|
There seems to be a bit of confusion between two gaming groups that operate in my area. I was hoping for this to be cleared up although the answer seems clear to me.
When you eat a scenario (judging it without playing it), you receive full credit to apply to a character as in the PFS campaign guide. It seems pretty clear on how that works.
We have some people who believe that you can play a scenario AND run a scenario and get credit it for it twice (Albeit on a different character.) Is this some new ruling? Or are they just they misinterpreting?
|
There seems to be a bit of confusion between two gaming groups that operate in my area. I was hoping for this to be cleared up although the answer seems clear to me.
When you eat a scenario (judging it without playing it), you receive full credit to apply to a character as in the PFS campaign guide. It seems pretty clear on how that works.
We have some people who believe that you can play a scenario AND run a scenario and get credit it for it twice (Albeit on a different character.) Is this some new ruling? Or are they just they misinterpreting?
Under the most version PFS Organized Play rules, you can play a scenario and earn 1 credit, and GM the same scenario and earn 1 more credit. It does not matter if you play or GM first, but each credit must be applied to a different character. You can only receive play or GM credit from a scenario once.
Hope that helps clear this up for you. :)
|
Under the most recent published version of the Guide to Organized Play (3.0.2) it is not legal to play and GM for credit, it is only legal to play or GM for credit.
As of this rule change you may earn 1 XP as a player and 1 XP as a GM for each scenario (to two different characters).
So, unfortunately depending on the source you are using currently both could be correct. Although the rules change posted by the man in charge is authoritative it has yet to be updated in the published Guide and thus people may still be unaware of this change.
|
|
Thats what I was looking for. Seems kind of silly since the level cap for this campaign is so low. But eh, whatever.
Not sure I follow the level cap comment. Not trolling, just curious what you mean here. With the change to the 1 and 1 rule you could now get 2 characters to level 12 on the same 33 adventures in a perfect game environment. Before it would have only been 1 for the same 33 adventures.
|
|
Thats what I was looking for. Seems kind of silly since the level cap for this campaign is so low. But eh, whatever.Not sure I follow the level cap comment. Not trolling, just curious what you mean here. With the change to the 1 and 1 rule you could now get 2 characters to level 12 on the same 33 adventures in a perfect game environment. Before it would have only been 1 for the same 33 adventures.
BTW, as it stands now with released scenarios and having been around for all the retired ones, I believe you can get 2 level 12 characters and 2 level 11 characters if you were to play and GM every scenario. The more you know...
|
BTW, as it stands now with released scenarios and having been around for all the retired ones, I believe you can get 2 level 12 characters and 2 level 11 characters if you were to play and GM every scenario. The more you know...Thats what I was looking for. Seems kind of silly since the level cap for this campaign is so low. But eh, whatever.Not sure I follow the level cap comment. Not trolling, just curious what you mean here. With the change to the 1 and 1 rule you could now get 2 characters to level 12 on the same 33 adventures in a perfect game environment. Before it would have only been 1 for the same 33 adventures.
Did you simply do the math, or can you actually progress the characters with the available mods (using their lvl restrictions)?
|
You can still do hasty math and get the final result.
12 mods to 5th level, right?
So, 24 mods for four characters to 5th level (half judge credit, half play)
6 mods to go from 5th to 7th
So 12 mods for four characters to get to 7th with 5-9 mods.
So that's 36 unique modules needed to get 4 characters up to 7th level.
12 more unique mods to get from 7th to 11th for four characters
We're up to 48 total
And then 3 more mods to get two of those 11th level characters to 12th.
Now the limitation with my math is that the last part requires a mixture of 5-9 and 7-11 mods to get up to 11th level, but I think the progression would work.
Heck, if you include master of the fallen fortress and godsmouth heresy (which can be played over and over and over) then you only need 47 unique mods to get four characters up that high.
And this assumes the current replay rules. There are a slew of older characters that are high level due to the old replay rules.
I think it's possible to have 6-7 characters of 11th level at this stage using old rules and merging to the new
|
Under the most recent published version of the Guide to Organized Play (3.0.2) it is not legal to play and GM for credit, it is only legal to play or GM for credit.
As of this rule change you may earn 1 XP as a player and 1 XP as a GM for each scenario (to two different characters).
So, unfortunately depending on the source you are using currently both could be correct. Although the rules change posted by the man in charge is authoritative it has yet to be updated in the published Guide and thus people may still be unaware of this change.
Gosh, if only someone had warned them that having the Guide to Organized Play not be authoritative would cause confusion.
Oh wait...
(Yeah, I'm being that guy; sorry, but terrible idea is terrible).
|
|
Gosh, if only someone had warned them that having the Guide to Organized Play not be authoritative would cause confusion.
As far as this situation goes and others like it, I would expect the default position of all involved to be that the Guide is authoritative. Cause you know...it is. I don't expect people to be as well read up on this stuff in general, but I do expect that when informed of the rules change they comply.
Yeah, I'm that guy :)
|
Gosh, if only someone had warned them that having the Guide to Organized Play not be authoritative would cause confusion.As far as this situation goes and others like it, I would expect the default position of all involved to be that the Guide is authoritative. Cause you know...it is. I don't expect people to be as well read up on this stuff in general, but I do expect that when informed of the rules change they comply.
Yeah, I'm that guy :)
|
|
Gosh, if only someone had warned them that having the Guide to Organized Play not be authoritative would cause confusion.As far as this situation goes and others like it, I would expect the default position of all involved to be that the Guide is authoritative. Cause you know...it is. I don't expect people to be as well read up on this stuff in general, but I do expect that when informed of the rules change they comply.
Yeah, I'm that guy :)
So would I...but they've explicitly said otherwise. The fact that someone in your position doesn't know that simply serves to underscore the point...
|
|
So would I...but they've explicitly said otherwise. The fact that someone in your position doesn't know that simply serves to underscore the point...I'll happily read your citation please.
Thanks!
I sort of prefer this one.
However, it seems to me what you cite says basically the same thing as what I've linked to. Not sure how either of those links really contradicts the spirit of what I said originally. Did I fail my linguistics check again? "We acknowledge this is sub-optimal, but when people are aware of the rule changes we expect them to be followed."
|
|
Thanks!
I sort of prefer this one.
However, it seems to me what you cite says basically the same thing as what I've linked to. Not sure how either of those links really contradicts the spirit of what I said originally. Did I fail my linguistics check again? "We acknowledge this is sub-optimal, but when people are aware of the rule changes we expect them to be followed."
All I know is that in the case of the replay rules, the most recent Guide to Organized Play has been explicity superceded by a messageboard post. Months ago, in fact. So, in at least this case, the Guide is objectively not authoritative. Hence the confusion -- and this thread.
Or maybe I failed my linguistics check?
|
|
Or maybe I failed my linguistics check?
I accept your terms. :)
So, unfortunately depending on the source you are using currently both could be correct. Although the rules change posted by the man in charge is authoritative it has yet to be updated in the published Guide and thus people may still be unaware of this change.
Hyrum is authoritative, he's the man in charge. However, for those who do not follow the boards the Guide is authoritative. Hence, disconnect is possible (as in this case). Therefore when you are made aware of the change (superseding the Guide) you are expected to comply. Right?
|
|
Hyrum is authoritative, he's the man in charge. However, for those who do not follow the boards the Guide is authoritative. Hence, disconnect is possible (as in this case). Therefore when you are made aware of the change (superseding the Guide) you are expected to comply. Right?
So the guide is authoritative...except when it isn't?
No offense, but I think we'll just have to disagree on this one. ;-)
|
|
So the guide is authoritative...except when it isn't?
No offense, but I think we'll just have to disagree on this one. ;-)
I don't really see how it's different than any other errata situation. So I guess I don't understand what you disagree with? The existence of errata (conceptually) or the authoritative nature of the Guide (conceptually), or ??. Cause it seemed to me that you agreed in the concept of the Guide as authoritative. For example the recent Growth subdomain thread.
"OMFG Growth subdomain is broken! My APG says so!"
"No it's not, it's been corrected in errata to be less broken."
"Ok, cool."
|
|
I don't really see how it's different than any other errata situation. So I guess I don't understand what you disagree with? The existence of errata (conceptually) or the authoritative nature of the Guide (conceptually), or ??. Cause it seemed to me that you agreed in the concept of the Guide as authoritative. For example the recent Growth subdomain thread."OMFG Growth subdomain is broken! My APG says so!"
"No it's not, it's been corrected in errata to be less broken."
"Ok, cool."
I'm disagreeing with your assertion that the guide is authoritative. "Authoritative" and "superseded" are mutually exclusive.
I'm really not trying to be a smart ass, but I really can't see how to make this any more plain. :/
|
|
I don't really see how it's different than any other errata situation. So I guess I don't understand what you disagree with? The existence of errata (conceptually) or the authoritative nature of the Guide (conceptually), or ??. Cause it seemed to me that you agreed in the concept of the Guide as authoritative. For example the recent Growth subdomain thread."OMFG Growth subdomain is broken! My APG says so!"
"No it's not, it's been corrected in errata to be less broken."
"Ok, cool."
I'm disagreeing with your assertion that the guide is authoritative. "Authoritative" and "superseded" are mutually exclusive.
I'm really not trying to be a smart ass, but I really can't see how to make this any more plain. :/
So are you claiming that the Guide isn't an authority on the rules of the PFS because one rule has been superseded? I don't really know where you're going with this, other than repeating old arguments and complaints.
Not trying to be rude, BUT this topic HAS been brought up in multiple threads and argued to exhaustion, so you'll have to forgive those of us that have read and replied to these threads ad nauseum.
PS: Doing the "I'm not trying to be a smart ass but..." or "Not trying to be rude but..." thing doesn't automatically give the writer fiat to say anything they want, which may be read as a rude or smart ass comment.
|
|
So are you claiming that the Guide isn't an authority on the rules of the PFS because one rule has been superseded? I don't really know where you're going with this, other than repeating old arguments and complaints.
Not trying to be rude, BUT this topic HAS been brought up in multiple threads and argued to exhaustion, so you'll have to forgive those of us that have read and replied to these threads ad nauseum.
PS: Doing the "I'm not trying to be a smart ass but..." or "Not trying to be rude but..." thing doesn't automatically give the writer fiat to say anything they want, which may be read as a rude or smart ass comment.
The point is superseding the guide on a messageboard was, is, and always will be a bad decision -- the existence of this thread is evidence of that. I posted because I care about the society, and I'm hoping to see a bad decision overturned. I'm sorry you're tired of hearing about it, but making up a new definitions of the word "authoritative" hardly seems useful.
As for "fiat to say anything I want": Well, I just don't know how to respond to that. If I've done anything but respectfully disagree in this thread, I'm not seeing it. On the other hand, if respectful disagreement is no longer allowed around these parts, I'm going to need to hear that from someone other than you.
|
|
People need to suck it up and learn to adapt. We live in a digital age where information is changed on a by-the-minute basis. I, and many others, like it that way. Waiting months (the time it takes for a full guide update) for a simple change like this one is unnecessary.
Yes, it is not fun to feel like you have been left out of the loop. An easy solution is to put in the effort and do your research from time to time. Alternatively, you can just accept the fact that your knowledge base will be off by a few days (or months in this case).
|
|
The point is superseding the guide on a messageboard was, is, and always will be a bad decision -- the existence of this thread is evidence of that. I posted because I care about the society, and I'm hoping to see a bad decision overturned. I'm sorry you're tired of hearing about it, but making up a new definitions of the word "authoritative" hardly seems useful.
As for "fiat to say anything I want": Well, I just don't know how to respond to that. If I've done anything but respectfully disagree in this thread, I'm not seeing it. On the other hand, if respectful disagreement is no longer allowed around these parts, I'm going to need to hear that from someone other than you.
You know as well as all of us that the guide will be updated, they just have not gotten to it yet.
They decided to give that particualr change early because of the issues being brought up, but the guide will be updated, so there is no reason to worry about it.
Like everyone else said, if people have not gotten the message yet, it is perfectly fine, but once they do get the message they are expected to follow the new rule.
|
|
As for "fiat to say anything I want": Well, I just don't know how to respond to that. If I've done anything but respectfully disagree in this thread, I'm not seeing it.
Hey Bungley - After having been around here a few years and being a causal observer of this thread (aka, "I don't have a dog in this fight"), I think I can help you out.
It was probably this:
Gosh, if only someone had warned them that having the Guide to Organized Play not be authoritative would cause confusion.
Oh wait...
(Yeah, I'm being that guy; sorry, but terrible idea is terrible).
It was your first post in the thread and, intentionally or not, probably struck more than a couple of the participants as snarky and sort of says, "I'm here to argue!" (especially the part I bolded).
Like I said, I don't have a dog in this fight, but that quote sounded pretty snarky to me. Maybe that's what people are reacting to.
Hope that helps.
-Skeld
|
|
As for "fiat to say anything I want": Well, I just don't know how to respond to that. If I've done anything but respectfully disagree in this thread, I'm not seeing it.Hey Bungley - After having been around here a few years and being a causal observer of this thread (aka, "I don't have a dog in this fight"), I think I can help you out.
It was probably this:
Gosh, if only someone had warned them that having the Guide to Organized Play not be authoritative would cause confusion.
Oh wait...
(Yeah, I'm being that guy; sorry, but terrible idea is terrible).
It was your first post in the thread and, intentionally or not, probably struck more than a couple of the participants as snarky and sort of says, "I'm here to argue!" (especially the part I bolded).
Like I said, I don't have a dog in this fight, but that quote sounded pretty snarky to me. Maybe that's what people are reacting to.
Hope that helps.
-Skeld
I appreciate you taking the time to post. I can see how that would be snarky, but I guess in a sense I am "here to fight" because I'd like to see what is proving to be a problematic decision changed. Do people really not get that they're arguing that this policy doesn't cause misunderstandings in a thread STARTED BECAUSE THIS POLICY CAUSED A MISUNDERSTANDING? :P
Disagreeing with me is fine. Saying I have no point and should STFU, however? Not so much. Things have gotten rather...uncomfortable...of late for those voicing any sort of dissent.
|
|
People need to suck it up and learn to adapt. We live in a digital age where information is changed on a by-the-minute basis. I, and many others, like it that way. Waiting months (the time it takes for a full guide update) for a simple change like this one is unnecessary.
Yes, it is not fun to feel like you have been left out of the loop. An easy solution is to put in the effort and do your research from time to time. Alternatively, you can just accept the fact that your knowledge base will be off by a few days (or months in this case).
I am not a Luddite. The thing is, in the digital age, it shouldn't take months for a guide update. And, if (as you suggest) it takes research in order to figure out the rules of your campaign, then You're Doing It Wrong.
But this horse is dead, Jim. :P
|
|
Skeld and Dragnmoon have it right on the money for me, and while I know there is essentially a "language barrier of intent" this is a new post on an old argument, which you freely admit at the end of your last post :)
No harm, no foul in my book, unless beating a dead horse is considered animal cruelty...
|
I'm disagreeing with your assertion that the guide is authoritative. "Authoritative" and "superseded" are mutually exclusive.I'm really not trying to be a smart ass, but I really can't see how to make this any more plain. :/
The day the new version of the guide to OP comes out it is authoritative. Errata to the guide on the message boards can make it less so, when if fact it's a sneak preview of the next version of the authoritative guide, before it's release, and is therefor part of the guide, making the guide still authoritative.
|
|
There is another side to the issue of the developers using the boards to make rulings...they stop answering our posts. If I were Hyrum, I would be a little gun-shy in posting anything official due to the risk of having it shredded on the boards because it wasn't published in some "official" format. Why would the errata pdf, be any more official than the community boards for PFS? The society is a community-based game and one of the expectations is most people will read them occasionally, some will read them regularly, and a few will read it in its entirety. In my experience, the number of people who fail to read the errata is a larger group than those who read the boards. The key to this discussion is that Mark stated that the guide is the primary source of rules for PFS. If something comes out on the boards, it is expected to be implemented as soon as said info is discovered. The chances that there are a few PFS communities out there that still use the older version of the credit/replay rules is good. It is equally probable that they have little to no contact with other PFS players. So no one is really getting an edge by "cheating." Once they become aware of the revised rule, whether by word of mouth, reading the boards, or reading a newly released version of the Guide, they are expected to comply. It is clear that the revised credit/replay rule is not getting changed back. They have also stated that an aupdated Guide and some form of official PFS FAQ are the works, albeit slowly. We all agree that there are a few who love the idea, a few who hate it, and most who just follow the expectations. Now, at least for the time being, can we just let this topic alone. PLEASE!!
|
|
There is another side to the issue of the developers using the boards to make rulings...they stop answering our posts. If I were Hyrum, I would be a little gun-shy in posting anything official due to the risk of having it shredded on the boards because it wasn't published in some "official" format. Why would the errata pdf, be any more official than the community boards for PFS? The society is a community-based game and one of the expectations is most people will read them occasionally, some will read them regularly, and a few will read it in its entirety. In my experience, the number of people who fail to read the errata is a larger group than those who read the boards. The key to this discussion is that Mark stated that the guide is the primary source of rules for PFS. If something comes out on the boards, it is expected to be implemented as soon as said info is discovered. The chances that there are a few PFS communities out there that still use the older version of the credit/replay rules is good. It is equally probable that they have little to no contact with other PFS players. So no one is really getting an edge by "cheating." Once they become aware of the revised rule, whether by word of mouth, reading the boards, or reading a newly released version of the Guide, they are expected to comply. It is clear that the revised credit/replay rule is not getting changed back. They have also stated that an aupdated Guide and some form of official PFS FAQ are the works, albeit slowly. We all agree that there are a few who love the idea, a few who hate it, and most who just follow the expectations. Now, at least for the time being, can we just let this topic alone. PLEASE!!
+1
|
|
Sorry for such a late post, my question was answered so I stopped reading the thread. I understand your statement here... But I would push back with, Why would I want a level 12 character that I never played? (Or played two characters for half as long as I would have played one?)Thats what I was looking for. Seems kind of silly since the level cap for this campaign is so low. But eh, whatever.Not sure I follow the level cap comment. Not trolling, just curious what you mean here. With the change to the 1 and 1 rule you could now get 2 characters to level 12 on the same 33 adventures in a perfect game environment. Before it would have only been 1 for the same 33 adventures.
I don't forsee too many people putting all of their GM credits on a single character. One use is so that you have a character that is the same level as your peers so that when someone else acts as the GM you will have a character available to play. It is not a perfect solution, everyone one would rather play the character instead of just mindlessly building up a character but it does allow those that GM an avenue to play when they wish.
Why is there such a barrier around here to accepting an official online update? Because it is in a message board post and not on an official page, the way the new Chapter 13 update was just done. If someone argues that is not official because it is not in the Guide, then they are a fool and will not win. What the PFS needs is an official page like that that is updated monthly with any official rules changes, additions of new material, etc. Why not just modify the new Chapter 13 page to be an official rules update page and stick the rule on credit there and any other major changes that have happened since the last Guide so that people cannot argue that it is just some post on a message board and thus not legal. After all, Magic the Gathering has had all it's offical rules changes and updates and card retirements and bannings listed online for years now and people do not argue that they are not legal if they are not in some official downloadable guide.
|
|
What is meant by "getting credit" for an adventure? If I play (or GM) an adventure, I get my chronicle sheet and +1 XP for that adventure. If I play that same adventure later under the PPP rule with a different character, does that character nor receive the XP? the chronicle sheet? Am I simply running a character to make a legal table or is this an exception to the "only get credit once" rule?
|
|
Loreweaver, as mentioned above, the rule was changed so that you now get 1 xp as a player and 1 as a GM. You can still play an adventure again under PPP with a different character, but you are just playing for the fun of it and to help new players, not for a chronicle, gold or xp.
There is an exception for level 1 sanctioned modules, which may be replayed for credit.
The official announcement is here. And if you check out the Society boards you will see a number of threads discussing the ruling.
|
|
Loreweaver, as mentioned above, the rule was changed so that you now get 1 xp as a player and 1 as a GM. You can still play an adventure again under PPP with a different character, but you are just playing for the fun of it and to help new players, not for a chronicle, gold or xp.
There is an exception for level 1 sanctioned modules, which may be replayed for credit.
The official announcement is here. And if you check out the Society boards you will see a number of threads discussing the ruling.
Okay, that's what I thought. I just wanted to make sure that "credit" was being used synonymously with "XP" and "chronicle sheet". Thank you.