|
This is one of those logical fallacies that people are always talking about.
Nobody has suggested allowing wholesale rebuilding.
I hate to mention it, Feral ... and please note that I am *not* being pointed in saying this, but ...
Yes, in fact, they have.There have been people suggesting precisely that. They've brought up a "One-Time Rebuild" and a "Total Character Rebuild" right here in the PFS General Discussion forums.
I will also note that when the Developers have said that rebuilds above first level are not going to happen, they've been pretty agreeable to finding other avenues of discussing similar options.
But, there are people that do want an option to have wholesale rebuilding.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
CON:
-Jiggy wouldn't be happy.
News to me.
These forums sure carry a strong "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality. So strong that merely by arguing that now's not the time to try something, it will be interpreted that I'm wholly against that something.
I guess people just like drawing battle lines?
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
My main character has been played off and on since the beginning of PFS. Have I made sub-optimal choices in feats/skill points/class selections? Possibly, depending on personal perspective.
The thing to remember is that your character is just that... a character. In the grand story being told of my character's "life", I am not the author of the tale... just his part in it; that's all I control. His story is filled with mistakes (taking Berserker's Fury and only using it once!) and narrow escapes (Asmodeus Mirage!), and most importantly... lessons learned (Clear Spindle Ion Stone in his Wayfinder following Trouble With Secrets). I wouldn't dream of changing anything about him... even if taking the Pathfinder Delver PRC would have been advantageous to him, he is who his experiences have made him.
I can "game the system" or I can just play the game... I choose to just enjoy seeing how things turn out.
My 2 cp.
|
|
My main character has been played off and on since the beginning of PFS. Have I made sub-optimal choices in feats/skill points/class selections? Possibly, depending on personal perspective.
The thing to remember is that your character is just that... a character. In the grand story being told of my character's "life", I am not the author of the tale... just his part in it; that's all I control. His story is filled with mistakes (taking Berserker's Fury and only using it once!) and narrow escapes (Asmodeus Mirage!), and most importantly... lessons learned (Clear Spindle Ion Stone in his Wayfinder following Trouble With Secrets). I wouldn't dream of changing anything about him... even if taking the Pathfinder Delver PRC would have been advantageous to him, he is who his experiences have made him.
I can "game the system" or I can just play the game... I choose to just enjoy seeing how things turn out.
My 2 cp.
The big difference here is that a changing of rules to allow some level of rebuilding wouldn't actually stop you from doing this. You would be totally within your power to change absolutely nothing because this is the way you feel you get the most fun out of your experience playing the game. That's great! That means, no matter the (predetermined) outcome, you get to play the game your way!
On the other hand, by saying "no-rebuilding at all for anyone" you are basically saying that your way is the only right way. Considering it's clear that some people do wish they had the ability to undo a poor decision in the past then they're getting kind of messed with by no or minimal rebuilding rules.
This is why I keep saying fun isn't a zero-sum game. You have fun when you're not changing anything in your character and roleplaying your way through the experience. That shouldn't be effected by someone else trying to have fun occasionally undoing a mistake. Having a character with some crippling flaw is much less fun to play for most people than playing at the same table as someone who has done that.
It's possible you could argue it as a notion of "fairness" and say that since you had to put up with it, so should they. That doesn't really make sense though, because if you have access to the same options as everyone else, then the only sense of "fairness" that really stands is your sense of what people's experience roleplaying "should" be vs. people's actual fun roleplaying.
Not everyone has dozens and dozens of hours to just say "Well, screw it!" and make a new character. This forum does seem to be heavily skewed towards people who view gaming more of a lifestyle choice and less an infrequent every-now-and-then indulgence, and I know a lot of the latter players (myself included) are just kind of a bit taken aback that people expect re-investing dozens of hours into a piece of paper and some dice is seen as a viable strategy when all that's at stake is someone's sense that someone else having fun their way would undermine their fun by being badwrongfun.
|
|
I can't say what the issue is for the campaign staff, other than the fact that they've clearly and unequivicably said that it's simply *not* going to happen.
For myself, however, it's a matter of verisimilitude. It's a fantasy game, and we all know that. But, there's a point that suspension of disbelief doesn't work anymore. What is being discussed breaks that for me. Regardless of some new shiny toy that's in the latest supplement, or if a player made poor choices, believeable characters don't just suddenly randomly change.
To use an example from my life, when I was younger, there weren't digital art colleges that specialized in degrees for the gaming industry for people who wanted to go into producing digital for comicbooks and video games. If I'd had that option, I might've gone into that instead of traditional illustration. But, it doesn't work that way. If it's still an option for me, I have to go into after whatever I've already done in my life.
And that's the reason that I don't "get" rebuilds. Because it's about a character's story. What about all the times that those skills, or feats, or what have you, were used? What about the times when those class levels were taken? That story doesn't go away. Those experiences don't vanish. Those tales of valor don't get untold.
Just my opinion, and my thoughts on how I think of storylines in a Roleplaying Game. It's not about the system, or the mechanics, or the latest supplement - it's about the characters that I play. Or, maybe, the characters' stories that I get to take part in creating.
|
|
For myself, however, it's a matter of verisimilitude.
But do you think that your sense of verisimilitude is perhaps a bit less important than someone else's sense of fun? Especially because we're talking about, you know, a fantasy world with magic and wizards running around?
Also, there are far worse things for breaking verisimilitude allowed within the mechanics.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
For myself, however, it's a matter of verisimilitude.But do you think that your sense of verisimilitude is perhaps a bit less important than someone else's sense of fun?
But what if his sense of verisimilitude is crucial to HIS sense of fun? Now it's his fun versus your fun. Whose is more important, and why?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
oooo idea ... let's just all agree to play within the rules that Paizo has set for their sandbox... stop the proverbial thowing of said sand and all get a long.
Seriously, we've been given our answer and while I realize that it isn't the answer that everyone wanted to hear, can I suggest we move on to something else and leave the poor dead horse alone? In fact, let's give him a weeks rest before we start flogging him again huh?
|
|
But do you think that your sense of verisimilitude is perhaps a bit less important than someone else's sense of fun?
Correct me if I'm wrong: part of your argument is that rebuilding is a good idea because it doesn't hurt people who don't want to rebuild, yet helps the game be more fun for people that do. So everyone gets to have what they think is fun. Is this somewhat accurate?
Now, honest question (hypothetical): I don't have fun when there is a synthesist in my table. They basically can almost solo the scenario, and my Bard becomes a buffbot for him. I know multiple people that feel the same. Why are we not banning synthesists then? They are not letting me have fun!
For myself, no we should not. It is my problem. If we remove synthesists then we are taking away from their fun. There has to be a happy medium.
(Obligatory disclaimer: my expressions above are not accurate representations of my actual feelings on synthesists. they were used to illustrate a point)
Seriously, we've been given our answer and while I realize that it isn't the answer that everyone wanted to hear, can I suggest we move on to something else and leave the poor dead horse alone? In fact, let's give him a weeks rest before we start flogging him again huh?
You know you are right, I think I'm just tired of debating this by now. I'll be moving along now. Ty all for the "debate".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, we've been given our answer and while I realize that it isn't the answer that everyone wanted to hear, can I suggest we move on to something else and leave the poor dead horse alone? In fact, let's give him a weeks rest before we start flogging him again huh?
We were told we have an answer. We were also told we were welcome to keep discussing it (though nothing would change). There's no need to repeatedly tell people to stop having a discussion because the devs have set something in stone, since while they absolutely have the final say they are not the only people playing the game.
Hearing the perspectives of other players is just as interesting (actually, more so) than hearing commandments of devs (which we all obviously have to abide by regardless of our opinions).
|
|
Now, honest question (hypothetical): I don't have fun when there is a synthesist in my table. They basically can almost solo the scenario, and my Bard becomes a buffbot for him. I know multiple people that feel the same. Why are we not banning synthesists then? They are not letting me have fun!
You realize this is arguing my point for me, correct?
|
|
I was hoping someone would chime in with their experiences with the systems I mentioned here.
LG pretty much had the best system for a cooperative game and I wish like crazy that they'd emulate the regional stuff for PFS. It would be crazy fun having the ability to go to a neighboring state/country and suddenly find yourself facing different regional politics, different degrees of faction control, etc.
Also yeah, the retraining worked really well because you were limited to the number of TU you could burn in a year.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Now, honest question (hypothetical): I don't have fun when there is a synthesist in my table. They basically can almost solo the scenario, and my Bard becomes a buffbot for him. I know multiple people that feel the same. Why are we not banning synthesists then? They are not letting me have fun!You realize this is arguing my point for me, correct?
Stonecunning, you seem to be missing the fact that rebuilds would, in fact, inhibit other people's fun. You keep setting it up like rebuilds allow fun for one side while not interfering with fun for the other side, and therefore it's a net gain.
But that's not correct. While it's a plus for your side, it's a minus for the other, not a neutral.
A minute ago you said that the more important group is the one whose fun isn't restricting someone else. What you apparently don't realize is that the rebuilds you're arguing for do restrict someone else.
The reason you keep spinning your wheels in this discussion is because you think you understand the other side, and when they try to correct you over and over and over, you think they're just continuing to scream for the position that you mistakenly think you already understand, so you just keep repeating your side. But you never actually address the stance that other people are actually taking, because you don't see that you're mistaken about them in the first place.
|
|
A minute ago you said that the more important group is the one whose fun isn't restricting someone else. What you apparently don't realize is that the rebuilds you're arguing for do restrict someone else.'
Right, but the point is that thinking this way is pretty petty and selfish since there are already a million things you can do within the rules (the Synthesist) that may not seem fun to many people. The only difference is that no retraining creates an elitist sense of "you're not hardcore enough for my fantasy dice game with wizards."
Nothing is stopping me from min/maxing out a character who has 50 Bags of Everlasting Dung that takes Throw Anything. But somehow if I turn my Toughness into Skill Focus that's much much worse because verisimilitude.
|
|
For those choosing to continue this conversation, it may be helpful to agree upon the context.
Most of the arguments against retraining are using the worst-case pod people/invasion of the body snatchers scenario:
A: "I see you're sitting at the high tier table. I assume you'll be playing your level 9 Gnome Barbarian with the chip on his shoulder and a hair trigger temper. We've had such good times, he and I."
B: "Oh, yeah, I changed him to a pacifist Half-Orc Oracle. And he's a lady now."
A: "I don't want to live on this planet anymore."
Some people may very well be arguing for that level of rebuilding. But I think most of the people here are looking for something much more limited in scope, and with a tangible cost associated to temper (but obviously not remove) the potential for abuse.
I personally am not in favor of anything that would affect the transactional history of the character (if you don't want your axe anymore, be happy with the 50% you'll get back when you sell it). There's way too much paperwork involved if you open that door.
I personally am not in favor of anything that upsets a pre-requisite chain (you can't swap out Combat Expertise once you've gotten Improved Trip).
For the time being, I'm only advocating the idea of purchasing a Racial Trait or Trait swap at the cost of Prestige Points. Probably in the neighborhood of 6 - 10 points per change. However, I also think we should wait and see how the level 1 retrain shakes out before any more changes are made.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stone, have you actually played any PFS yet? Looking at your profile, it doesn't appear that you have and I've seen you do a lot of lobbying for changes the last week or so. There's nothing wrong with asking for changes or engaging in debate, but shouldn't you at least try out pathfinder society for a while and see if these rules really are that big of an issue for your "fun" before lobbying for so many changes all at once. It appears from an outsider rather than just trying out this particular brand of organized play and see how it suits your taste, your going out of your way to change it to something that "you" specifically want before you even get started.
All I'm saying is maybe give it a chance before you go into a lot of debate about what the system needs to do to better accommodate certain players.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A minute ago you said that the more important group is the one whose fun isn't restricting someone else. What you apparently don't realize is that the rebuilds you're arguing for do restrict someone else.'Right, but the point is that thinking this way is pretty petty and selfish
So when they restrict your fun it's petty and selfish, but when you restrict their fun it's fine? How do you know it's not the other way around, with them being totally justified and you being the petty and selfish one? How do you know you're not both being petty and selfish? What about neither?
We've got Side A and Side B each doing the same thing: wanting the rules to be something that provides fun for them, even though it may restrict the fun of the other. So what makes one side any more or less legitimate than the other? You keep saying that the other side is petty/unimportant/whatever, but why should anyone believe you? So far, you've given no reason or argumentation to try and convince anyone that the other side's concerns are invalid, despite repeatedly asserting that they are.
So, why? Unless you can give a reason why their fun is less important than yours, why verisimilitude is less relevant than freedom, etc; then people are left with no recourse but to assume that your only reason is "because I don't like it". If that's not your reason, tell us what is.
|
|
Most of the arguments against retraining are using the worst-case pod people/invasion of the body snatchers scenario:
A: "I see you're sitting at the high tier table. I assume you'll be playing your level 9 Gnome Barbarian with the chip on his shoulder and a hair trigger temper. We've had such good times, he and I."
B: "Oh, yeah, I changed him to a pacifist Half-Orc Oracle. And he's a lady now."
A: "I don't want to live on this planet anymore."
Yeah, I'm not suggesting we go anywhere near this far.
|
|
Stone, have you actually played any PFS yet?Yep, no idea why stuff isn't posted to the profile to be honest. Didn't know it did that.
Are you using a pre-registered player's card number with the confirmation code on it? If so, just take a moment to set-up your profile and use the confirmation code on your player's card. Any table credits that have been recorded for that number should then appear on your profile at that point.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
your sense of verisimilitude is perhaps a bit less important than someone else's sense of funBut what if his sense of verisimilitude is crucial to HIS sense of fun? [quote'Stonecunning]
Now it's his fun versus your fun. Whose is more important, and why? [/quote
Well, I'd say the people who aren't using their sense of fun to restrict what other people can't do because of an abstract concept of "verisimilitude," obviously.
Let's get one or two things clear:
First, I'm not doing anything to you.Second, your sense of fun is no more important than mine.
You, however, are trying to take away (and belittling) my sense of fun. I'm playing the game by the rules and guidelines set forth by my GM - Mike Brock. You're trying to have my fun taken away. There's nothing wrong with versimilitude, and that's what I like in a game. You're being insulting and offensive when I've done nothing but play the game in a way that's fun for me and express my contentedness with the fact that the Campaign Organizer and my GM see the structure of the game the same way I do.
You've done a lot of campaigning this week about how bad/wrong people are for trying to take away your sense of fun, when all we're doing is playing with the guidelines that we are given. You, however, want to take our fun away by having this little private crusade. You might consider that it seems to be the largest majority of the people here are trying to tell you to chill out a little and let everyone have the kind of fun they want that is allowed by the rules, instead of blasting off over the moon in this thread, and others. (Not to mention the ones that you've gotten locked because of your hostility toward the PFS guidelines.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You've done a lot of campaigning this week about how bad/wrong people are for trying to take away your sense of fun, when all we're doing is playing with the guidelines that we are given. You, however, want to take our fun away by having this little private crusade...
I'll once again urge everyone involved to stop speaking in broad generalities and start talking specifics. There's a huge amount of middleground between "no changes ever" and "complete rebuild at will."
RAW, my eagle-eyed Ranger scout/sniper can come back the next session with a level of Oracle and a Clouded Vision Curse. RAW, my Greatsword-swinging Barbarian can sell all his THWs and show up with two Short Swords. You can probably describe with reasonable accuracy the weapons and fighting styles of each of your fellow players from your last game. I'm willing to bet you don't know each of their two traits, even if you've been playing with a static group since level 1.
Is the idea of someone paying in-game currency to change something you never knew they had really so offensive?
|
|
I'll once again urge everyone involved to stop speaking in broad generalities and start talking specifics.I made two very specific references in my post. I've generally refrained from rsponding overmuch to Stonecunning's proliferation this week against the PFS guidelines. Those two very specific statements were directed at me personally. Therefore, I responded personally to them.
Is the idea of someone paying in-game currency to change something you never knew they had really so offensive?
It's not about whether *I* know what anyone's particular feats or abilities are. There are 10's of thousands of PFS players that I will never know or meet, let alone look at their sheet. I don't even look at the sheet of the people next to me. The point is that the idea of changing who and what a character is (beyond a reasonable 1st level limit for sake of learning a character), to me breaks quite a bit of verisimilitude. There's an inherent amount of "believeability" to the Golarion and to the story in which I take part. Knowing that characters can change on a whim (retroactively, beyond simple adding of levels or changing equipment) destroys the immersion that I like to find in that story. And when characters suddenly aren't known for having indomitable willpower, or aren't known for having the same characteristics of their own race ... well, I find that difficult to follow and make sense of in a story.
[Edit: Oh, and Jiggy, I'm sorry for the broken quote text above. I'm sure it's evident that you didn't say that, Stonecunning did. Sorry about the broken brackets!] :D
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I made two very specific references in my post. I've generally refrained from rsponding overmuch to Stonecunning's proliferation this week against the PFS guidelines. Those two very specific statements were directed at me personally. Therefore, I responded personally to them.
When I say specifics, I mean what level of character changes we are arguing for and against. Clearly, you're against any changes, at all, period--beyond first level.
Your argument, and please correct me if I'm misrepresenting you, is that any change to the historical development of the character, no matter how small or unnoticed, is tearing at the fabric of reality of this shared vision of Golarion. I don't think you're wrong for thinking that, but I will point out the following:
In our Golarion, you can play Quest for Perfection Part I, then take a jaunt through The Frostfur Captives, before continuing to Quest for Perfection Part III--skipping Part II altogether. Of course, this comes at the price of a Boon.
In our Golarion, you can sunder the BBEG's +2 Flail, and then immediately buy it after you return home to Absalom. As can anyone in your party.
In our Golarion, a member of the Shadow Lodge can spend entire scenarios working to wipe out his Faction, simultaneously working to further the aims of Cheliax.
In our Golarion, you are unable to repay me for the Potion of Cure Light Wounds that I gave you, no matter how many thousands of gold pieces you may have.
None of this is a criticism of PFS. I love PFS. I think they've done a great job of making a world where you can drop in and out at the convenience of your real life while maintaining a connection to a larger, ongoing story.
But let's face it, there have to be some compromises to verisimilitude. And if it's something you never knew or cared about to begin with, does it really affect you if it changes?
I doubt very much my Archaeologist is known for her childhood spent as a vagabond on the streets of Osirion. I think she's more known for trying to trip everyone and everything she encounters with her whip and being useless against anything with more than two legs.
I'm pretty sure my Druid is not known across the land for being minimally tougher than normal. I think he's more recognized as the guy who is constantly outshone by his animal companion, Bearemy.
I don't believe anyone who's ever encountered her knows that my Barbarian/Ranger is unusually comfortable with armor. They are more likely fixated on her Large Bastard Sword and tendency to fly into a rage while magically enlarged.
In the epic tales and shared myths of the human race, the little details don't really matter that much.
I don't think that your fun is less important than mine. But...I'm not sure how to articulate this without getting into political waters about what happens behind closed doors.
I'll just put it this way: I don't particularly care for medically unwarranted plastic surgery. I think you should be happy with who you are, warts and all. But I don't begrudge others access to it.
|
|
That's a really nice long post. Great. Cool. Absolutely boss.
You're right, when you say:
But let's face it, there have to be some compromises to verisimilitude.
And those compromises are clearly already being made. Dozens of them. Every single time I play. You just listed a million of them. It's already being permitted to change the character ... though that seems not to suffice for some.
Amongst the scores of comprimises that are made for the betterment of PFS ... The line must be drawn somewhere.To throw a little bit of geek into it (and to hopefully show that there's a tongue-in-cheek tone to this whole post) ... I think that Jean Luc Picard said it best:
The line must be drawn HEYAH! *This* far, no *furthah*!
;-)
|
|
First, I'm not doing anything to you.
Second, your sense of fun is no more important than mine.You, however, are trying to take away (and belittling) my sense of fun.
Actually, the big difference here is that my argument is: "My being allowed to do something shouldn't effect your sense of fun, if it does then that's an issue that is with you and not me" and yours is "Your being allowed to do something is effecting my sense of fun, therefore you shouldn't be allowed to do it."
There's a huge difference there.
Also, redward's post is pretty much spot on. Not to mention the single best case against verisimilitude as a reason for denying other fun is
Nothing is stopping me from min/maxing out a character who has 50 Bags of Everlasting Dung that takes Throw Anything. But somehow if I turn my Toughness into Skill Focus that's much much worse because verisimilitude.
|
|
Amongst the scores of comprimises that are made for the betterment of PFS ... The line must be drawn somewhere.
I'm going to bow out of this conversation because I've said my piece, but I will point out that if it's for the betterment of PFS, where you draw the line for your fun becomes less relevant. As the great philosopher Spock once said:
Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay - I failed my will save
Here is what I don't understand in the argument of rebuilds - it's possible already with restrictions
Let me explain:
Items - you sell them for 50% and buy new ones
Feats: you get new ones every other level. So it is possible to get every other level a new feat that previously wasn't available
Traits: they are meant to be half as strong as feats and for most of them there is a feat that can do similar
Skills: new skill points every new level
Spells: you get new ones every level and some classes have restricted swaps
This leaves set in stone:
Race
Class
Archetype
Ability
what the system doesn't allow is re-optimisation. If you took the 'wrong' feat then you are not prevented to take the 'right' one later.
You just take a hard decision - is it worth for me or not as there is a cost and a limitation.
To reiterate:
Changing a feat
Possible every other level
Cost - 1 redundant feat
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I've already put my $.02 in elsewhere, I think having a relatively high prestige cost (8-10 PA) to change out a class feature/ feat or an even higher cost to change out a racial ability would be a reasonable which would allow people to change out some more blatant mistakes or grab a 'must-have' feature from a new book.
To be honest, this bugs me far less than the Star Wars "Max Rebo Band" effect we're already getting with the racial boons.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, I'm not doing anything to you.
Second, your sense of fun is no more important than mine.You, however, are trying to take away (and belittling) my sense of fun.
Actually, the big difference here is that my argument is: "My being allowed to do something shouldn't effect your sense of fun, if it does then that's an issue that is with you and not me" and yours is "Your being allowed to do something is effecting my sense of fun, therefore you shouldn't be allowed to do it."
There's a huge difference there.
Also, redward's post is pretty much spot on. Not to mention the single best case against verisimilitude as a reason for denying other fun is
Nothing is stopping me from min/maxing out a character who has 50 Bags of Everlasting Dung that takes Throw Anything. But somehow if I turn my Toughness into Skill Focus that's much much worse because verisimilitude.
You can state that, but it doesn't make it true. I want to play a solar angel. I want to play an evil character. I want to play a spellslinger. I might want your character dead in a game.
The rules have not allowed it, do not allow it, and will not allow it. The line has been drawn. You are in the minority. Frankly, if you don't like it, make your own campaign.
|
|
The rules have not allowed it, do not allow it, and will not allow it. The line has been drawn. You are in the minority. Frankly, if you don't like it, make your own campaign.
I'm glad that there's others willing to see the point. Thank you.
Stonecunning ... You quoted, in your post, what you think my argument is. You couldn't be more inaccurate. you're taking this as some kind of attack. While the rest of us are merely saying what we think. We're not attacking you; just stating what we think. You however, seem hell-bent on making this a pointed debate, aimed at individuals. Good God, man ... the campaign administration has already given in to the view that there should be retraining. Arguing for *MORE* retraining before the rule has even been implemented kind of defines DBAJ. And I hate to break it to you, but, you *are* being one.
