The Play's the Thing

But they aren’t. They’re “about” four weeks.

The default is 4 weeks or 30 days with specific months varying. For me it's crystal clear. This seems more like a semantic quibble for a 'gotcha' moment instead of an actual worry over vagueness. As such, I'll bow out as you don't seem to be debating in good faith.

What’s a generic month?

Not a specific one... Much like the difference between a generic year and 2020. [they have different day counts] :P

So I looked at this years calendars just to be sure, because this isn't something I pay attention to. There's only one month in the year that comprises only 28 days (or exactly four weeks, I guess). The remaining 11 are all *approximately* four weeks.

I don't think a four week month is "generic". Unless I misunderstood your meaning.

For me it's crystal clear. This seems more like a semantic quibble for a 'gotcha' moment instead of an actual worry over vagueness.

You are the one worried about vagueness. I'm perfectly fine with the 'about a week' duration.

I enjoy a good shit stirring. But perhaps we could lay off graystone just this once?

Graystone's made their opinion clear. You might think it's a ridiculous opinion (or at least an opinion worthy of ridicule), but I think we've all had our laughs and given graystone doesn't seem to be laughing maybe we should all let it go?

Anyone know what the next blog entry will be about?

Magic isn't beholden mortal reckoning (which would likely vary by region anyway) so with month I would presume we're talking about a standard lunar month of 28 days (or whatever the equivalent is on Golarion). Essentially this is the same as Year or Day though the question of whether we're talking about a 'full X' or merely 'until the next X' will likely have to be resolved elsewhere.

My own preference (as a GM) is for strong guidelines that I can then use to make informed decisions as befits the situation. For this reason, I tend to favour lighter systems than PF2 looks to be.

So I looked at this years calendars just to be sure, because this isn't something I pay attention to. There's only one month in the year that comprises only 28 days (or exactly four weeks, I guess). The remaining 11 are all *approximately* four weeks.

I don't think a four week month is "generic". Unless I misunderstood your meaning.

If a woman is 3 months pregnant, you aren't concerned with which exact months she's been pregnant in: you use the generic totals, each month is 4 weeks or 30 days. So when you're told a month without any other information, you use 4 weeks if you are measuring weeks or 30 days if you are measuring days. If you don't like the word generic, default works too.

John Lynch 106 and Steve Geddes, I do appreciate the good faith, civil debate we've had.

Aiden2018 wrote:

So I looked at this years calendars just to be sure, because this isn't something I pay attention to. There's only one month in the year that comprises only 28 days (or exactly four weeks, I guess). The remaining 11 are all *approximately* four weeks.

I don't think a four week month is "generic". Unless I misunderstood your meaning.

If a woman is 3 months pregnant, you aren't concerned with which exact months she's been pregnant in: you use the generic totals, each month is 4 weeks or 30 days. So when you're told a month without any other information, you use 4 weeks if you are measuring weeks or 30 days if you are measuring days. If you don't like the word generic, default works too.

John Lynch 106 and Steve Geddes, I do appreciate the good faith, civil debate we've had.

I think it bears pointing out that the very statements you use to defend the lack of ambiguity in the duration of a month is itself full of ambiguity. You are literally saying that the assumed duration of a month would differ based on whether you were measuring in weeks or days. Which would mean that if something lasts/takes a month, even by the "use the default month" assumption, it could be 28 days, could be 30. So if it doesn't say whether the month is measured in days or weeks the GM has ro guess. That sounds like quite an ambiguity to me. Which, so there no misunderstanding, is an ambiguity I'm fine with. But you have claimed to not be.

I only point this out because it's frankly a contradictory defense and it would feel a disservice to not point it out in a reasonable manner before someone does so less reasonably.

(And I'd like to think I've been reasonably civil in this debate. ;P)

TOZ wrote:

But they aren’t. They’re “about” four weeks.

The default is 4 weeks or 30 days with specific months varying. For me it's crystal clear. This seems more like a semantic quibble for a 'gotcha' moment instead of an actual worry over vagueness. As such, I'll bow out as you don't seem to be debating in good faith.

Rysky wrote:

What’s a generic month?

Not a specific one... Much like the difference between a generic year and 2020. [they have different day counts] :P

But there you have ambiguity. "The default is 4 weeks or 30 days". Four weeks and thirty days are two different time measurements. So if a duration in the Rulebook said "a month" it would be up to the GM whether that means 28 days or 30 days, or even until the same day of the next month.

I only point this out because it's frankly a contradictory defense and it would feel a disservice to not point it out in a reasonable manner before someone does so less reasonably.

(And I'd like to think I've been reasonably civil in this debate. ;P)

For me it's not ambiguous, it's rounding to the nearest whole week. You normally don't talk about fractional weeks, months or years like 2.65 weeks, 8.6 months or 6.2 years instead rounding or converting to a smaller unit. It's like in pathfinder and getting a free feat every 3 level and being 5th and saying you have 1 free feat instead of 1 and 2/3 free feats. So it's ALWAYS 30 days but in terms of weeks, those 2 days get dropped for most reasons that get measured in weeks: if days matter, you aren't counting in weeks. So there's never 28 days in a generic month, only 30.

This is vs around where there isn't a standard to anticipate an answer: around can be more or less or the same.

As to civil, I don't recall you being not civil: it's more you only commented a few times. ;)

It is not always 30 days in a generic month, or a year would be 360 days.

It is not always 30 days in a generic month, or a year would be 360 days.

I went over that already, specific months vs generic months. Also see my rounding comment [5/12'ths of a day get rounded down]. No one talks about 30.41666666666666666666666666 days instead rounding to a whole number. If those spare minutes and hours are meaningful, you aren't counting in days alone.

EDIT: bottom line, I find no ambiguity. I don't really see much point in further beating a dead horse over this quibble over rounding. Unless something new comes up about months, I think i'm done.

One thing about ambiguity, I feel, is that it is much more appropriate for higher level items, feats, spells, etc. than lower ones. Not only is "we need some room for interpretation to make this sufficiently impressive" (think the "or any other effect" clause in "Wish") a real thing, but the overwhelming majority of "pick up and play" games with unfamiliar GMs won't be "make an 18th level character"- if you've gotten to the point where you have 10th level spells available, you presumably have some kind of an understanding with your GM.

One thing about ambiguity, I feel, is that it is much more appropriate for higher level items, feats, spells, etc. than lower ones. Not only is "we need some room for interpretation to make this sufficiently impressive" (think the "or any other effect" clause in "Wish") a real thing, but the overwhelming majority of "pick up and play" games with unfamiliar GMs won't be "make an 18th level character"- if you've gotten to the point where you have 10th level spells available, you presumably have some kind of an understanding with your GM.

I can agree with this: I overlooked the blindfold because it was higher level than I thought I'd ever use. If ambiguity is weighted towards the higher levels, it would be much less of an issue for me. Out of sight, out of mind as it were.

How is there a 5-page argument about something that lasts 1/14400th of a day, at the same time as daily preparations?

I cannot think of a single time in at least 5 years that this distinction would have been relevant.

It's like saying that daily preparations last "about an hour", except I can think of times where that'd have actually mattered. (Okay, one time, and even then not really.)

How is there a 5-page argument about something that lasts 1/14400th of a day, at the same time as daily preparations?

There isn't a 5-page argument about 5-page argument about something that lasts 1/14400th of a day, at the same time as daily preparations. If you honestly think that is what this argument about then either (a) your not trying very hard or (b) you've failed to actually read the last 5 pages you're complaining about.

Cyouni wrote:

How is there a 5-page argument about something that lasts 1/14400th of a day, at the same time as daily preparations?

There isn't a 5-page argument about 5-page argument about something that lasts 1/14400th of a day, at the same time as daily preparations. If you honestly think that is what this argument about then either (a) your not trying very hard or (b) you've failed to actually read the last 5 pages you're complaining about.

No, it's technically about ambiguities that will never matter in any game, and the need to prevent such.

Does that really change any factor of the situation?

Either way the argument about the 'about' a week is really boring and tiring.

It's about dissenting voices and how we treat them

No, it's technically about ambiguities that will never matter in any game, and the need to prevent such.

Does that really change any factor of the situation?

If you're going to b&~#& about an argument that is clearly important to at least one poster, at least have the decency to frame the argument honestly.

No, it's technically about ambiguities that will never matter in any game, and the need to prevent such.

If everyone else felt that way, why debate me for 5 pages? A simple 'I disagree' and moving on would have resulted in 5 less pages of argument. I didn't pursue this debate, I only defended an off comment about not liking ambiguity...

Rounds are 6 seconds long. Nothing in the rules *anywhere* tells you how to subdivide a round into less time than that. The quantum limit for magic's timing precision is +/- 3 seconds at best; below that, uncertainty reigns.

Combat encounter rounds are generally around 6 seconds, yep, but you can wind up with rounds and turns that take longer if you're running a different sort of encounter. Like you can have a social encounter where each round each PC can have a long conversation for their turn. Then again, if we're talking about spell durations measured in rounds, those are combat encounter rounds, so the around 6 seconds does apply as you say!

I wouldn't say any game, clearly it can happen in some games (even if it's the bare minority). Also the argument wasn't about just any ambiguities, it was about Graystone hoping the ambiguities that plagued PF1e were as little as possible.

People then decided to argue about how "about a week" isn't a problem, and that ambiguity isn't bad. Remember how people kept complaining about rules ambiguity for the last 10 years? (I'm rounding)

If we can't even go "about a week" without trying to remove the ambiguities, what are we going to do about the rest of the game? There's a practically infinite number of situations that are going to have different interpretations, some of the most obvious being what you roll for initiative, what modifiers apply to Athletics checks to climb, what other checks can be used to Recall Knowledge about a particular subject, and how long a character sleeps for. There is physically no way you can remove ambiguity from the game, unless you turn it into a CRPG.

Can we please try and leave room for things to be written by humans? Sure, let's try and reduce ambiguity where we can remove a possibility for a straight up incorrect interpretation, but can we have space for words to be used without trying to lock everything down into the most specifically defined scenarios?

Do we really want to go back to the need for charts to define the exact widths and DCs for a "narrow surface" or the angles for "uneven ground"?

If we can't even go "about a week" without trying to remove the ambiguities, what are we going to do about the rest of the game?

Absolutely nothing. The playtest is over. All we're doing is wasting time until the rules come out. Once the rules do come out there'll be a flurry of arguments over how good and awful the rules are. Then after a short while people will either move onto other things or accept the game for what it is and play it.

If you don't want to read pointless conversations, can I suggest coming back in about 3 weeks?

So, in 19 days? 20? 21? Or 22 even?

So, in 19 days? 20? 21? Or 22 even?

Depends when the archives of nethys put the rules up online for me. I'm on the fence enough that I'm going to need to see the whole thing, and play a few games, before I buy things or move on.

On the week versus month thing.
If a month is 4 weeks we are missing a month each year. 4*12=48 not 52
Also, while stated a pregnancy is 9 months, a full term baby is 40 weeks, which would be 10 months if 4 weeks=1 month.
(Btw just having fun with this at this point :D)

On magic items in general, I like the whole "Higher level means more ambiguity" thing. Gives GM's more leeway to customize situations for their group.

I always see rules as a means to an end. The point of P&P RPGs is to cooperatively tell an engaging story. Rules should facilitate this without getting in the way.

I've seen/ played/ gm'ed systems so rules heavy and bloated it got in the way of the story. Players spent all their time searching rules books or number crunching that they forgot their characters and/or story.

I've seen and played systems so rules light they required extremely good gm's and players to keep from going off the rails.

This is why I like the new proficiency system so much and I see it kind of like how I see players notoriety based on level.

In general I see it like:

Origin stories
Level 0
Untrained
Unknown quantity
Unheard of
Almost completely random if able to accomplish a task
people will hire if desperate

Small/Local(Village or city neighborhood) scale problems
Level 1-5
Trained
Known to have a focus(Class)
Locals might know them for their focus
Can accomplish easy tasks. More iffy the more difficult the task
People will hire for easier tasks or tasks hire-er lack specifics abilities/skills to do

Big local/ small region(whole small city or group of villages) scale problems
Level 6-10
Expert
Known to be good at their Focus
Locals will know them for their focus and so will people in their field(adventurers, soldiers, spell-casters, or the like)
Can accomplish moderately difficult tasks and can help others along as well
People will put some effort to seek out to hire for difficult tasks

Big Region(Major City or small country) level problems
Level 11-15
Master
Known to be great at their focus
Well known and may have stories being told of their exploits
Can accomplish very difficult tasks
People will definitely seek out for help/ Bad guys may hunt them preemptively

Multiple nation or world endangering scale problems
Level 16-20
Legendary
This is who people picture when they think of a thing
Everyone has heard at least something about them and stories of their exploits are told far and wide
Can accomplish the seemingly impossible
People will beg for their help/ most bad guys will fear running into them

On the week versus month thing.

If a month is 4 weeks we are missing a month each year. 4*12=48 not 52
Also, while stated a pregnancy is 9 months, a full term baby is 40 weeks, which would be 10 months if 4 weeks=1 month.
(Btw just having fun with this at this point :D)

There could be ambiguity on when to collect those extra days and add an extra week for multiple months: Vic's question was "If we'd said the effect lasts "a month,"" though and for a single month it's straight forward IMO. Even then I think most people would divide days by 7 and round down for weeks. Technically a year isn't exactly 365 days either but you don't count the 1/4ths on non-leap years. ;)

We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty! :)

We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty! :)

How about doubt and uncertainty about rigidly defined areas? ;P

The Amalgamated Union of Philosophers, Sages, Luminaries and Other Thinking Persons would also accept that.

@John Lynch: Gorbacz is always like that. In my entire time on this site I've seen maybe... two?... non-sarcastic comments? It's just his thing. Everyone kind of accepts it and moves on.

@graystone: I'm definitely confused, based on your comments, about how many days you think a magical effect that lasts "one month" would last. Previously I would have said that "a month" is quite well defined, but ironically you've convinced me it's ambiguous. :P

@graystone: I'm definitely confused, based on your comments, about how many days you think a magical effect that lasts "one month" would last.

30.

I didn't know people referred to a month as '4 weeks'. Genuinely, I think of months as "about 4.3 weeks". I don't even know how accurate that is exactly, I think it's something my dad told me when I was young and I just accepted it and filed it away in my head as "the correct answer".

MaxAstro wrote:

@graystone: I'm definitely confused, based on your comments, about how many days you think a magical effect that lasts "one month" would last.

30.

I second that

Why is everyone arguing about something that will barely affect the game?

Odds are that this will be created during some downtime, the party will be fine, most people in town will be fine. Also, I don't see anywhere the item preventing someone from removing the item and only using it when battle is to be expected, of course, a compromise has to be made to use such a dreadful item in the middle of a crowd.

PS: I don't know if "invested" prevents the item from being used when you want it or if there's a specific time (or interval that prevents benefits from applying) to invest the item.

Why is everyone arguing about something that will barely affect the game?

Have we met?

I compromise has to be made to use such a dreadful item in the middle of a crowd.

It would be not bad for evacuating a crowded place though

Lightning Raven wrote:

Why is everyone arguing about something that will barely affect the game?

Have we met?

Hahahhaha. That's true. People are gonna argue regardless of merits.

I don't mind arguing about details, I'm all of them because details are what makes the world feel alive and lived-in. A mark of good world-building.

But seriously debating if a week is 7 days or what not? This doesn't matter at all in the grand scheme, unless of course we're talking about how different the week is from reality, like the one in the Kingkiller Chronicle series, with eleven days named and changed based on the culture developed in the series.

Why would it matter if in 7-ish days the effect would end? It's still a really long time that doesn't actually affect gameplay for most cases. Unless the party can't refuse to attend a huge party and the item can't be removed from the user's face.

The Dread Blindfold seems severely overpowered.

It's blinded swarms of people to the rest of the blog post.

Please errata.

I think I'm most excited for Exploration Mode rules and how that will enhance the games I play.

The Dread Blindfold seems severely overpowered.

It's blinded swarms of people to the rest of the blog post.

Please errata.

Wish granted! Errated below to remove all ambiguity about the week.

Dread Blindfold Item ~17
Emotion Enchantment Fear Invested Magical Mental
Price somewhere in the neighborhood of 15,000 gp
Usage worn probably on your eye or somewhere, just don’t eat it please?; Bulk —
When tied or otherwise fastened over your eyes or thereabouts, this ragged strip of blackish linen gives you in the ballpark of a +3 item bonus to Intimidation checks, as well as probably darkvision, though on second thought maybe low-light vision or scent. You can in all likelihood see through the blindfold, unless you can’t, but even if you can, I can’t imagine you could see with anything other than darkvision, if you have darkvision at least, I know it might have been low-light vision or scent.
The first time, or maybe first few times, a particular creature sees you, and potentially smells you if you have scent, in about a day, it might need to succeed at a save, probably Will but could be anything, with a DC in the neighborhood of 37 or be frightened roughly 1, though maybe 2 or 3, and actually maybe doomed or sickened instead, or what about wounded? This seems to me like maybe an emotion, fear, and mental effect, and your allies, and maybe your enemies too, but probably not, become immune to it after exactly a week, down to the second.
Activate [free-action] command unless it’s envision or Interact I guess; Frequency about once per minute; Trigger You damage a creature with a Strike, or something kind of similar to that; Effect Your target is gripped by intense fear, or maybe another emotion. This might have any effect, but one thing that could be kind of cool might be a phantasmal killer or something like that, I guess at the same DC as before for the frightened, but maybe not. Whatever happens should probably be an enchantment instead of an illusion. The creature might then become temporarily immune for some time vaguely around 24 hours, or maybe not.

I want blindfolds for the rest of the emotions to instill in people I hit- particularly "surprise" and "anticipation."

I guess "trust" and "joy" would be pretty funny too.

This thread is bad.

Errata Bot, you are my hero.