|
I just wanted to raise my opinion no slam to the great hard work that Mike and Mark and Hyrum and Josh before them put into this awesome campaign.
But I think the wording of the PFS rules document should be changed to say that consumables are used and that death carries over to the character. I mean no guts no glory. Otherwise IMHO there's little risk for the rewards of the modules and the sanctioned mods are a great tool for the campaign. I remember at the start of the campaign emailing Erik Mona and recommending Crown of the Kobold King be sanctioned. I enjoy playing them but think that there needs to be some risk in playing them. Just my two coppers... *moves to corner* my poor wolf that damn Doug Doug...
Mike
|
Well there is some "risk" just not the type we're used to. If you die during the scenario, you loose 1 Fame/PP and 1 XP. That's like running through a scenario and loosing your rewards.
Of course, in the case of modules, you respawn and can continue, but you cannot recover that XP/Fame. For some, that is a fate worse than death.
In the case of consumables, how would you adjudicate that? Assume for a moment that a player sits at a table of Ebon Destroyers, level 8. His "normal" PC is level 4. He gets to purchase level 8 worth of gear, but after the mod is completed, he only receives level 4 rewards. What if he spent all of his consumables and they exceeded the amount of the GP reward? How do we account for that?
|
|
Qstor
After participating in my first module as player I felt like you. We had 3 wands of CLW and zapped through the module.
Since then I have become much more relaxed. I GMed 2 modules and helped out as player replaying Godsmouth with a group of very inexperienced players. In the latter case we just stayed over night twice to regain healing and in effect had been no worse off.
The latter game also resulted in 2 death and while avoidable I think the GM enjoyed the freedom to kill someone with less repercussions and play hardball so that a new player would learn. The loss of XP and PA was enough penalty.
So overall - I think it's best to keep it simple. And this is what the current rules do. As long as there isn't misuse by someone knowing the rule and taking advantage of it - I'm not really concerned. Especially as these players likely won't want to play if they nay get 4pa if they could get 6 while playing three scenarios.
|
But I think the wording of the PFS rules document should be changed to say that consumables are used and that death carries over to the character. I mean no guts no glory. Otherwise IMHO there's little risk for the rewards of the modules and the sanctioned mods are a great tool for the campaign. I remember at the start of the campaign emailing Erik Mona and recommending Crown of the Kobold King be sanctioned. I enjoy playing them but think that there needs to be some risk in playing them. Just my two coppers... *moves to corner* my poor wolf that damn Doug Doug...
Mike
Completely agree, Qstor. I have a strong "No risk, no reward" policy at my stores and won't offer the sanctioned scenarios to those who won't play it like a real scenario.
There is *no* good argument for keeping this rule in place, imho...
Well there is some "risk" just not the type we're used to. If you die during the scenario, you loose 1 Fame/PP and 1 XP. That's like running through a scenario and loosing your rewards.
...oh, TwilightKnight! This is hardly risk at all and certainly not the worthy of the potential rewards.
I feel the current policy DIMINISHES sanctioned module play rather than elevating it...which is the real crime.
Rather than these scenarios being something cool, challenging, and something to be proud of, the current policy makes playing them LESS interesting/challenging than playing in a PFS scenario.
I'd much rather see sanctioned module play reflect this reality:
"We lived through Cult of the Ebon Destroyers, but only barely. Tim has to be resurrected and I used more than a few consumables because it was worth it and I had to. It was awesome."
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So Painlord, Part of the idea behind Legal for play modules is that anyone can play even if you don't have a character that is of that level... so..
How would you deal with PC death for a PC that does not even exist?
Oh...as I stated when this policy came out, I wouldn't have the ability to play any character you wanted in the sanction module.
I thought that idea was consistent with PFS values when I first heard it (which is reflected on previous threads like this one).
I remember Azmyth coming back from his first GenCon as PFS VC as he watched and talked to Josh Frost. Azmyth told the story of how a player wanted to play his character in a higher level tiered module (like a level 4 in a 5-9 scenario) and Josh was hard set against that.
Why?
Paraphrasing: "You gotta earn your right to be there. You gotta earn it. You earn the right to play in the high level scenarios."
AND I REALLY BELIEVE THAT.
I believe in earning your rewards. I wish that this campaign didn't have several policies that encouraged "Reward without Risk" and privileges that they haven't earned.
As for the lvl 12+ sanctioned scenarios, I think those are just fine for retired PFS characters who are already shredding the power curve based on WBL.
|
|
So Painlord, Part of the idea behind Legal for play modules is that anyone can play even if you don't have a character that is of that level... so..
So you only allow them to play if they have a level appropriate character? And remove the whole idea behind the modules in the first place? To allow anyone to play?
I think that is a terrible policy and in no way will I agree with you on that... I think we have had this talk before...
You know How I am about Gms Making up there own PFS rules when they don't like them, I think this fits there.
Edit: Hey it is ok to not like a rule, and post your opinion and ask for the rule to be changed based on your thoughts on the rule, it is not ok though to change those rules because you don't like them and does not fit in your idea on what it should be like.
Condoning that and allowing GMs to do that opens way to many problems.
|
|
Module gp rewards are less than 3 scenarios would provide. Would you require PCs pay for their consumables AND get less gold than normal?
I just ran Feast of Ravenmoor and had one death when one player had his PC go off by himself and wander into something bad. It was nice to just penalize him rewards rather than deal with an actual death.
|
|
I just ran Feast of Ravenmoor and had one death when one player had his PC go off by himself and wander into something bad. It was nice to just penalize him rewards rather than deal with an actual death.
Though I rarely hold back while running scenarios.. I still feel guilty when I kill a PC. One of the things I love about Modules is that I an be Hardcore and not feel guilty about it!! ;)
|
|
So you only allow them to play if they have a level appropriate character? And remove the whole idea behind the modules in the first place? To allow anyone to play?
I think that is a terrible policy and in no way will I agree with you on that... I think we have had this talk before...
We could either have consistent policies that are in alignment with core principle and ideals or we could keep the system we have now.
I agree we all wanted Sanctioned Modules to be sanctioned...but we wanted them done consistently and without bastardizing the core principles.
And these changes wouldn't remove the whole idea for allowing them (huge red herring there, DMoon), but make them a better play experience that fits into the PFS experience.
You know How I am about Gms Making up there own PFS rules when they don't like them, I think this fits there.
Wow. I don't think you've ever read anything I've actually wrote on the subject nor does it apply to the above. :( Let's try to keep it clean here, DMoon. Or email me if you have any questions.
|
|
Since this was said in the public is why I kept it in the public and I think is the right place for it.
Yes I could be reading it as wrong but it seems to me that you decided you did not like the PFS rule so you changed it... Is that not the case?
If it is not the case then I am sorry. If it is the case I am saying you should not be doing that no matter how strong you don't like the rule, it is not your place to change that. You can argue against it, you can give your reasons and request a change. What you can't decide is to change it yourself. That is not how Org play works.
It comes down to this. You should not change a PFS rule because you don't like them, *If that is the case here* and should not be condoning it because that will just open a Can of worms for other GMs to do the same with rules they don't like.
Edit Edit: To sound less Rantish, basically you do not have the authority to change PFS rules you do not agree with if that is the case here, so should not be doing so.
Edit Edit Edit: Edited out rantish sounding language.
|
|
As I understand it Painlord is not changing the rules. He is just refusing to offer/run modules based on the rules as they exist for PFS. If you want to play one, it must be done under the normal PFRPG rules and whatever happens, happens. Of course that means you will not receive a chronicle since it is no longer a "sanctioned" event following the rules for PFS, but if he wants to allow players to use carbon copies of their PFS characters in a module he offers, why would we care. If the players are enjoying themselves, I'm okay with it.
At least this is what I hope is the case. I would have an issue if modules are being played for rewards/chronicles, yet not following the rules for sanctioned play. That would indeed set a bad precedent and I would be against such actions.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
For the record, dying during a sanctioned module makes it more valuable, rather than less. Let's say you give the experience to a 5th-level PC.
Make it through Godsmouth Heresy unscathed: 3 XP, 4 Fame, and 6250 gold
Make it through Godsmouth Heresy dying twice: 1 XP, 2 Fame, and 2083 gold
So, you get gold proportional to your experience (no change) but more fame per experience point. (Indeed, if you play three modules, dying twice in each of them, you get 3XP, 6 Fame, and 6250 gold.)
Not that we're voting, but I (a) like the opportunity to build PCs at whatever level is necessary to play the modules, but (b) would like to restrict players so that the rewards go to an analogous PC. (Play the Harrowing with a 7th-level half-orc ranger, the level-appropriate rewards should go to a half-orc ranger.)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Yes I could be reading it as wrong but it seems to me that you decided you did not like the PFS rule so you changed it... Is that not the case?
I don't think any rules were changed. There is nothing in the PFS guide about conditional invites to games (well other than the don't be a jerk thing). I could throw an invite on the forums right now for a monk only game if I felt inclined.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the current policy.
New players can try builds out while experiencing high level play.
More experienced players can gather their PFS friends and play a mod for credit easily.
Sure their they have their promblems, mainly time constraints but more pathfinder products should help grow PFS base.
Last week I ran From Sea to Shore half the players that showed came from the begginers box bash. I think they enjoyed it, for instance one tried a magus another tried a leveled up version of her character while the next tried a collosus styled summoner. I think that build and trial were great.
I don't know what changes could be added to make this situation more balanced, with the exception of making level 12+ mods for retired characters only, that is another issue, I would also think that limiting gold to zero would be a decent change but don't think it is needed. I think the best part(most valuable) of these chronicles is a lengthy equipment selection.
With the exception of one item, I cannot remember an item I bought from a society scenario. While I know the mod sheets have allot of useful equipment.
|
|
Yes I could be reading it as wrong but it seems to me that you decided you did not like the PFS rule so you changed it... Is that not the case?I don't think any rules were changed. There is nothing in the PFS guide about conditional invites to games (well other than the don't be a jerk thing). I could throw an invite on the forums right now for a monk only game if I felt inclined.
This.
Thanks, Ogre, for stating it so succinctly.
In our area, we prefer what we prefer. In other areas, people may opt differently. It's all PFS.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Yes I could be reading it as wrong but it seems to me that you decided you did not like the PFS rule so you changed it... Is that not the case?I don't think any rules were changed. There is nothing in the PFS guide about conditional invites to games (well other than the don't be a jerk thing). I could throw an invite on the forums right now for a monk only game if I felt inclined.This.
Thanks, Ogre, for stating it so succinctly.
In our area, we prefer what we prefer. In other areas, people may opt differently. It's all PFS.
Speaking of which, how come I never get invited to these special module games, I'll bring my own character, honest!
Yes I could be reading it as wrong but it seems to me that you decided you did not like the PFS rule so you changed it... Is that not the case?I don't think any rules were changed.
I think there was just some confusion over what "play it like a real scenario" means. For example, if that meant changing the PP/XP reward structure or having people play the module at higher/lower levels than the module was designed for, I'd construe that as bending the rules. But just having the players agree to dump some potions and/or wand charges at the end of the game? That's fine.
|
I don't, as a rule, like to do simple 'me too' posts, but as a player with Painlord, er, well, he's right.
Painlord makes it clear that if you'd like to play the scenario you play as if 'it matters' with all that that entails. The players who sit down at the table know that a death requires a raise dead and that expendables are expended. That's life at our store.
I have yet to hear anything but mild concern, and that usually by way of 'is this PFS legal?'.
You can also count me firmly in the camp that this is a good thing. Decisions matter. Playing without risk is a video game with save points, not my PFS. Or at least that's my ideal and I hope that the Powers that Be see the value in that.
Thanks for your time. :)
|
|
Whoa, once again in principal I tend to agree with Painlord but in execution I think he's off the deep end.
I totally agree that you can seat whomever ever you want at your table.
But blatantly breaking the rules by taking away people's consumables / changing the rules regarding death when playing a module seems pretty obviously against the rules to me.
I understand you don't like the rule and I think it's reasonable to complain about it, (hell I don't even like it that much) but if you're going to play PFS you have to follow all the rules, not just the ones you like.
|
I think something definately should change, problem is I don't know how to improve it.
Problem now is you're actually REWARDED for dying in a sanctioned module. Sure, you get less xp, but if you only die twice, you still get 1 xp. And even after deducting gold for those deaths, you'd still end up with more gold you'd have gotten for participating in a regular 1XP PFS scenario, with the added bonus of not having expended any expendibles.
Unfortunately making people pay for the expendibles just makes things worse, since you'll be punishing people all the time to rectify something that's only an 'exploit', or will rarely happen.
It's a distinct possibility that the current system is simply the least bad one.. but just seems something could be done if enough thought is put to it.
|
|
I understand you don't like the rule and I think it's reasonable to complain about it, (hell I don't even like it that much) but if you're going to play PFS you have to follow all the rules, not just the ones you like.
Back the truck up... which rule is Painlord breaking here?
I have a strong "No risk, no reward" policy at my stores and won't offer the sanctioned scenarios to those who won't play it like a real scenario.
Is there a rule against this that I don't know about?
-Matt
But blatantly breaking the rules by taking away people's consumables / changing the rules regarding death when playing a module seems pretty obviously against the rules to me.
From what I understand, he's not taking away anything. The PCs are voluntarily pouring out potions, wasting wand charges, committing suicide, etc. at the end of the module.
Now if he were allowing level 5 or 9 PCs to play in a level 7 module, say, that would be bending the rules (even though it might be allowed in a regular PFS scenario).
I actually didn't know about using a copy/premade/alternate character for modules until I got one to run. I'm still a little surprised but I'm sure Paizo knows what they are doing.
Still, while I don't expect anyone else to understand, I would also voluntarily remove resources lost and apply penalties gained from a module I played in. And I would never use an alternate character as I feel it breaks the timeline of the events that I roleplay happened to the character. I just have to be more careful in a module due to all you killer GMs. :P
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
But blatantly breaking the rules by taking away people's consumables / changing the rules regarding death when playing a module seems pretty obviously against the rules to me.From what I understand, he's not taking away anything. The PCs are voluntarily pouring out potions, wasting wand charges, committing suicide, etc. at the end of the module.
Now if he were allowing level 5 or 9 PCs to play in a level 7 module, say, that would be bending the rules (even though it might be allowed in a regular PFS scenario).
I'm not sure, maybe I'm putting words into Pain's mouth here, but my impression is he is just inviting players willing to use the option to use their existing characters to play the scenario.
I'm not sure if the earlier modules had this clause in them:
Whether playing one’s own PC or an alternate version of another character, no conditions (including death) carry beyond the end of a module. Likewise, any wealth spent or resources expended during the course of the adventure are considered unspent upon the module’s completion.
Because until now I'd thought running existing players meant they consumed stuff also (the modules I've run everyone has played with a 'copy' of a character for this reason).
|
|
Mattastrophic:
Only seating players that are willing to erase extra items from their character sheets is really the equivalent of requiring it.
The rules specifically say do not erase the consumables, Painlord is overstepping his authority as a GM/Coordinator rule by requiring people to do so.
Now giving people less stuff is clearly a nowhere near as bad as giving people extra stuff but I find it way too similar for comfort.
|
|
I will be addressing this very issue towards the end of next week. Until then, please keep the conversations civil.
Thanks Mike
Don - I think that just not using the consumables for the mod may or may not be fair trade but getting less gold. But my point was OK you get gold and 3 XP for playing the mod but nothing else can happen to the virtual PC. What if for some reason the PC was lost and couldn't be recovered? I've been playing/DMing since GenCon 2008 and I've only seen one module with rules ramifications for this.
Mike
|
|
Only seating players that are willing to erase extra items from their character sheets is really the equivalent of requiring it.
No one is holding a gun to the players' heads and saying they have to play. The GM is a volunteer. If he doesn't want to run the module, he doesn't have to. It's a free country. He's within his rights to put conditions on the module if he's going to agree to run it, so long as it is disclosed ahead of gametime. If any players have a problem with those conditions, they are welcome to buy the module and run it themselves.
I fully support the campaign getting tougher on players. It's admirable when players take these steps themselves.
|
|
No one is holding a gun to the players' heads and saying they have to play. The GM is a volunteer. If he doesn't want to run the module, he doesn't have to. It's a free country. He's within his rights to put conditions on the module if he's going to agree to run it, so long as it is disclosed ahead of gametime. If any players have a problem with those conditions, they are welcome to buy the module and run it themselves.I fully support the campaign getting tougher on players. It's admirable when players take these steps themselves.
Doug my issue is that he is changing PFS rules, how does he have the athority to do that? Can I Change PFS rule I don't Like for my group?
There are plenty of PFS rules I don't like but I still follow them.
And that is what this is he is changing them, you can't see it any other way.
|
|
No one is holding a gun to the players' heads and saying they have to play. The GM is a volunteer. If he doesn't want to run the module, he doesn't have to. It's a free country. He's within his rights to put conditions on the module if he's going to agree to run it, so long as it is disclosed ahead of gametime. If any players have a problem with those conditions, they are welcome to buy the module and run it themselves.I fully support the campaign getting tougher on players. It's admirable when players take these steps themselves.
Doug my issue is that he is changing PFS rules, how does he have the athority to do that? Can I Change PFS rule I don't Like for my group?
There are plenty of PFS rules I don't like but I still follow them.
And that is what this is he is changing them, you can't see it any other way.
He is asking the players to voluntarily mark - off expendibles and pay for spellcasting such as raise dead or restoration. That's not against the rules.
|
|
He is asking the players to voluntarily mark - off expendibles and pay for spellcasting such as raise dead or restoration. That's not against the rules.
Ok I am trying to understand everyone’s point of view here because right now I don't.
The Rules for PFS Modules are dealing with this are the following.
Rule - Anyone can make a level character for the module based on one of their PCs.
Painlord Rule - You need to have a character of the level allowed for the scenario.
Rule - No expendables are exhausted
Painlord rule - all expendables are exhausted
Rule - Death only reduces xp/PA/GP
Painlord Rule - Death is death just like any scenario.
How is that not changing rules? Every rule is different then the rules for modules, voluntary or not.
|
Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant
|
He is asking the players to voluntarily mark - off expendibles and pay for spellcasting such as raise dead or restoration. That's not against the rules.
No one is holding a gun to the players' heads and saying they have to play. The GM is a volunteer. If he doesn't want to run the module, he doesn't have to. It's a free country. He's within his rights to put conditions on the module if he's going to agree to run it, so long as it is disclosed ahead of gametime. If any players have a problem with those conditions, they are welcome to buy the module and run it themselves.I fully support the campaign getting tougher on players. It's admirable when players take these steps themselves.
Doug my issue is that he is changing PFS rules, how does he have the athority to do that? Can I Change PFS rule I don't Like for my group?
There are plenty of PFS rules I don't like but I still follow them.
And that is what this is he is changing them, you can't see it any other way.
Except that by pfs rules, there would be no dead to raise. In the past, I've shared your opinion on a lot of things Doug, but I'm with the others on this.
By Painlord giving the ultimatum to use consumables or whatever else he puts on it or not run the module, he's not following the PFS guidelines of how the sanctioned Modules are supposed to be run. He's overruling a decision the heads of PFS decided on. I was under the impression that one of the points of PFS was to provide a gaming experience of an adventure (scenario or module) that was close to identical for players no matter where or when they played the adventure. By Painlord putting demands (too strong a word for what I want, but can't think of another that fits better) on the players that are above and beyond the PFS guidelines, which in my eyes is a dangerous line to be treading.
If he can choose to ignore module guidelines, what's to stop me from letting, say, a player play a 4th lvl pregen and apply the reward to a new first level char? What's stopping me is it isn't in the Guide that you can do that, and neither is giving ultimatums to change how modules work.
|
|
.... what's to stop me from letting, say, a player play a 4th lvl pregen and apply the reward to a new first level char? ...
Actually you CAN do exactly that. If you play a pregen, the chronicle goes to an existing PFS or a new 1st level. You can't start a new PFS character at the level of the pregen you just played.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Actually you CAN do exactly that. If you play a pregen, the chronicle goes to an existing PFS or a new 1st level. You can't start a new PFS character at the level of the pregen you just played.
That's only for 1st-level pre-gens, deusvult. If you play a 4th-level or 7th-level pregen, you get no credit for the scenario, but can never play it.
|
|
What I think Painlord can do is request to run an event that is different then the normal PFS rules through his VC or Mike himself to be allowed to use his changed rules and still give out a chronicle sheet.
IMO Painlord by himself does not have the authority to do so himself even if all his players agree to it.
|
|
Personally, I like Painlord and I think he is doing great things for the society. His threads on expectations, and especially "Get Found" are some of my favorites.
Modules are hard to schedule and, due to their nature, sort of exist outside the "normal" rules for OP. We had to create equivalency guidelines to make them work which, to many, are a bit wonky. Most seem to feel that the lack of death/consumables makes them less than desirable.
I am okay with his requirement that all characters be "legit" rather than leveled up/down versions of a legal character. That would be no different than saying that you are offering a scenario but, only at a specific sub-tier. The rules do not restrict that and organizers are permitted the latitude to structure their events in any way they feel is right for their area. That does include an assumption of inclusiveness, but they can dis-invite any player they want.
As far as death is concerned, I do have a problem with the implementation if the character is not "penalized" one XP/Fame and 1/3 gp for a death. If the players wish to voluntarily pay for a Raise Dead and the associated Restorations, there is no rule preventing that. If they feel that is more inline with the Core rules, then fine. However, they must still follow the rules and also forfeit the XP/Fame/GP.
Consumables would follow the same idea. You are not required to track consumables for module play, but if the players choose to, no rules are broken.
|
|
Why does it matter to you or anyone else, if the players that WANT to play with Painlord choose to gimp their characters. The rules/guidelines are in place to set LIMITS to what you can do. Just because the speed limit is 50 doesn't mean you cannot drive 35, you just cannot exceed 50. If I want to build a PC with only 15 ability points, why is that a problem? There is no requirement to optimize your character. As a matter of fact, most have claimed that encounters are too easy and characters should be less-optimized. Does this not counter that point?
I do not expect his system requirements to be accepted by many players, nor do I expect it to become pervasive across the whole of organized play. As long as they are following the Guideline limits, if they CHOOSE to further limit their characters, why is that a problem?
I am sure that if the players in Painlord's area objected to his organizational skills, they would not return, or at least report him to the local Venture-Captain. Based on my understanding, his area is growing and they have a large contigent of players. There are also VC's in the general area aware of his actions as well as many forumites.
|
|
lots of random stuff
I, for one, will be holding off on posting to this discussion until the new, aforementioned changes are announced and we can discuss those then.
I appreciate all the people who understand both the reasoning and motive behind what we do and why we do it that way.
However, I don't see anything other than discord created by continuing to bludgeon DMoon any more on this issue.
-Pain
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I do not expect his system requirements to be accepted by many players, nor do I expect it to become pervasive across the whole of organized play. As long as they are following the Guideline limits, if they CHOOSE to further limit their characters, why is that a problem?
Disclaimer: I clearly don't have a dog in this fight, and didn't know 'death doesn't count' when I ran Talyn though Crypt.
My concern with this paragraph, Bob, is that it does affect players in an organized play sense.
If I play in Dragnmoon's hypothetical '15 point game' (or even a 10 point game!) as my local game then move elsewhere or go to a Con, suddenly my character is a) likely to be overshadowed by others of the same class, by dint of those 5 extra points and b) might hamper others fun as he's not 'strong enough to pull his weight'.
As to the more or less part... I'm unaware of the GtOP saying "No more than 20 points" or "No more than 150 GP" A 50 MPH speed limit is that, a speed limit.
|
|
Stuff
To make sure my issue with this is clear, my issue is that Painlord and his group Changed PFS rules, they are different then the rules which makes it a change.
That is my issue right there, not what the changes are, if they are more restrictive or less restrictive it is that they changed it with no Authority.
If we as coordinators have the latitude to do so with out permission we might as well not have Org rules to begin with not be a RPG org. We would have no idea what rule set we would be going into when we went to a different area or a new Convention.
He has a means to get the authority to do so, email Mike and ask permission to do so, if Mike is ok with it more power to him.
|
|
He has a means to get the authority to do so, email Mike and ask permission to do so, if Mike is ok with it more power to him.
We have no knowledge if Painlord has already reached out to his VC or Mike and discussed this issue. Based on his posting of the information in the forums, it is clear that Mike/VC's are aware. If action is required, I'm sure it will occur.
I do not think we have any entitlement to know how it is being handled.
suddenly my character is a) likely to be overshadowed by others of the same class
But that already occurs anyway. I can create a non-optimized character that will be overshadowed by other characters. As a matter of fact, even my optimized characters have been overshadowed by uber-optimized characters. Sorry, but I don't see that as a valid objection.
If I want to give 1000gp to the local temple, during gameplay, and call it a tithe, is that legal? Sure. then why is it any less legal for a character to "throw away" a consumable during a module?
As I said, under the current rules, the only thing that would be considered "violating" the rules, would be not enforcing the -1 XP/Fame/GP penalty that is listed for death during a module. The rest is voluntary character limitations. You can't really argue that a player is not allowed to limit or "gimp" their character.
|
|
Will, not sure what you mean by Closed... a PFS game is a PFS game.
Bob, does not change the fact he is still changing a rule. I did not say Violating, did not say breaking, I said Change. If you have a character follow the regular Death rules instead of the Module death rules that is a change, if you have a character use up expendable that is a change.
You cannot argue that It is a Change, I am not sure how you say it is not when it is so obviously a change.
And If Painlord did have permission I am sure he would said so When I first told him that he was not allowed to change PFS rules.
Also there is a difference between using PFS rules to make a non optimized character to changing PFS rules to make a non optimized character.
The change of the rules is my problem, not non optmized characters or gimped ones, it is changing the rules.
Lets stick to that and discuss the rights of a Organizer to change PFS rules because that is what I am talking about.
|
|
Rules are limitations, hence the term "within the rules" being the pervasive condition as opposed to strict adherence. A fighter might be granted multiple attacks, but s/he is not required to take them all. A Wish requires a diamond worth 25,000 gp. Does that mean that if it is worth 100,000gp you cannot use it?
I am not a lawyer or an English major and, honestly, this feels more like a disagreement on the definition of language and semantics than that of game rules. We are going to have to agree to disagree.
I will defer to Mike Brock on whether or not action needs to be taken.
|
|
I will defer to Mike Brock on whether or not action needs to be taken.
Deserves its own subject anyway..
I went way off OP, I don't care either way where the Module rules go or if they stay or change I just had issue with a Organizer changing a PFS rule...
May start another thread on that when I get home from work later.