to the magic item here.

But if you as a player have the item and tell your GM that you need to have the blindfold not affect your allies in 6 days, your GM might answer: "No can do", or "You can try things, but no guarantee", or even "Sure. For the next few days, you bid your allies to intently take note of you wearing the blindfold, so they get accustomed to it faster. That takes about an hour out of your day and maybe 10 minutes of the days of your allies."

The thing is, NONE of that changes if you have the duration set as a week. "if you as a player have the item and tell your GM that you need to have the blindfold not affect your allies in 6 days, your GM might answer: "No can do", or "You can try things, but no guarantee", or even "Sure." The only thing is you know to ask if it's possible vs it maybe working or not from a variable duration.

I don't really want to continue beating this dead horse, but I'm going to anyways because I'm a moron who has to put my two cents in...

I personally would much rather play in a world that feels real and breathing than one that feels like a computer simulation. So long as we're talking about something that isn't going to make or break any sort of combat for the party, I really love the "about a week" language.

I think that a lot of the fears about this being a bad sign for poorly articulated rules and measures are somewhat premature anyways. This is an extremely minor effect that lasts one round and is extremely unlikely to occur in combat for your allies.

The fact that Mark is here talking about how the vague language isn't likely to be an issue with this item shows that they aren't likely to use such undefined language in anything other than the flavorful little ribbon abilities. Mark wouldn't be defending the use of this language here if the same language was used in more "make or break" item ability moments.

And as far as this being a thing that a shitty DM can use against a party, well sure. But I guarantee, if you have the sort of mean-spirited DM who will use that kind of thing against the players, you will have far worse problems to deal with than an item description like this. Highly regimented rules will never turn a bad DM into a good DM. The only thing that can do that is open and honest communication and a reevaluation of the DM's values and what they want out of the game.

I know that compared to many I can be a "living world" extremist. I would prefer a game world that feels real and natural, even if that means making some decisions in favor of that world when it technically would be a bad decision in a pure game world. For example, I think Aasimar and Tieflings should be straight up better than humans. Most people disagree with me, and that's fine.

This however seems like the kind of extremely reasonable little flavor-text thing that really shouldn't be a problem to fall into the living world side of the equation.

If changing this item was enough to make the “no ambiguity allowed” crowd I’d say sure, the item should be changed. But I expect every ambiguity is going to be complained about.

P.S. Does this blindfold grant blind people darkvision? What do you mean I’m going to have to talk to my GM to find out? That’s awful game design!!!!

;)

The fact that Mark is here talking about how the vague language isn't likely to be an issue with this item shows that they aren't likely to use such undefined language in anything other than the flavorful little ribbon abilities. Mark wouldn't be defending the use of this language here if the same language was used in more "make or break" item ability moments.

I personally commented about vague language in general: I'd rather have as little of it as possible in the game as that's less points of uncertainty I have to go over with a new set of players and DM. This item most likely wouldn't be much of an issue itself, but I wouldn't want 'about' to show up vary often.

If changing this item was enough to make the “no ambiguity allowed” crowd I’d say sure, the item should be changed. But I expect every ambiguity is going to be complained about.

I'll be quite honest, I don't think I'd have ever noticed this items wording as it's higher level then I normally play and as such, I don't really read over them well. However, I'll advocate to get every ambiguity possible removed. DM fiat/table variation might not be an issue for you as you play a home game but it's an issue for those of us that play with strangers.

P.S. Does this blindfold grant blind people darkvision? What do you mean I’m going to have to talk to my GM to find out? That’s awful game design!!!!

;)

Yes it is. You might think it's cute, but when you've had to post endless questions back and forth in posts to get on the same page, it gets old FAST to have to ask the DM 'ok, how does this work in your world?" "ok, how about this item..." "Ok, if that works, does this work with that"... I'd rather KNOW how things work and ask the DM if things work different than normal. :P

I personally love "about a week". It means I get to make the ruling suitable for ease of play when it happens.

This way for similar items if they last for "about a week" I can have it last from 3pm monday until midnight sunday... rather than 3pm the next monday. Makes it nice and easy to track.

More power to GMs !

Wow, this discussion on "about a week" is the most ridiculus this I've come across in these boards. The only thing missing is the question whether that means calendar week or working week. I mean, if I become immune on a Sunday, does it happen immediately or only on monday?

PF2 has 3 modes of play. And the one where exact timing matters is encounter mode. Downtime mode, the slowest and most unprecise mode, is counted in days. A week is so long that the exact timespan isn't important to the rules.

And having to learn the meaning of "about"??? Seriously?
DM: "Before you stands a man. About 6 foot tall and about 40 years old."
Player: "What? Is he the size of a cat or a giant? A child or and old man? I can't imagine it!"

This discussion makes me sad, too.

My old groups favourite bad description was to describe something as being the size of a dog.