|
I'd just like to point out, you responded to a guy who has (more than once) told SKR that he had it wrong.Basically what this is saying is why are you punishing me for finding a clever, and misleading way to cheat?
I know we have all come across some of these individuals on these boards and I just want to say WTF?
I'm not sure when and where this started but everytime we have someone come up with this crazy combo that can't 100% be denied or confirmed, we have someone telling people to stop trying to punish them for their creative idea when the boards start pulling it apart trying to findways to discredit it.
I was always taught to never reward someone for cheating. Now I'm not talking about someone using material to do something cool and legit, I'm talking about the things that could or could not work, depending on the way you read it, but either way wasn't intended to work that way.
And somehow magically you know what was 'intended'? I mean sure lots of people try to make end runs around the rules, but in most of these cases I think short of Jason Bulman or Sean K Renolds posting in the thread, how its 'supposed to work' is usually a matter of opinion.
And I could definately see people defending and attacking an idea that has ambiguous RAI. What you call cheating, other people call building a good character. Putting a +2 to attack for weapon focus, thats cheating. Trying to use armor spikes or unarmed strikes with dervish dance, thats up for debate untill its in the faq.
That's usually what you do in those types of situations.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to add something here...I have problems with the whole 'punishing me for my "creative thinking"' is the same problem I have with "you are cheating". Neither are conductive to debate/discussion or arguements.
First thing is you are not that person's GM...if he allows it that player is in fact not cheating. Also even if that poersons GM does not allow it...you have no idea if that player will push for it...and if they do what does it matter to you?
The other side...if somebody disagrees with you...they are not punishing you. Stop being so sensitive. These peoiple are not your GM...they are not going to call your GM and tell him/her not to allow it. They are merely disagreeing with you.
The thing is either response bring too much negative emotion on both sides...it should be avioded.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to add something here...I have problems with the whole 'punishing me for my "creative thinking"' is the same problem I have with "you are cheating". Neither are conductive to debate/discussion or arguements.
It's a shame this is even controversial, to be frank. The problem with calling someone a cheat is you are passing judgement on their motives.
Someone who keeps adding in multiple bonuses of the same type might be cheating or might just be making a mistake. It's impossible to tell just from what they're doing and leading off with "that's cheating" is going to be counterproductive far more often than it will be helpful.
I'd just like to point out, you responded to a guy who has (more than once) told SKR that he had it wrong.
Ummm ... being a Paizo employee does not actually - in itself - make someone correct.
No, it does not. A person's opinion carries weight, not because of any accomplishments of the individual, their "goodness", their "experience" or any other trait.
But, accomplishments & experience does mean that the speaker knows what they are talking about.
Often opinions are facts, often they are not.
Again, a person who is knowledgeable about the subject under discussion (demonstrated by their accouterments) is very likely to know what the "objective" facts about the subject are.
This is what I mean by "their opinion should carry a lot of weight.
It means that they should be listened to, and their opinions deserve serious consideration.
No, it does not. A person's opinion carries weight, not because of any accomplishments of the individual, their "goodness", their "experience" or any other trait. A person's opinion carries weight when you, as the other person considering that opinion, believe it does. That is the nature of opinions.
Often opinions are also truths, often they are not. Often opinions are facts, often they are not. Often opinions are used as means to an end, often they are not. In the end, opinions are only opinions, when they become other things, it is because we decide that they are other things, and for no other reason than that.
Or in the words of the great sage, "That's just, you know, like, your opinion, man."
Terquim are you trying to say that an engineer that works for NASA and the guy who bags your groceries at the local supermarket are going to hold the same amount of weight with you during a discussion on space shuttle design?
No, it does not. A person's opinion carries weight, not because of any accomplishments of the individual, their "goodness", their "experience" or any other trait. A person's opinion carries weight when you, as the other person considering that opinion, believe it does. That is the nature of opinions.
Silly postmodernists run amok. While it's certainly true that a fool can disregard anything that conflicts with his own prejudices, all that means is that, by disregarding an opinion that objectively carries weight, you've objectively proven yourself to be a fool.
The legal system, for example, has a relatively clear line between "experts" (whose opinions are evidentiary) and normal witnesses (whose opinions are not). There's a well-defined procedure for establishing whether or not someone is an expert, and it hinges largely on the accomplishments of the individual. The NASA engineer is an expert and can point to his CV to establish that. If the judge chooses to disregard this, her decision is likely to be reversed on appeal.
*sigh*Terquim are you trying to say that an engineer that works for NASA and the guy who bags your groceries at the local supermarket are going to hold the same amount of weight with you during a discussion on space shuttle design?No, it does not. A person's opinion carries weight, not because of any accomplishments of the individual, their "goodness", their "experience" or any other trait. A person's opinion carries weight when you, as the other person considering that opinion, believe it does. That is the nature of opinions.
Often opinions are also truths, often they are not. Often opinions are facts, often they are not. Often opinions are used as means to an end, often they are not. In the end, opinions are only opinions, when they become other things, it is because we decide that they are other things, and for no other reason than that.
Or in the words of the great sage, "That's just, you know, like, your opinion, man."
Yes and no are much shorter responses and they would have answered the question, so I will assume you will go with experience. Thanks.
I'm sorry for trying to express myself. I am not able to do it.
An answer to my NASA engineer question would have been more than enough, and it would have been a one word statement.
|
Yeah, but when the topic is 'what Sean intended when he wrote that rule', saying 'that's not what you intended' is kinda...you know...The actual problem with this post is that's actually how it did not happen.
How what happened? We're discussing the hypothetical of someone telling another person 'you didn't actually intend that'.
If that's not what happened then you have no reason to concern yourself.
Of course, it's all pretty off topic anyway.
By your personal game it could not be cheating but by what's RAW and commonly accepted it could be.
Its not just the GM. If a player is the GM's girlfriend and everyone sees her move the d20 from a 6 to an 18 and he allows this for her, is this not cheating? Something can be decided by a GM and even tolerated, but still be cheating.
I must have missed the thread 'I the GM girlfriend is changing what I rolled....is not cheating'. What you are talking about has nothing to do with this thread. (Though I would argue in a game where the GM fudges the dice a player doing it is NOT cheating...but that is a whole another topic)
When you are dealing with complete strangers on a message board and somebody comes up with a different interpertation of the rules than you do THAT IS NOT CHEATING.
Can people cheat...sure. Do people cheat...proably all the time. Does calling a complete stranger to you a cheater makes you look like a ass...you bet it does. As does complaining about somebody 'punishing you for you creative thinking' when they disagree with your opinion.
Now if somebody is making a mistake in regards to RAW on a message board there a ton of better ways of telling them they are making a mistake without calling them a cheater.
I think you are confused...I am refering to how to deal with complete strangers on a messageboard vs dealing with people who you know and game with.
|
So is it that you're telling me I'm incorrect about what my experience has been? Or is it that you don't get that I'm only talking about my own experience?I said "in my experience". And in my experience, yes, it IS far more often.I can only think of one example your way. I can think of dozens the other way.
I think the FAQ page reflects this rather well, actually.
I am saying don't think you are representing your actual experience, but rather a selective memory of your experience that reflects the argument you want to make in this forum, and certainly doesn't reflect testable reality, since you can go to the FAQ and count.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you start to argue people with people that they don't know their own experience...
Wraith, you're not comparing like for like mate.I'm sorry for trying to express myself. I am not able to do it.An answer to my NASA engineer question would have been more than enough, and it would have been a one word statement.
How so?
Yeah, but when the topic is 'what Sean intended when he wrote that rule', saying 'that's not what you intended' is kinda...you know...The actual problem with this post is that's actually how it did not happen.
Imagine that.
So if an expert states their opinion in an empty room, with whom does the opinion carry weight?
Both yes and no.
No, there is no one there for the expert to influence.
Yes, because their opinion would still be well informed.
(But now, you are moving the goalpost, and that is another thread.)
|
|
How did it happen?Yeah, but when the topic is 'what Sean intended when he wrote that rule', saying 'that's not what you intended' is kinda...you know...The actual problem with this post is that's actually how it did not happen.
Imagine that.
I'm not going to get back in that argument but I was never proven wrong in my assessment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but when the topic is 'what Sean intended when he wrote that rule', saying 'that's not what you intended' is kinda...you know...
This is assuming we have any idea which rules SKR wrote. For example, in the ballyhooed guidelines vs rules nature of the WBL debate brought up above, the rules derive initially from the OGL which come from the DMG 3.0 which was attributed to Cook, Tweet, and Williams... not SKR. The corporate nature of the design team, both at WotC and Paizo, makes it pretty hard for us, as observers, to tell who wrote what rules nor what the author of those rules intended.
But for my money, they're guidelines. Rules aren't written with qualifiers like should, may, or might. Guidelines are. In fact, the 3.5 DMG, in a Behind the Curtain sidebar, describes them exactly as that: guidelines.
|
|
Yeah, but when the topic is 'what Sean intended when he wrote that rule', saying 'that's not what you intended' is kinda...you know...This is assuming we have any idea which rules SKR wrote. For example, in the ballyhooed guidelines vs rules nature of the WBL debate brought up above, the rules derive initially from the OGL which come from the DMG 3.0 which was attributed to Cook, Tweet, and Williams... not SKR. The corporate nature of the design team, both at WotC and Paizo, makes it pretty hard for us, as observers, to tell who wrote what rules nor what the author of those rules intended.
But for my money, they're guidelines. Rules aren't written with qualifiers like should, may, or might. Guidelines are. In fact, the 3.5 DMG, in a Behind the Curtain sidebar, describes them exactly as that: guidelines.
Well said.
Yeah, but when the topic is 'what Sean intended when he wrote that rule', saying 'that's not what you intended' is kinda...you know...This is assuming we have any idea which rules SKR wrote. For example, in the ballyhooed guidelines vs rules nature of the WBL debate brought up above, the rules derive initially from the OGL which come from the DMG 3.0 which was attributed to Cook, Tweet, and Williams... not SKR. The corporate nature of the design team, both at WotC and Paizo, makes it pretty hard for us, as observers, to tell who wrote what rules nor what the author of those rules intended.
But for my money, they're guidelines. Rules aren't written with qualifiers like should, may, or might. Guidelines are. In fact, the 3.5 DMG, in a Behind the Curtain sidebar, describes them exactly as that: guidelines.
You omitted the most relevant fact. SKR's name is in the credits of the PFRPG as part of the design team. Between SKR, Shallowsoul and you, estimate for me who attended the most meetings of the design team at the Paizo offices.
This isn't about who is most likely to know a rule correctly. I'm talking about who has the fullest understanding of the design team's intent. I would guess that the design team would have the best understanding. How about you?
Check out that link, it's a post from SKR stating what his intent was.
|
|
You omitted the most relevant fact. SKR's name is in the credits of the PFRPG as part of the design team. Between SKR, Shallowsoul and you, estimate for me who attended the most meetings of the design team at the Paizo offices.This isn't about who is most likely to know a rule correctly. I'm talking about who has the fullest understanding of the design team's intent. I would guess that the design team would have the best understanding. How about you?
Check out that link, it's a post from SKR stating what his intent was.
And there was a clear distintion in that thread over what was SKR's opinion and what was the actual ruling of the design team.
SKR explained WBL from the point of view of the design team, he debated cost for raise dead from his personal belief regarding good game design.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
When you start to argue people with people that they don't know their own experience...When their experience is actually documented, since this is a messageboard and we all have post histories...
So you went through all my posts, found every Rules Forum thread I participated in (and every non-Rules Forum thread that strayed into a rules debate), then went through each of those threads to see which ones involved someone saying "that's obviously not the intent" or something similar (remember, I was only talking about debates involving those kinds of comments), and then from that subset you sorted out the ones that ended in a FAQ entry or developer commentary, and then from THAT subset you tallied up which ones were resolved for or against the "obvious intent" comments?
Sounds a bit stalker-ish if you did that. But if you didn't do that, then you don't really have much of a factual basis for thinking I'm selectively remembering things. (Obviously I could be mis-remembering, but unless you did the above-described searching, then you have no reason to think that's any more likely than that I'm remembering my experiences correctly.)
|
You omitted the most relevant fact. SKR's name is in the credits of the PFRPG as part of the design team. Between SKR, Shallowsoul and you, estimate for me who attended the most meetings of the design team at the Paizo offices.This isn't about who is most likely to know a rule correctly. I'm talking about who has the fullest understanding of the design team's intent. I would guess that the design team would have the best understanding. How about you?
Check out that link, it's a post from SKR stating what his intent was.
I believe the MOST relevant fact is the one that clearly stated that the 'intent' of WBL was spelled out long before Paizo was doing anything other than publishing magazines. Now you could clearly argue that Mr Reynolds was describing Paizo's implementation of it, and since it may not have been OGL this well could have been something they needed to re-design along the way. Even if it WAS you'll still be really really hard pressed to claim that anyone not named 'Gygax' or 'Arneson' has some kind of ultimate authority over the game. There's way too much interitance involved through way too many editions to make that claim.
And in fact, doing so insults the entire vision behind the OGL. It's supposed to be free.
Going back to the example, if the NASA engineer was arguing about the nature of physics (something neither invented nor controlled by NASA) in his discussion of shuttle design, and the grocery store clerk had a point that made more sense, I'd definitely be pressing back on said engineer.
Authority exists in a lot of areas. 'Roleplaying in general'? Not a chance. 'Ancestors of Dungeons and Dragons'? Rarely, and almost certainly limited to their own new additions to the rules.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I am saying don't think you are representing your actual experience, but rather a selective memory of your experience that reflects the argument you want to make in this forum, and certainly doesn't reflect testable reality, since you can go to the FAQ and count.
By the way, what argument is it that I "want to make in this forum"? I don't recall having made one. I shared my emotional response to the topic, and I told of some experiences that contributed to those emotions. What's the "argument"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You omitted the most relevant fact. SKR's name is in the credits of the PFRPG as part of the design team. Between SKR, Shallowsoul and you, estimate for me who attended the most meetings of the design team at the Paizo offices.This isn't about who is most likely to know a rule correctly. I'm talking about who has the fullest understanding of the design team's intent. I would guess that the design team would have the best understanding. How about you?
Check out that link, it's a post from SKR stating what his intent was.
I believe the MOST relevant fact is the one that clearly stated that the 'intent' of WBL was spelled out long before Paizo was doing anything other than publishing magazines. Now you could clearly argue that Mr Reynolds was describing Paizo's implementation of it, and since it may not have been OGL this well could have been something they needed to re-design along the way. Even if it WAS you'll still be really really hard pressed to claim that anyone not named 'Gygax' or 'Arneson' has some kind of ultimate authority over the game. There's way too much interitance involved through way too many editions to make that claim.
And in fact, doing so insults the entire vision behind the OGL. It's supposed to be free.
Going back to the example, if the NASA engineer was arguing about the nature of physics (something neither invented nor controlled by NASA) in his discussion of shuttle design, and the grocery store clerk had a point that made more sense, I'd definitely be pressing back on said engineer.
Authority exists in a lot of areas. 'Roleplaying in general'? Not a chance. 'Ancestors of Dungeons and Dragons'? Rarely, and almost certainly limited to their own new additions to the rules.
That thread isn't about clarification of the intent of the design team of AD&D. It was clarification of the Pathfinder RPG. Yes, PFRPG is a derivative work, but the design team purposely changed some things. That means the purposely didn't change other things.
Who is more likely to know the design team's intent behind that decision: Shallowsoul or SKR?
If I were to bet money, I think the safer bet would be the person who attended rules design meetings.
|
|
I am saying don't think you are representing your actual experience, but rather a selective memory of your experience that reflects the argument you want to make in this forum, and certainly doesn't reflect testable reality, since you can go to the FAQ and count.By the way, what argument is it that I "want to make in this forum"? I don't recall having made one. I shared my emotional response to the topic, and I told of some experiences that contributed to those emotions. What's the "argument"?
Your argument was
'"that's not the intent" claim has been wrong FAR more often than it's been right.'
In caps no less.
If you don't like having a claim challenged, don't make a claim IN CAPS.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
A minute ago my statement of what my experience has been was something that helped my "argument", and now it IS my argument? Interesting.
Also interesting that you chose to leave "in my experience" out of your quote of my "argument". That would certainly go a long way in making it look like I was trying to argue that that was the case overall, but that's never what I tried to claim. I said what my experience has been. I never claimed that it was representative of the norm. It's okay if other people's experiences have been different than mine.
All I ever said was "I feel emotion X because I've had experience Y".
But apparently I can't say even that without you jumping in to tell me I'm wrong, though you refuse to answer whether or not you've done the creepy stalking necessary to actually back up such a claim of selective remembering.
|
|
That thread isn't about clarification of the intent of the design team of AD&D. It was clarification of the Pathfinder RPG. Yes, PFRPG is a derivative work, but the design team purposely changed some things. That means the...
So you feel 'wealth by level' is a Paizo design?
Personally I do not believe this to be correct. If it is, and only if, then you have a point.
Many other topics in Pathfinder, however, do not enjoy such ambiguity. For example, which gets the authority over the nature of Lawful Good? Did SKR participate in a design session for that as well?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo altered, removed, or added several rules when they printed the Pathfinder RPG. It has to be assumed that anything they left as-is were things they wanted to keep the way they were or didn't feel strongly about one way or the other. Why must that be assumed? For the simple reason that if they kept things they either didn't consider or didn't want, then the job wouldn't have been particularly well done.
So, Paizo's design team will be strong authorities on how anything printed in the Core Rulebook works, since they must have some idea of either why they changed it or of why they kept it.
|
|
A minute ago my statement of what my experience has been was something that helped my "argument", and now it IS my argument? Interesting.
Also interesting that you chose to leave "in my experience" out of your quote of my "argument". That would certainly go a long way in making it look like I was trying to argue that that was the case overall, but that's never what I tried to claim. I said what my experience has been. I never claimed that it was representative of the norm. It's okay if other people's experiences have been different than mine.
All I ever said was "I feel emotion X because I've had experience Y".
But apparently I can't say even that without you jumping in to tell me I'm wrong, though you refuse to answer whether or not you've done the creepy stalking necessary to actually back up such a claim of selective remembering.
Those are "emotions"?
Your experience is an emotion or you You feel-read? I mean, I guess if we go by the Colbert standard of truthiness, you could be feeling it, in your gut...
You said something. What you said isn't true. If you don't want to defend what you said just say so. But to say it was an emotion and therefore beyond question...
I feel that is ridiculous.
And by your logic, that is unquestionable and unarguable. It is, after all, an "emotion"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless they earned their PHd in roleplaying, Paizo isn't a strong authority on anything other than making things how they like them and how they see are balanced. Unless they're going to come to my house with a gun and make me play certain rules they = zero in authority on how games should be run other than by their specific societies and events.
There is, however, a certain expectation, of course, of how people expect a game to be when they come to your game. They expect it to all be by RAW until stated otherwise.
My point has nothing to do with what is correct, or the "right way".
My point is that when it comes to the intent behind what was put into the book, SKR probably has better insight than Shallowsoul.
If SKR says "We put that in for X reason"
Shallowsoul says "no you didn't"
Who do you think is more likely to be right?