Belkar Bitterleaf

Snarky Hammer's page

4 posts. Alias of crmanriq.


Chris Mortika wrote:
Fozzy Hammer wrote:
It's not pedantic to want the rules to mean what the rules say, instead of what some people think that they might be trying to say. Either the rules matter, or we can all just simply play whatever game pleases us at the time, and I can start writing awesome boons into character sheets.


I don't want to sound negative here, but there's never going to be an organized play environment where the rules-as-written are 100% accurate, complete, and exhaustive.

You claim here is that the situation allows you to ignore any rules as you please, write made-up boons that other GMs would have to abide by, and generally act like a jerk.

Organized play is probably not a suitable environment for someone who requires the rules be perfect.

If I were snarky, I might point out that Organized play is probably not a suitable environment for someone who thinks they can make up rules about whether or not faction missions make a PC unplayable.


Rules are. Or they aren't. If a rule isn't applicable as written, then it's a poorly written rule. Pointing out poorly written rules should be welcomed, rather than sniffed at, as you appear to be doing.

A prossible reason that the rule is poorly written is that any reasoning behind it is sketchy at best ("we don't want PC's to be able to create effects that last beyond the scenario" "Really, what about healing?" "uh, except healing" "restoration?", "uh, that too." "raise dead?" "Oh, bringing someone back from dead is fine." "What about animate dead?"), and without a good way to differentiate between goodspell and badspell, we're left with badrule.

Michael Griffin-Wade wrote:
Fozzy Hammer wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:
Just a note: I have not noticed any condescending tone in any of Michael's posts, nor Mark's.
You mean like
Michael to James wrote:
This is why people don't want to address you.

This is not condescending. I have seen a pattern of negative behavior, and I have commented on it. I have noticed that you have returned to that same pattern as well.

You don't seem to be able to consider that the Venture Captains are here for assisting participants of PFS, and not here for abuse.

Then stop providing abuse.

People who are acting condescending often rationalize it by claiming that they are simply commenting on patterns of negative behavior.

"Really young man, I'm simply trying to help you..."

When I am condescending, I simply own up to it.

james maissen wrote:

This would avoid having to have a GM after a slot have to witness 6 d20 rolls for one PC, it would let those that have sufficient handle animal scores to train their animals to train them, and have a cost associated for those that do not.

'cause those six d20 rolls take, what, a total of 30 seconds of table time?

I'm just sayin', yo. da.

(Snarky, this post was. Alias, have I. Warned, you were...)

Chris Kenney wrote:

The big negative with Time Units, as I understand it, is that what they primarily ended up doing was limiting play. A character with no TU left in the current period was, for all intents and purposes, just as dead as one eaten by a dragon until the TU refreshed.

PFS works on a fundamental philosophy of encouraging play as often as possible. This is what the old "Play, Play, Play" doctrine really meant - an instruction to coordinators to do everything they could within the rules to find anyone who shows up a legal seat.

An LG-style Time system, then, seems to run counter to the fundamental philosophy of the campaign.

I can buy that argument. I kind of wish that Play, Play Play still part of the campaign doctrine. (It doesn't appear in the latest edition of the Guide.) I'll pretend for now that it still exists, and somehow the core philosophy didn't disappear leaving behind a vacuum. (Yes, I realize that sounds snarky. That's me. Maybe I should grab the alias Snarky Hammer)

So, assuming that we want players to play, you are right. TU's would limit that. So we're again back to what I see are three choices.

1) Undefined time between modules. Players can do as much as they want to in that period.

2) Defined time between modules. Players can only do what they could do in that time period.

3) Different ambiguous time periods depending on what class you happen to be in, or what you happen to want to do between modules.

Of the three choices, number three seems to me to be the least desirable, the most arbitrary, and the most prone to players feeling that their class might have been slighted.

Of the remaining two, I personally like having a defined time between modules. It eliminates the "infinite" possibility that leads to "brokenness". ("I can do X infinite times, and then Y happens, yea!")