Fellow Pathfinder players, I have a request to ask of you. It may not seem like a large request, or one of particular importance at first glance. However, it is incredibly important if we want to foster an atmosphere of intelligent discussion and debate that will allows us help the Pathfinder developers create the most revised, “fixed” version of 3.5 possible. Please, hear me out.
I would request that every poster not use any of the following arguments when discussing whether or not something needs to be “fixed” with the Pathfinder RPG.
1. "My players don't do this, so it's not broken."
2. "I house-rule it, so it's not broken."
3. "You can use Rule 0, so it’s not broken."
4. “I don’t care if it’s broken.”<snip>
1. The first argument used boils down to, “I haven’t experienced it, so it doesn’t exist.” This, of course, is a silly line of reasoning, particularly when one considers the following: suppose one were to move to a country along the equator and then speak to the natives of ice falling from the sky. Undoubtedly, they would boggle at such a concept—unless they had seen snow, of course—and question your soundness of mind. Of course, we all know that ice does, in fact, fall from the sky. Thus, this line of thinking is invalid and based upon an argument from ignorance: just because one hasn’t seen the proof—i.e., experienced any broken aspects of the game—doesn’t mean that game isn’t broken.
I can agree with points 2-4. They make up arguments made by fans of 4e on how us more traditionalist-minded D&D players can make the newest edition more backward compatible. They aren't particularly valid, from a game design standpoint.
But I can't simply agree to #1. It's quite possible that the part of the rules alleged to be broken only show up as a problem infrequently, possibly even for outlier behavior. In such cases, you really do have to keep in mind the people who don't see the issue as a problem.
It may be that the allegedly broken rule causes some DMs headaches, but if it comes up very infrequently, I feel it's impact on the game as a whole has to be considered to be small and of correspondingly low priority.
Explain how? I find it difficult to believe a 20th level druid is "familiar" with everything in every Monster Manual or splatbook, which tends to be the argument from people who feel it is broken.
If a 20th Level Druid says "I want to change into a T-Rex" and has never actually met a T-Rex, then that character is arguing using the vague RAW to the best possible advantage.
There's a skill to determine what animals a character knows what about. It's Knowledge(Nature). What's more, the Druid can summon most of the relevant animals. And he can always write a T-Rex into his backstory anyway.
|
Fellow Pathfinder players, I have a request to ask of you. It may not seem like a large request, or one of particular importance at first glance. However, it is incredibly important if we want to foster an atmosphere of intelligent discussion and debate that will allows us help the Pathfinder developers create the most revised, “fixed” version of 3.5 possible. Please, hear me out.
I would request that every poster not use any of the following arguments when discussing whether or not something needs to be “fixed” with the Pathfinder RPG.
1. "My players don't do this, so it's not broken."
2. "I house-rule it, so it's not broken."
3. "You can use Rule 0, so it’s not broken."
4. “I don’t care if it’s broken.”
You still have one critical problem:
However valid or invalid any of these might be in a particular case, the presentation still commits the logical fallacy of begging the question. You are assuming that any complaint that some element of the game is broken that is automatically legitimate, and so none of these could possibly be a legitimate response.As that is an invalid assumption, the rest of your post is still rudely dismissive of the views of others, lacking only the more blatant attacks, and fails to convince me at all.
I do however, for the sake of general discussion, present as contrast:
1. Do not assert that a rule is broken because you have a problem with it in play, no matter how often you have that problem.
2. Do not assert that a rule is broken because you use a house rule that you like better.
3. Do not assert that a rule is broken because you always Rule 0 it away and never actually use it anyway.
4. Do not assert that a rule is broken just because you do not like it and do not care that is is not actually broken.
If requests are to be made for methods of presentation and discussion, I think those are a critical starting point.
You still have one critical problem:
However valid or invalid any of these might be in a particular case, the presentation still commits the logical fallacy of begging the question. You are assuming that any complaint that some element of the game is broken that is automatically legitimate, and so none of these could possibly be a legitimate response.
As that is an invalid assumption, the rest of your post is still rudely dismissive of the views of others, lacking only the more blatant attacks, and fails to convince me at all.
...the entire point of the post is that, no, none of these are inherently a legitimate response. The fact that you can "rule 0" something away, or that it hasn't come up in your game, does not affect whether or not something is broken. "I can change it" and "I haven't had a problem with this" are not logical rebuttals to "Rule A is broken."
Are you, in fact, asserting, that the fact that I can ban Shapechange can mean that Shapechange isn't broken? Because you're simply wrong. There is no logic to that.
1. Do not assert that a rule is broken because you have a problem with it in play, no matter how often you have that problem.
...please, explain how consistently having a problem with a rule is not a good indicator that the rule is broken. It might be a case of misinterpretation or misapplication, but it's certainly a warning sign.
|
Ok, a second point I guess
When asking how to FIX a rule, then yes I see some of the OP's points as being non helpful. "I don't care" or "It isn't a problem for us" is absolutely not going to provide any kind of insight into what is going to FIX a problem
However, the problem first needs to be resolved as a problem for the majority. In this case, the thread question should read "Is rule X a problem that needs to be fixed?" Don't post reasoning if it means arguments derailing the forum . Just a simple count of how many people find it a problem will suffice.
If only a small proportion of posters find it an issue, then the developers probably don't need to fix it (unless of course they have sufficient time and monetary resources to do so, in which case good luck to them).
If a threshold limit of people find it a problem (Let the developers set the threshold), then they can devote time to it.
Once the issue has been resolved as a broken rule, then let the discussion start about why, and how to fix it. This should at least slow down the vehemence and vitriol contained in some of the threads.
An example would be
a) Start a thread entitled - "Is Planar Binding Broken? A simple Vote" Explain in the opening post that this thread is a simple vote count, please place a simple yes or no. Set a time limit and a threshold of votes that is required to carry the motion. This last point would possibly require input from Paizo staff.
b) If sufficient numbers of people vote yes start a second thread entitled "How would you fix the spell Planar Binding". In this thread, people can place their reasoning for why it's broken and how they would fix it. This thread would not be a place to argue the merits of if it was broken or not as this was resolved with post 1.
|
|
You still have one critical problem:
However valid or invalid any of these might be in a particular case, the presentation still commits the logical fallacy of begging the question. You are assuming that any complaint that some element of the game is broken that is automatically legitimate, and so none of these could possibly be a legitimate response.
As that is an invalid assumption, the rest of your post is still rudely dismissive of the views of others, lacking only the more blatant attacks, and fails to convince me at all....the entire point of the post is that, no, none of these are inherently a legitimate response. The fact that you can "rule 0" something away, or that it hasn't come up in your game, does not affect whether or not something is broken. "I can change it" and "I haven't had a problem with this" are not logical rebuttals to "Rule A is broken."
Are you, in fact, asserting, that the fact that I can ban Shapechange can mean that Shapechange isn't broken? Because you're simply wrong. There is no logic to that.
1. Do not assert that a rule is broken because you have a problem with it in play, no matter how often you have that problem....please, explain how consistently having a problem with a rule is not a good indicator that the rule is broken. It might be a case of misinterpretation or misapplication, but it's certainly a warning sign.
LN,
The actual point is that one person's experience may not mean the RULE is broken. That experience could be incredibly rare. Saying you had a problem with the rule is one thing. Saying it is broken is begging the question. If you wish others to respond within terms of debate, them asking you to also limit your assumptions is equally valid.The rule is broken if a lot of people have the same negative experience as you. It might be your bad luck, your players or even your DM who are broken to produce the broken experience, not the rule. But by saying it is broken, you invite the response "No, it's not. I never had a problem with it." Saying you had an issue and are looking for a solution, reduces this and makes the debate more pleasant. You saying a rule is broken based on your own games is just as illogical as someone saying it isn't based just on theirs.
just a minor quibble - the rest of the post makes polite sense btw
"My players don't do this, so it's not broken."
when we're discussing playtest feedback and how the rules affect individual character combination its probably useful to establish what is the limits / corner cases of the issue at hand. If there is an issue with a rule affecting one class combination badly, but not affecting others then its worthwhile discussing what it does and doesn't affect otherwise you've no idea whether the fix is worse than the problem
I would agree that "I've never seen this so its not broken" is fairly weak argument, but then so is "the PC / DM wiped my monster/PC with this spell combo so its obviously broken".
"I've played with this class combo using those spells/abilities and never seen this specific issue crop up (though i have seen x,y,z)" is a valid contribution to the discussion as you can then focus on what, exactly, is wrong.
basic problem solving theory goes like this (& yes it is my day job...)
1. Grasp the situation. understand exactly what your talking about and especially consider what is & is not affected
2. Root cause analyis. (distinguish between direct cause and root cause). why did this come up, and what was the reason for the original decision.
3. Prove you have the root cause. trial & evaluate
4. permanent, fundamental system level fix.
5. Validate your fix. check that the fix does what its supposed to do and doesn't create any other situation. consider related issues. What else might benefit from the same fix, or might be adversely affected
(btw the fighter / wizard example is maybe not the best one to use - the concept of a wizard being v powerful in certain cases, then weak in others versus the steady power level of the fighter can be considered more thematic than mechanical - and as such you are going to have valid, subjective, disagreements with a blanket statement depending upon the scenario. ymmv)
What is "broken" actually?
I think in the end it boils down to "I don't like how that works".
|
|
For instance, there are a number of groups that apparently have not experienced the power imbalance between fighters and wizards. However, anecdotal, statistical, and mechanical evidences demonstrate otherwise. It would thus be an enormous error on our part to argue that the imbalance does not need to be fixed.
An error? Why? The imbalance is obvious and always has been, but this is, as they say, a 'feature' not a 'bug.' This is a matter of taste, and I can't see any way to fix this imbalance and still have the result taste like D&D.
The developers want feedback on how to make the game more balanced and playable at all levels.
Oh, they certainly want to make the game more playable, but I think they've been pretty clear that compatibility will trump balance when it has to.
I'm not convinced at all that balance should be an overarching goal. I think it would be better to look at each case as it comes up to see if tinkering for better balance is even worth doing.
It's good that you want all your arguments to use valid logic, but the goals you want to accomplish are based purely on your own tastes and emotions.
Simply because one “doesn’t care” about a rules exploit doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be fixed. Suppose, for instance, that you are one who “doesn’t care” about the power imbalance between the fighter and the wizard.
Yeah, that's me. I don't care that wizards are more powerful then fighters at higher levels. The high level fighter just needs to stay relevant and Pathfinder has already taken care of that.
But to actively work against fixing a vast mechanical oversight—to encourage the existence of such—is to hinder the Pathfinder development team, as their purpose is to “fix” the rules.
How do we determine if an issue is "a vast mechanical oversight" instead of a border condition case that only comes up due to player asshattery? Do we take a vote?
We want to work with them, not against them. Such a line of reasoning is self-focused, and it hurts the Pathfinder RPG.
Of course we do, but it looks like you want to turn Pathfinder into a coherent gamist system rather than an adaptable toolset. We already have 4e for that, so your point of view seems self-focused to me.
I do not desire to "pick apart" opposing viewpoints, but rather demonstrate how they are flawed so that we may work together to find a solution.
The solution is that you're going to have to accept that allowances will be made for backwards compatibility and other play styles.
Sam
I do agree with OP, and partly disagree with Samuel , as the current situation encourages people to argue about broken rules.
Part I agree with Samuel is that "I houserule this rule, so the original must be broken!" and similar are not valid arguments either.
I will be using several of the points of OP in discussion though, more as explanations than arguments though.
I do like to play with people who show some constraint and when they see something to exploit they don't immediately jump to it (and recommend finding/training similar players yourself...it might involve hitting them to a nose with a rubber bone, "bad player!")
No doubt I will houserule bunch of things, but that is mostly out of personal preferences, and I don't except all or even most to adopt the same houserules.
And sometimes it brings out interesting roleplaying situations to have power differences between players (though as I have mentioned in other threads time ago, D&D does not support this type of groups particularly well).
But those are comments, not arguments, and indeed suggesting that everyone or even majority to houserule something differently does suggest that maybe something should be done to the original rule, now when we are still in Beta state...
|
I disagree with any attempt to curtail my opinions. Paizo sets the rules for this forum and until I see something from them CoC that says that sort posting is forbidden, I will pick and choose how I will respond to any post.I read your post and while you don't like what some have posted, those opinions are just as valid as yours. If you disagree with someone, then just disagree. I suggest you would be more successful with your point of view if you stop picking a part others view points on logic and simple make a case of how you can make the game better with actual fixes.
Herald, what you are saying boils down to "you can't make me stop posting!" Nobody is trying.
Psychic_Robot makes and supports very solid points. Saying "I changed Rule A in my game so Rule A is fine" is not logical and not helpful. It's also not as valid as what Psychic_Robot has posted, precisely because it is not logical.
"I disagree with any attempt to curtail my opinions" is tantamount to saying "I refuse to accept that I might possibly wrong and will never change my opinions." Surely you can't mean that. If you're not open to discussion, why discuss things?
What I am saying please stop trying others from making arguments in the way they want. If you disagree, they you can go back and strengthen your argument or counter with a new argument. IMHO all you get in the end is a battle of personalities when you attack someone's method of debate.
|
|
My understanding of the thread is to call attention to some posters who are 'opposing' proposed change without any understandable explanation.
Essentially, people are saying 'that may be broken, but it isn't worth fixing'.
That is the kind of statement that makes me scratch my head. There certainly are reasons why someone might feel that way, but I don't think they're being forthright. Maybe they're afraid that if a lot of time is spent on that issue something more important will be overlooked. Or they may be concerned that the fix will have repercussions that are worse than the original problem.
Those are legitimate reasons to fear a proposed fix to a minor problem. But to recognize that the problem exists but that it isn't a problem for you (because you ignore the problem, houserule the problem, your player's have agreed not to use the rules that involve the problem, for example) doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed (unless there is a problem with that fix).
So, I agree with the OP. Saying 'It isn't a problem for me' isn't useful unless there is a reason *in the rules* that makes it not a problem. If the solution in your game has been to change the rule, that absolutely means that Pathfinder could benefit by changing the rule - probably to something along the lines of the change you've already made.
But I can't simply agree to #1. It's quite possible that the part of the rules alleged to be broken only show up as a problem infrequently, possibly even for outlier behavior. In such cases, you really do have to keep in mind the people who don't see the issue as a problem.
There's a difference between these two arguments:
- "There's a problem in my game with players doing X."
- "My players never do X, and it's not a problem in my game."
vs.
- "There's problem in my game with players doing X."
- "My players do X all the time, and it's not a problem in my game."
The first argument is saying "it doesn't affect me if you change the rules" and the second is saying "it DOES affect me if you change the rules". Generally, I see a lot of the first argument and not much of the second argument. YMMV.
|
My understanding of the thread is to call attention to some posters who are 'opposing' proposed change without any understandable explanation.
Sure, but maybe my head hurts too much to try to get all logical and long winded when all I want to do is support the opposition...who is opposing the OP's opposition of opposing things he deems inappropriate...or something?
Anyway, there is value if someone pipes up and says wizards aren't broken in their campaigns even without explanations.
Consider 100 players. How many get on the internet? How many of those post here? How many of those are bent enough to comment about something? What does this sample say about the whole 100? Not a whole lot. For example, I play with a group of 5 total. I am the only one who regularly posts here. I am 20%. I do not represent the other 80%. Reality is way more diverse.
Others have said as much in more elegant ways above.
Actually, I have a perfectly good time playing Marvel FASERIP, which is based upon the exact situation you describe. Thor is so amazingly better than most other heroes that the game is "broken" - but it is still very fun. Plus, I think a more apt comparison would be Punisher or Daredevil to Doctor Strange. Even then, it is still possible to be useful in the presence of Strange. Just like in D&D, he doesn't have many hit points.Wow.
Color me impressed. :)
One other thing that would really help the debates: People need to stop begging the question.
I am coming to dislike the word broke, but when a claim is made that a rule is broken, there should at least be a consensus achieved as to whether a rule is actually broken or whether some people like the rule the way that it is.
This is not the same as people saying they like things to be broken. This is people saying they think that they like the options the game allows in its current form.
At the same time, some options just cannot be balanced relative to each other. Imagine for a moment that you're playing a superhero game. Everyone is happy playing Hawkeye, Iron Fist, or Daredevil power-level characters. Then a new player joins and he wants to play Superman or Thor. Should he be allowed to?
Now, if everyone wants to play Superman, Thor, Phoenix, etc... then there's no problem. But Daredevil has no business being in the same game as them.
Ie, there are some ranges of options that are completely unreasonable. You can't have infinite cosmic power playing the same game with 'I know kung-fu'. It doesn't work. At some point balance means making everyone's options roughly equal, and options that cannot be sufficiently powered up/down have to get axed, because they are ultimately bad for the game.
A Champions comparison would have Daredevil as a 500 point hero while Thor and Superman would be 1000 point heroes. While using the same rule system Daredevil would be crushed. Akin to a 5th level rouge taking on 20th level paladian/fighter/barbarian.
|
When asking how to FIX a rule, then yes I see some of the OP's points as being non helpful. "I don't care" or "It isn't a problem for us" is absolutely not going to provide any kind of insight into what is going to FIX a problem.
That is definitely a big part of it, the people posting to a thread about ways to make the Fighter more competitive with the Wizard, etc. with, 'I think Fighters are fine. Don't change anything.' are, IMO, only one step above trolling. If the thread is about Fighter tweaks, a curt dismissive rebuke of everyone who actually came to the thread to discuss Fighter tweaks isn't the best way to make friends and influence people. Indeed, the curtest replies are often the most aggravating in their rudeness.
As much as I dislike some of the openly aggressive tone from some recent postings, a *large* number of the posts the OP is talking about are just as insulting, in a sneaky passive-aggressive way, suggesting that if, 'you have a problem with planar binding, you're just making problems, because *no sane GM* would allow that.' It's generally phrased nicer, but the message is the same, 'The game is fine, *you* have a problem.' or 'It's not a problem for *me,* so *you* must be what's broken / munchkinny / unreasonable.'
It's way, way, way too easy to get away with passive-aggressive posting of curt dismissals of other people's topics with stuff like this, even if they get far less attention than those misusing words like 'fail' and 'broken' six times a post.
There are a lot of loophole areas in the game that, yes, any GM can turn around and say, 'no free wishes,' but unless D&D is doomed to die a slow death, there will always be new GMs who do not know that they are 'supposed to' ignore certain things in the rulebooks, because 'no sane GM would allow that.'
Ultimately, the logic of, 'It doesn't affect me personally, so let's not do anything about it.' has caused a lot of grief over the centuries, as it's been applied to events far more significant than game rules, including decisions as to whether or not wars in Europe were 'our problem' or not.
Most arguments are inherently selfish, as we argue for what *we* want, but some arguments are just mean-spirited, because they aren't arguing for a certain rule that they want, they are stating baldly that the problem doesn't exist for them, but then arguing *against someone else getting what they want,* out of what seems to be little more than stubborness (at best) or spite (at worst).
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
...the entire point of the post is that, no, none of these are inherently a legitimate response.
If these are not legitimate responses, then ask follow-up questions to draw a legitimate response out of your interlocutor.
Why are people debating the OP on these points? Simple. People don't like to be told what they can and can't say. It has been suggested that if you want to begin a thread with links to this one or spoilers to his notes. People might concede that he can set some groundrules for a thread he starts, but not for a playtest.
Appreciate the more polite discussion. It lets us focus on the real issues.
House rules - depends on WHY they have been made. For example, I make house rules to speed up game play since my group can't meet that often for extended periods of time. So not all house rules are a result of something being broken.
I also house rule in favor of keeping characters alive, by allowing -CON instead of -10. Again, tailoring the rules to meet my particular group's needs/wants.
I don't use these motives as a way of saying the original -10 rule is broken, because it's not.
Now, there are a number of truly broken things out there. But those are subjects of other threads.
I would add this to the Pls Stop Using These Arguments thread - Pls stop using non-OGL and non-Pathfinder examples when trying to argue for changes in Pathfinder. I believe this will simplify the debates. I know, the backwards-compatibility thing will crop up but I don't believe PF is trying to be compatible with every splat book out there.
|
|
That is definitely a big part of it, the people posting to a thread about ways to make the Fighter more competitive with the Wizard, etc. with, 'I think Fighters are fine. Don't change anything.' are, IMO, only one step above trolling. If the thread is about Fighter tweaks, a curt dismissive rebuke of everyone who actually came to the thread to discuss Fighter tweaks isn't the best way to make friends and influence people. Indeed, the curtest replies are often the most aggravating in their rudeness.
And that would be fine if it wasn't a forum asking for people to post thier experiances with the beta that are both good and bad. You can't firewall off people who disagree with you and want to prevent change.
I'm sure many people don't want change because they feel that it will make the game they run more difficult rather than make it easier.
|
|
I would add this to the Pls Stop Using These Arguments thread - Pls stop using non-OGL and non-Pathfinder examples when trying to argue for changes in Pathfinder. I believe this will simplify the debates. I know, the backwards-compatibility thing will crop up but I don't believe PF is trying to be compatible with every splat book out there.
This I can agree to.
IMHO all you get in the end is a battle of personalities when you attack someone's method of debate.
They aren't limiting your methods of debate, but rather ensuring that discourse isn't interrupted with non-factual opinions.
Saying "Because I said so!" isn't debating. :)
I would add this to the Pls Stop Using These Arguments thread - Pls stop using non-OGL and non-Pathfinder examples when trying to argue for changes in Pathfinder. I believe this will simplify the debates. I know, the backwards-compatibility thing will crop up but I don't believe PF is trying to be compatible with every splat book out there.
I haven't seen any non-OGL examples yet, however I'm not looking for them, either. Everything I've seen is either core, or Wizards material. :)
And that would be fine if it wasn't a forum asking for people to post thier experiances with the beta that are both good and bad. You can't firewall off people who disagree with you and want to prevent change.
Sure. But I think there should be some distinction between (e.g.) "Nobody uses Planar Binding in my group" (not an argument against change), "We use Planar Binding in my group, but we have campaign-specific reasons not to summon powerful creatures" (weak argument against change), and "We use Planar Binding in my group and summon powerful creatures, and we still think it's a balanced spell" (strong argument against change) instead of lumping them all into "Not a problem in my group".
|
IMHO all you get in the end is a battle of personalities when you attack someone's method of debate.They aren't limiting your methods of debate, but rather ensuring that discourse isn't interrupted with non-factual opinions.
Saying "Because I said so!" isn't debating. :)
Actually... they are trying to limit methods of debate. Emotional appeals have, rightly or wrongly, swayed many a debate over the years.
Emotions and irrational opinion may not seem to you like good ways of arguing but (treading lightly) as most married men can tell you, sometimes one must concede that a reasoned, well thought out argument is not always going to carry the day.
:)
I would add this to the Pls Stop Using These Arguments thread - Pls stop using non-OGL and non-Pathfinder examples when trying to argue for changes in Pathfinder. I believe this will simplify the debates. I know, the backwards-compatibility thing will crop up but I don't believe PF is trying to be compatible with every splat book out there.I haven't seen any non-OGL examples yet, however I'm not looking for them, either. Everything I've seen is either core, or Wizards material. :)
Oh they're out there. PrCs are a popular one, as is content from ToB. As a recently resurrected DM I get confused by these examples as I'm not really familiar with them from the player side. As I'm trying to understand a poster's argument I get lost when they stray into these areas.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The issue here is: can there be soft answers to hard questions?
--+--
Well, I'd certainly agree that if a sizable number of DM's all find one particular rule awkward, mostly for the same reason, then that's a rule that would profitably be revised.
For example, D&D 3.0's rules for Rhino Hide armor (which were revised in 3.5), or D&D 3.5's rules for overrunning and charging (which Pathfinder revised), or Pathfinder Beta's rules for dwarven encumbrance.
So, yes, "I change the rule, so it's not a bad rule" seems to be a strange argument.
--+--
"I don't have problems with the rule, so it's not a bad rule", on the other hand, has some merit. It's anecdotal, it's only a single datum, but it's worth at least that.
"I play that subsystem a lot, and I've never had a problem with that rule, under a variety of DM's, so it's not a bad rule" has more weight.
"I run RPGA adventures all the time. We use that rule as written, and everbody always seems to know it and like it, so it's not a bad rule," is fairly compelling. It's certainly an answer to "This rule is hypotethically exploitable."
Here's an example I just made up: "There's nothing in the rules about what base materials I need to start with, in order to brew a potion. In the real world, I could brew coffee with Mountain Dew instead of water. Likewise, my alchenist/wizard should be able to brew a potion of bull's strength using a potion of bear's endurance, and use that combination to brew a potion of barkskin, and finally brew in a potion of enlarge. And I'll stop there, just because I'm lazy. So, in one round, I would be able to buff myself like crazy. This proves the potion-brewing rules are broken. They need to explicitly state that casters have to start with non-magical materials."
"Nobody does that," is a reasonable answer.
--+--
Another position I think has merit is "Some issues should be addressed by the game world, not the rules."
For example, "If I were an archer, I could hire a dozen expendable peasants to attack my opponent, just to slow it down, over and over. Peasants can't cost very much to hire, and my character has enough ranks in Bluff to convince them that it won't be dangerous. It would be ridiculous for them not to agree to my employment offer."
This strikes me as a problem, but a problem with a player's assumptions about how NPC's will behave, rather than a PC exploting "broken" game rules.
Your character can kill barkeeps to avoid paying his bar tabs. He can attempt to assassinate his ridiculously wealthy travelling companions. He can lay gaes on casters to ceaselessly toil and make magic items for him. And yes, he can try to compel powerful, evil forces to routinely do his bidding. In none of these cases, does a game need rules to "fix" these situations.
|
|
I haven't seen any non-OGL examples yet, however I'm not looking for them, either. Everything I've seen is either core, or Wizards material. :)
Most WotC material is actually not OGL.
Which strangely means that the Pathfinder RPG needs to worry more about being compatible with Plots and Poison then it does Races of Stone.
There's a skill to determine what animals a character knows what about.
There sure is, and I believe there is some fuzzy consensus that the way Knowledge checks work for IDing creatures is less than ideal. (At least for internal consistency and "common sense" reasons...the baby dragon being easier to ID than the adult, and whatnot.)
What's more, the Druid can summon most of the relevant animals.
I think I need enlightenment on what animals, exactly are broken. Of course, with the changes Pathfinder has made to Wild Shape I think this problem as a whole has been tweaked downward just a little?
<soapbox>
In my experience, while this isn't relevent to the SNA debate, a lot of similar problems can be solved by simply defining a list of "base" material for your campaign, letting your players know the flavour/theme of the thing, and saying "See the DM if you want other material". This won't fix things like casters being disgustingly broken compared to melee types, or the power differences between a mixed group of powergamers and non-powergamers. But it does help ensure that your powergamer(s) have some sort of concept to match their unholy build, instead of them degrading into that guy who everyone's afraid to mention D&D around because he'll spout off about his level 37 paladin with garters of Wisdom +10 and a nightmare as his mount... Why? That unholy build now requires DM approval. What the players figure out real quick (so quick you don't even have to tell them) is that approval is granted on convincing story/concept reasons only. If you can sincerely justify a T-Rex in a Pirates of the Caribbean style game to the GM, well, you deserve to have it. However, if you fail to convince the GM that inserting T-Rexes would be fun and flavourful (and this seems more likely), I'm sorry, but no T-Rexes in this game. We might run Jurassic Park next time though.
TL;DR version: not all campaigns and settings are kitchen sinks. Players need to respect that, while DMs need to be open to working with a player so everyone gets to have fun.
</soapbox>
And he can always write a T-Rex into his backstory anyway.
This is a player issue and not a rules issue. A player can write a lot of things into their backstory. And the GM is free to tell them that T-Rexes (or spaceships, or laser beam robots, or ninjas, or paladins, or even elves!) do not exist in this campaign/do not fit the flavour, or "negotiate" with the player in exchange for his/her awesome T-Rex-in-backstory-granted powers. Of course, some DMs might also just look at that and tell the player "If you need it that badly, you're probably better off with another group" or, even less tactfully, "you're being a cheesy #@($*%$&bag. We'll have none of that now." (I'm not fond of the "I am DM, hear me ROAR!" types myself, but they are out there...)
IMHO all you get in the end is a battle of personalities when you attack someone's method of debate.They aren't limiting your methods of debate, but rather ensuring that discourse isn't interrupted with non-factual opinions.
Saying "Because I said so!" isn't debating. :)
Actually... they are trying to limit methods of debate. Emotional appeals have, rightly or wrongly, swayed many a debate over the years.
Emotions and irrational opinion may not seem to you like good ways of arguing but (treading lightly) as most married men can tell you, sometimes one must concede that a reasoned, well thought out argument is not always going to carry the day.
:)
LMAO!
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I would add this to the Pls Stop Using These Arguments thread - Pls stop using non-OGL and non-Pathfinder examples when trying to argue for changes in Pathfinder. I believe this will simplify the debates. I know, the backwards-compatibility thing will crop up but I don't believe PF is trying to be compatible with every splat book out there.
It depends on the individual, Emperor7.
One of the best arguments for backwards-compatability is the number of D&D groups who told Wizards "We all have a shelf holding over $1000 in 3.5 hardback rulebooks, allowing us to play a game we're perfectly happy with. We don't want to switch to 4th Edition and make all that product obsolete."
If switching to Pathfinder *also* makes those shelves obsolete, that's a strong incentive for those groups to just buy up some old 3.5 Players' Handbooks at Half-Priced Books to hand out to novice players.
|
|
IMHO all you get in the end is a battle of personalities when you attack someone's method of debate.They aren't limiting your methods of debate, but rather ensuring that discourse isn't interrupted with non-factual opinions.
Saying "Because I said so!" isn't debating. :)
And that is exactly my point. Often it becomes a arguement about the arguement. "Your POV doesn't exist/isn't logical" sidesteps what is said. As this goes on until the discussion is side tracked. It limits the debate of tha actual subject.
What works is strong evidence, and real examples.
there will always be new GMs who do not know that they are 'supposed to' ignore certain things in the rulebooks, because 'no sane GM would allow that.'
Then perhaps the GM advice section of the book needs some rewriting and clarification to explain that the rules are open-ended and the GM WILL have to make judgment calls on a number of issues that the rules don't cover very well. In those cases, they should make the call that provides the most fun for everyone, maintains internal consistency in their campaign/setting, and is the most balanced. (In roughly that order of importance.)
In what is going to appear to be a contrast to my previous post on this thread, I will freely state that I think mechanical balance is often overrated. You cannot perfectly mechanically balance everything in D&D. The only way to do that is to have one mechanical option and just reflavour it constantly. And even then, some metagaming tool like myself will come along and use roleplaying and the spaces between the rules to gain an advantage. You can powergame Risus; it isn't hard. What the rules need is a rough semblance of balance, while still allowing for a lot of character customization. Of course the GM is gonna have to houserule some things. No open ruleset (such as an RPG) can be exhaustive while truly remaining open. This means the GM HAS to make judgment calls. IMO, providing advice that helps the GM figure out how to make those judgment calls is better than assuming that the GM and/or the players are either too dumb or antagonistic to work something out, and turning the game system into a straightjacket as a result. D&D really can't help you with those kinds of social/relational issues anyway.
....Okay, that was my rant quota for the day. *sheepish*
I would add this to the Pls Stop Using These Arguments thread - Pls stop using non-OGL and non-Pathfinder examples when trying to argue for changes in Pathfinder. I believe this will simplify the debates. I know, the backwards-compatibility thing will crop up but I don't believe PF is trying to be compatible with every splat book out there.It depends on the individual, Emperor7.
One of the best arguments for backwards-compatability is the number of D&D groups who told Wizards "We all have a shelf holding over $1000 in 3.5 hardback rulebooks, allowing us to play a game we're perfectly happy with. We don't want to switch to 4th Edition and make all that product obsolete."
If switching to Pathfinder *also* makes those shelves obsolete, that's a strong incentive for those groups to just buy up some old 3.5 Players' Handbooks at Half-Priced Books to hand out to novice players.
Agreed. I was just hoping to simplify the debate.
I certainly plan on incorporating SOME 3.5 books/material in my PF campaign realizing that sometimes CONVERSION will be necessary and some books/parts won't work at all. However, those parts that are broken in 3.5 are bad examples in a PF debate IMO.
|
|
The issue here is: can there be soft answers to hard questions?
"I don't have problems with the rule, so it's not a bad rule", on the other hand, has some merit. It's anecdotal, it's only a single datum, but it's worth at least that.
"I play that subsystem a lot, and I've never had a problem with that rule, under a variety of DM's, so it's not a bad rule" has more weight.
"I run RPGA adventures all the time. We use that rule as written, and everbody always seems to know it and like it, so it's not a bad rule," is fairly compelling. It's certainly an answer to "This rule is hypotethically exploitable."
Here's an example I just made up: "There's nothing in the rules about what base materials I need to start with, in order to brew a potion. In the real world, I could brew coffee with Mountain Dew instead of water. Likewise, my alchenist/wizard should be able to brew a potion of bull's strength using a potion of bear's endurance, and use that combination to brew a potion of barkskin, and finally brew in a potion of enlarge. And I'll stop there, just because I'm lazy. So, in one round, I would be able to buff myself like crazy. This proves the potion-brewing rules are broken. They need to explicitly state that casters have to start with non-magical materials."
"Nobody does that," is a reasonable answer.
--+--
There was a very good argument along these lines in another thread about a DM giving a 1st level PC a +5 (I think) vorpal sword, and IIRC, the crux of it was never really addressed to any degree. The rules for a vorpal sword aren't 'broken' simply because it imbalances gameplay in that example, anecdotal evidence aside.
There are cases when the RAW can exist as a set of perfectly good guidelines for GM interpretation without having everything spelled out so that all wiggle-room is removed. Part of the job of a GM is to make those calls in the way he or she feels best (preferably to advance his or her story) when a situation arises that makes that bit of wiggle room come under scrutiny.
There was a very good argument along these lines in another thread about a DM giving a 1st level PC a +5 (I think) vorpal sword, and IIRC, the crux of it was never really addressed to any degree. The rules for a vorpal sword aren't 'broken' simply because it imbalances gameplay in that example, anecdotal evidence aside.
But if there were a 1st level spell that summoned a +5 vorpal sword, I wouldn't allow that spell in my game, even if there were in-game consequences to it (like the sword's original owner comes after you, etc.). Saying that the DM has the ability to punish the use of any particularly powerful spell is not a very strong argument against changing a spell, IMO.
I've tried to reply to this several times, each time deleting my post and moving on.. only to come back to it again.
I admit- most of my dislike is that some other fellow is coming on here with absolutely no authority whatsoever and is trying to tell me, and us, how we can or can't answer threads. That irks me.
Overall I feel I agree with your points. Generally the OP has it right. Those statements usually don't move the ball. I wouldn't go so far as to say *never* though, because sometimes they are useful answers or even correct.
Saying something isn't broken because it never happens is actually a good reaason.
Why isn't fireball OP? d6/level in a 20 foot spread? All you have to do is get all your bad guys into that 20 foot spread and it can do massive damage.
Why doesn't that work out? Because /it never actually happens/. "It never happens in my game" is what keeps the spell marginal- even at the levels where d6/level damage is a nice chunk of your HP %.
Obviously that isn't hte case for every rule- but saying it can NEVER be used is going overboard. And for most of your rules, I think "never" is too strong a term. (except for the ones who don't care if its broken.. if you don't care, then don't post.. but no need to inform us that you don't care, since it really doeesn't move the ball any, so to speak)
-S
Actually... they are trying to limit methods of debate. Emotional appeals have, rightly or wrongly, swayed many a debate over the years.
Emotions and irrational opinion may not seem to you like good ways of arguing but (treading lightly) as most married men can tell you, sometimes one must concede that a reasoned, well thought out argument is not always going to carry the day.
:)
The Appeal to Emotion fallacy:
1) There is a powerful, favorable emotion attached to X
2) Therefore, X is true
We can have debates, which are structured around logic and evidence (and thus can have some expectation of a rational outcome) or we can have arguments, which are not.
I have no wish to engage in an argument on the internet. Have you seen that classic XKCD? (http://xkcd.com/386/) I don't want to frustrate myself or others by emulating it. I understand that emotions sometimes run high with this game, as it can generate very moving experiences and many people are happy with it.
I further understand that despite my many good experiences, there are still aspects of the game that could be improved. Inasmuch as I love the game, my emotions there interfere with my rational judgment, which is required to properly design a functional rule set.
I find that whenever one party in a dispute cedes to emotion, the dispute is effectively over. When one side calls for evidence and logic and the other side uses emotional rhetoric there can be virtually no real gain accomplished.
Of course I can't stop you from posting in whatever style you will. I can request that you use logic, evidence, and textually supported arguments. I can request that everyone refrain from logical fallacies and emotional rhetoric. I can attempt to refrain from using them myself.
If you don't choose to post logical, rational posts that is entirely your decision. It does, however, invalidate any arguments that you may put forth. In order for an argument to be successful, it must be both valid and sound. Valid, in that the conclusions follow from the evidence presented, and sound, in that it contains no logical fallacies/failures.
If you want to debate, lets debate. An opinion supported by evidence is far, far stronger than that same opinion in a vacuum.
As for follow up questions to tease out evidence, there is the concept of the Burden of Proof. The Burden of Proof means that whenever someone makes a claim, it is up to them to prove its merits.
|
|
There was a very good argument along these lines in another thread about a DM giving a 1st level PC a +5 (I think) vorpal sword, and IIRC, the crux of it was never really addressed to any degree. The rules for a vorpal sword aren't 'broken' simply because it imbalances gameplay in that example, anecdotal evidence aside.But if there were a 1st level spell that summoned a +5 vorpal sword, I wouldn't allow that spell in my game, even if there were in-game consequences to it (like the sword's original owner comes after you, etc.)
Exactly. And as a GM, that is totally your prerogative. And as playtesters, if a spell, a rule, or the like has been proven through gameplay to cause too much instability in a campaign, then it should be looked at and given serious consideration to being changed, abolished, or whatever.
But if the assertion is simply "I could take hypothetically take this spell/ability and run with it X way and it would seriously imbalance/break (and I hate to admit it, but really am growing to dislike that term) the game," that can be applied to at least a quarter of the spells in the Beta. If a large number of people are responding "Why would your GM ever let you get away with that?" does it really make sense to spend the increasingly short time we have till the Beta becomes the Final Release focusing on that, rather than on more all-encompassing rules, or one that a larger majority agrees is in serious need of tweaking (i.e., if that vorpal sword spell you suggested was real, yes, you would likely have a majority that would say "change it")?
Saying that the DM has the ability to punish the use of any particularly powerful spell is not a very strong argument against changing a spell, IMO.
Completely agreed, again, with the caveat that I'd like to see playtest evidence actually given. Play the game and report how and why it didn't work. As someone said before, in your game, if your GM does not allow this, say why, not just that it's not allowed.
I personally feel that to expect every contingency to a given situation be covered in the rules is lazy GMing. Part of the game to me is the mental exercise of saying to myself, "What happens now?" because my players have decided to throw me a curve ball and back it up with an interpretation (correct or otherwise) of the rules. YMMV.
|
|
I would add this to the Pls Stop Using These Arguments thread - Pls stop using non-OGL and non-Pathfinder examples when trying to argue for changes in Pathfinder. I believe this will simplify the debates. I know, the backwards-compatibility thing will crop up but I don't believe PF is trying to be compatible with every splat book out there.It depends on the individual, Emperor7.
One of the best arguments for backwards-compatability is the number of D&D groups who told Wizards "We all have a shelf holding over $1000 in 3.5 hardback rulebooks, allowing us to play a game we're perfectly happy with. We don't want to switch to 4th Edition and make all that product obsolete."
Also, I don't think that it is bad to learn from other bad mistakes. If a Splatbook did something poorly, let's not repeat it.
|
|
Psychic_Robot -- thank you for being open to figuring out how better to communicate here.
I would request that every poster not use any of the following arguments when discussing whether or not something needs to be “fixed” with the Pathfinder RPG.
1. "My players don't do this, so it's not broken."
2. "I house-rule it, so it's not broken."
3. "You can use Rule 0, so it’s not broken."
4. “I don’t care if it’s broken.”
Overall, you are right. Other people have also made some good points and counters that should also be listened to. A few thoughts of my own...
Don't automatically discount "Rule 0". D&D is an incredibly complex and involved system that not only involves a rule set but also involves MANY different types of players and playing styles making it pretty much impossible to "simply" break down into a statistical analysis. At the same time, "Rule 0" should not be the first defense and it doesn't mean that a rule couldn't be remade or changed to be cleaner. But I still think that there will always be cases where a DM will need to invoke "Rule 0" with something as complex as this.
You cannot please all the people all the time. Not even close. I really don't care how right you are. Even if Paizo comes up with a rock solid game, there are still going to be people that will end up house ruling the crap out of it. And that's ok. In many ways the game is designed to be easily modified for any group in question.
Just because something is unbalanced doesn't necessarily mean that it's "broken". I've seen you (and LN?) refer a number of times that wizards and fighters are not balanced. And? I don't get it. They are meant to have different abilities at different times and will shine in different ways in different circumstances. Why do you think or who says that a 10th level fighter fighting a 10th level wizard needs to end up coming down to the final blow where they end up killing each other? I'm not saying that it shouldn't be looked at, but unbalanced doesn't necessarily mean "broken".
Last point -- I still feel like you are discounting the Paizo staff from picking the important bits from these arguments. This isn't a democracy. It's not like if everyone screams "I house-rule everything, don't fix anything" that Jason will then just reprint the SRD. Give them the credit they deserve. And focus on bringing your points to the "table" in a good, clean and logical fashion.
And thanks for helping make it a better system.
|
|
Example argument: My players have used Planar Binding in game and it wasn't broken!
Strawman Rebuttal: He doesn't care if it's broken or not! Or: That's a meaningless anecdote!
I don't think the real problem is really what you are saying here.
After playing 3rd edition since it first came out I've only seen a couple of combinations that I would consider "broken" and both of those were from splat books before 3.5. (Deepwood sniper with order of the bow initiate combination -- And some druid prestige class that allowed the player to change into a rhemoraz or an iron golem.) And both issues seemed to have been addressed and fixed(?) in 3.5.
HOWEVER, just because I haven't experienced a problem doesn't necessarily mean that one doesn't exist or that the rules can't be made better.
I would question, however, if the problem is with the players or with the rule set. I played a lot of MtG a long time ago. We had a good group of people and we all knew the rules, etc. Then we came across some people who seemed to make it their goal to maximize every possible loophole to destroy the opposition. We stopped playing with them. My understanding is that a lot of cards were banned from many types of play because of players like that. There is a big difference between the letter of the law and the essence of the law. People like that will always find ways around what the rules are meant to do in order to always "win". (I had a similar experience with Warhammer. Hell, I had a similar experience with Monopoly.) That doesn't mean we can't make the rules better -- it just means that a perfect system for everyone is fairly unrealistic.
|
|
Explain how? I find it difficult to believe a 20th level druid is "familiar" with everything in every Monster Manual or splatbook, which tends to be the argument from people who feel it is broken.
If a 20th Level Druid says "I want to change into a T-Rex" and has never actually met a T-Rex, then that character is arguing using the vague RAW to the best possible advantage.
There's a skill to determine what animals a character knows what about. It's Knowledge(Nature). What's more, the Druid can summon most of the relevant animals. And he can always write a T-Rex into his backstory anyway.
First, we come to the argument of "familiar". The dictionary definition is "one who is well acquainted with something", where acquainted means "knows first hand". Knowing about something and having first hand knowledge of something are two different things. To use your own logic, nowhere does the Knowledge skill say explicitly that it gives you first hand knowledge of the topic. I know lots about the Wagner festivals in Bayreuth thanks to professors and textbooks and videos, but I have never been to Bayreuth, hence I would have difficulty teleporting there (if I could teleport). I know a bit about polar bears because I have read about them in National Geographic, and seen them on T.V., but I couldn't wild shape into one (if I could wild shape) because I have never seen or studied one up close.
Second, they can't write it into their backstory if their character started at 1st level and has been playing that character up to 20th level. If they haven't encountered a T-Rex in the game, or made efforts to do so in the down-time between adventures, then they do not have "first hand knowledge". And no, running from one doesn't count as knowledge. As for backstory for a new high level character, the DM should have final approval of backstory anyway, otherwise players can make up all sorts of crazy stuff ("no really, Vecna gave me his eye!")
|
|
Psychic Robot, when I saw that you had resurrected a temporarily locked thread, my first instinct was to be annoyed. After reading your post, let me say thank you for this one. This is precisely the kind of tone that resonates with our messageboards.
(I also think you make good points, but as I'm just a software developer and not particularly a gamer, I stay out of the substance of these discussions.)
I KNEW YOU WERE STAYING OUT OF SUBSTANCE... :)
First, we come to the argument of "familiar". The dictionary definition is ...
This is a good insight. I think it should be flagged for explicit explanation in the rulebook, because Dictionaries differ, and we shouldn't need to rely on such references playing the game.
This is how I would read "familiar" in my game. Setting your explanation alongside teleport is especially interesting. One could imagine a rider in both Wildshape and Teleport that ties them to knowledge skills:
"You are familiar with a default number of locations/species equal to your ranks in Knowledge Local/Nature, plus any locations/species you interact with enough to become familiar during the course of the game (by ruling of the GM)."
or somesuch nonsense.
|
|
I don't think the real problem is really what you are saying here.
It is certainly one of the bigger problems.
All of the original complaints and all of the examples based on it regularly come down to just one thing, as Shadowdweller noted:"My anecdotal experience is better than your anecdotal experience."
This is the same as Paul Watson ninja-ing me in responding to LogicNinja as to why my rebuttal to the first point demonstrates Begging the Question. If you say that your experience was bad you may not dismiss my statement that my experience has never been bad just because it is anecdotal. So is yours, and if you want a "logic based" debate, then your assertion is equally invalid.
As for the meta-question of what "broken" means, it typically refers to one of two things:
1. A rule does not achieve the purpose it is intended to achieve.
2. A rule provides a disproportional advantage, either positive or negative.
For the OGL D20 Fantasy Game, we could present as examples:
1. The concept and structure of buff spells. Instead of making them some time bonuses, they are closer to mandatory bonuses, and stat boost items overwhelm their slots. Something is wrong there.
2. Original wild shape and polymorph school spells. When a sorceror or wizard always took alter shape and ran around looking like a troglodyte, there was a problem.
And so those are already changed in the PFRPG Beta.
Completely agreed, again, with the caveat that I'd like to see playtest evidence actually given. Play the game and report how and why it didn't work.
Naturally playtest data is much more interesting than hypothetical situations, but the problem with demonstrating something is "broken" through playtesting is that most people would prefer to play in a "non-broken" playtest.
For instance, consider this playtest report:
- We made up a party of 9th level characters, including a 9th level wizard (me) and a 9th level druid.
- We bought some equipment, including a Decanter of Endless Water.
- We did some research and found the names of a few bralani eladrin. Then we went to a place in the mountains where the rock is fairly thick.
- Using Transmute Rock to Mud, we excavated a 10' x 10' x 10' cube of rock and then made a dimensional calling diagram in the bottom of the cubical pit.
- Then the druid used a bunch of Stone Shape spells to close off the roof of the pit with a 5' thick layer of rock, leaving a narrow slit in the middle to see through.
- At this point, the wizard cast Lesser Planar Ally to summon a bralani into the "dungeon" we created. The druid quickly sealed off most of the narrow slit except for a pair of small holes.
- Then, being careful to remain out of sight, we began filling up the pit with our Decanter of Endless Water. The air escaped through the other hole. The bralani did a lot of screaming and yelling and blasting lightning, but he couldn't see us through the long, narrow holes.
- Eventually, the pit filled up with water and we sealed it shut with another Stone Shape spell. We waited for a couple of hours, until we were sure that the bralani had drowned.
- Then we opened up the pit with another Stone Shape Spell and collected the bralani's +1 holy scimitar and +1 holy bow and saved the body for Animate Dead purposes.
- We repeated this four more times until the fighter and the rogue each had a holy bow and holy scimitar, and we had a couple of each left over to sell.
- At this point, the DM threatened to have a solar teleport in and kill us all. But we pointed out that in our last campaign we killed plenty of CR 6 outsiders and no one ever blinked an eye at it.
- Then the DM threw a copy of the DMG at my head, and the campaign was over.
Sound like a fun playtest? :-)