|
I know I posted this in another thread allready, but since this thread was temporarily shut down (and reopened in a much better tone so I hope that said thread fades into this boards oblivion), I'd like to rpost this proposal since I hope it could bring a little peace back into the testboards while still adding to the efford we call playtesting.
While I usually try to avoid the "players can do a and b, thus achiving c so that rule ist broken (perhaps not to eloquently put but still I guess everybody knows what threats I am referring to) they made me think about something: just because a problem doesn't appear in most games doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed. I just think it isn't top priority to fix these somewhat obscure leaks while there are other topics to be discussed and tinkered with, topics that affect the playability and the feel of the game for most players.
Thus said I think, fixes to "obscure issues" should be maid if
- the adressed leak ist fixed easily without interfering to much with the rule system as a whole (all the better if the poster finding the leak already found and posted a viable fix)
- fixing the adressed leak doesn't affect the "feel" aka fluff of the game to much (i believe the game is meant't to play stories, so the fluff should't need to be adjusted to fit the rules).
In other words - fixes are valid if the fix does't affect the game more than the leak does.
Since I and at least some of the posters above seem to see no immediate need to search for loopholes and fix them and I'm sure Jason and the Paizo Team still work on topics in the PRPG that are - let's say more accessible for most playtesters, perhaps it would be a valid Idea to make a thread jsut for discussing discovered loopholes so Jason can look through them when he feels to have the time to do so without neglecting other work. Since there are many playtesters unconcerned about things like "efreeti granting unlimited wishes" it would also give them (us) the chance to participate in most of the playtesting without adressing issues that never showed up in our games.
Note: I don't think these discussions should be avoided or diminualized by cloistering them in a sub-board, I just think the majority of players can't add to much to the solution of these problems because they never encountered them.
|
|
I think I posted this in the other thread in response...
Any issue which a player can create using abilities that are completely his to control is not obscure. Its prevalence is subject to the willingness of the player to create that issue. Given sufficiently knowledgeable players this tends to mean (1) The ability(ies) in question never get used, because the player doesn't want to cause the issue. So the ability is in fact useless to them. (2) The issue comes up all the time because the player wants it to.
Ie, its obscurity depends only on the proportion of players who choose 1 vs. 2.
Now, if we assume insufficiently knowledgeable players/DMs we get a real problem, because the use of those abilities will just happen. ('Hey this sounds cool'). And when it horribly breaks the game and the DM comes online looking for a solution to stop his game from disintegrating he gets the following responses:
(A) "You should have banned that, what were you thinking?" (He's new/inexperienced - he had no idea. Shouldn't he be able to expect the rules function fine without tinkering?)
(B) "Kill the players character, that will teach him!" (Solves nothing. Oftentimes the player doesn't realize what he did was wrong because he's *also* inexperienced. I find it hard to stomach punishing someone just for using the rules.)
(C) "Creatively reinterpret the rule so it shafts him every time he uses it." (Ew. Yes, lets punish players for playing the game outside.)The correct response: "Talk it over with your player. Explain to him your problem. Find a compromise that makes you both happy." If that response ever gets offered, it gets drowned out in the unrelenting tide of A-C. And really, the DM in that situation should be upset that the product failed to create a function game in that situation.
I used the term "obscure loopholes" because it is used in various threads on these boards and I wanted to make sure that readers would know what my threat was about - regardless of their opinion on the matter. Frankly though - I lack a better word - if you have one that nails it, feel free to point it out for me.
I play 3 / 3.5 since it came out about once or twice a week - as do most of my players. We talked about the discussion on these boards and about several of the issues I refered to as "obscure loopholes" and none of them minded those. Im quite sure they know the rules well enough but they - as I do, use the rules to describe the characters they play, not to get a big boon for creative usage - I don't think this is the same as 'not wanting to cause an issue' I think this is what other posters described as different playing styles. And thus your response actually strenghtens my argument to create a room on these boards for this kind of rules discussion alone, so players whose playing style has them experience those issues can discuss them and propose solutions while those players who never experienced them don't need to bother posting "it's not broken because I never had that problem" reactions - which I suppose could make both sides (not meaning to imply a new sub edition war!) happy or at least more content.The final decision what rules, solutions and parts of the discussion are taken into close account for the PRPG lie with Jason, no amount of heated and (since most of the time the discussion isn't about the rules) often senseless discussion will change that. I really think that Paizo can create a new edition of 3.5 that is rewarding for all kinds of gaming that was and is going on using the 3.5 rules, but I also think we can make it easier for them by keeping the playtest discussions civil and use the to discuss the rules and the playtesting, not to discuss our styles of play. If sub-dividing the discussion board could do this trtick, why not. (again - this was not meant to imply the loss of civility was the fault of anyone specific).
Thank you.