So I've read a lot of threads lately about the issue of character rebuilds after errata, especially regarding the Crane Wing fiasco. While I've heard great arguments either way there was one thought that came to mind that I didn't come up on any threads that I feel obligated to now share. I support free and complete character rebuild ONCE after anytime an errata not related to equipment(which you should simply be allowed to sell back at full price) affects your character, no matter how small. This has nothing to do with mechanics or min-maxing but is in fact a matter of roleplaying and principle.
If you have invested in a character that is legal in PFS you have decided to create this being, this unique being that is fully 100% your fantasy. Any errata is forcing a player to either not play their fantasy or pay in game resources to retrain to a character that is of their design. Just as we tell players never to force other players to do/play anything they dont want to, why should the company do that. I am 100% okay with errata as some things are just broken and need fixed, but we should then allow that player to have 100% say in what their fantasy is again, now that the errata took that away from them. Free rebuild whenever is a terrible idea imo but I think a player deserves one after their freedom to decide what there character is becomes removed by errata.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Anthony,
A reasonable position, but let me ask you a not-entirely-hypothetical question. Some character options are obviously going to change. (The examples of the day are the playtest versions of the ACG classes, but we could both list others, feats or spells that raise a ruckus because they are very powerful or clearly written wrong or complicated to adjudicate in PFS.)
So, let's say that I decide my fighter isn't all that fun to play. You feel that a free rebuild is a bad idea. But I deliberately take a feat that I know is on the docket to be errata'ed / "clarified" . (For example, "Prone Shooter", in its original incarnation.) A couple of months later, it gets revised, and I use that opportunity to rebuild my PC into an oracle.
Does that seem right to you?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel if you have a character that is effected by a rule change, you should be able to present your character to your VC and request a larger rebuild. The VC shoudl then review the character and allow you to change the features that were effected.
Because if a feat is banned/alerted, it does not mean I lose one feat. I lose the effectiveness of the traits, skills, other feats that work with it, items that work with it.
I think Mr. Mortika's example is a very small majority of the people compared to the later. Using a small minority as an excuse
to allow a larger population to be punished I find extremely silly to the point of immorality.
Global Organized Play Coordinator
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another option we can consider is to wait for 30-60 days after a book is released to update Additional Resources. This will allow plenty of time for the playerbase to give feedback on a book and all it contains so there is very little chance we ever miss anything.idont think that is the best option but it would almost eliminate someone choosing something that might later become an illegal option because it was missed and not recognized as too powerful for OP.
|
|
Another option we can consider is to wait for 30-60 days after a book is released to update Additional Resources. This will allow plenty of time for the playerbase to give feedback on a book and all it contains so there is very little chance we ever miss anything.idont think that is the best option but it would almost eliminate someone choosing something that might later become an illegal option because it was missed and not recognized as too powerful for OP.
You would sacrifice that momentum of a new product sales to keep PFS from making a mistake on allowing features?
I would argue be VERY restrictive on allowing new content and then open more parts of the books as it is deemed worthy for OP.
This way you seem to reward the community for presenting logical arguements and understanding VS the opposite. You are going to get the debates anyway.
|
|
Another option we can consider is to wait for 30-60 days after a book is released to update Additional Resources. This will allow plenty of time for the playerbase to give feedback on a book and all it contains so there is very little chance we ever miss anything.idont think that is the best option but it would almost eliminate someone choosing something that might later become an illegal option because it was missed and not recognized as too powerful for OP.
Specfically regarding the ACG, I don't know how that would change this since they beta version was out for almost a year. If anything, I'd say change it at release like now, but be willing to come back in a month or two after the content has seen PFS play and make changes from the play tables' feedback. This, of course, would require a more discerning eye to be able to figure out the genuine complaints from whining and would probably require more work, but it may end up with a good outcome.
|
|
You would sacrifice that momentum of a new product sales to keep PFS from making a mistake on allowing features?The issue is that on the rare occasions that they do make mistakes, certain people accuse them of being 'immoral' and 'not performing their job well enough'.
People make mistakes. It happens. Mistakes are forgivable. Espcially based on how morally you respond to the mistake.
We are customers. If you pay for a service and they make a mistake, how often is the custoemr expected to pay to correct that mistake?
|
Not adding new products quickly would be a worse solution than the problem.
I support liberal rebuilds but Chris has a point, it can be abused. If it is practical I like the idea of a VO signing off on rebuilds. But I suspect that is too large a burden to put onto them.
One thing that might actually help is a clear statement as to the intent of rebuilds. Clearly unenforceable but, IMO, telling the players what is intended and what is cheesy can actually help. Something like "if a rules change significantly affects your character then you are allowed a rebuild to bring that character back to your original concept. Only if your original concept can no longer be achieved is a full rebuild allowed"
|
I feel if you have a character that is effected by a rule change, you should be able to present your character to your VC and request a larger rebuild. The VC shoudl then review the character and allow you to change the features that were effected.
I've seen this suggested a couple of times, and I don't think it's a good idea.
1. It assumes that VCs have the required level of rules mastery (including the playtest) to be able to give a valid review. While I'm sure many are also very experienced GMs, VCs are appointed for their organisation skills and familiarity with PFS workings (chronicle sheets, reporting, etc.) not knowledge of PC builds using non-core classes.
2. It assumes that all VCs will agree on what is a reasonable rebuild. The level of ill-will generated when a player finds out that he wasn't allowed a minimal rebuild by VC 1, while another player was allowed a more liberal rebuild by VC 2, would be significant. And how do you stop players flooding to VC 2...
3. It assumes all players have a VC nearby. Almost all of my play is face to face, but my nearest VC is nearly 200 miles away.
|
I suppose the following could apply:
1. You can, for free, replace the item that is removed from play with an equivalent item (feat for a feat, cloak for a cloak, whatever.) I'm not sure how that would work with class features, but I am sure something could be applicable. And, I'm talking about something that is removed from play, not merely errated.
2. Anything beyond that free replacement would require a rebuild under the rebuilding rules.
I am uncomfortable saying that if something is errated, say a 1st level class feature or whatever, suddenly a level 9 character can be totally rebuilt. I'm not okay with that.
Additionally, when it came to the playtest classes, people were told up front what the risks were if they used those classes and something got changed. Remember, that stuff is designed for PF, not inherently PFS, and so those books and items still have value even if their value in PFS is diminished.
Anyway, I am not a fan of a total, free rebuild simply because something gets changed.
|
|
I feel if you have a character that is effected by a rule change, you should be able to present your character to your VC and request a larger rebuild. The VC shoudl then review the character and allow you to change the features that were effected.I've seen this suggested a couple of times, and I don't think it's a good idea.
1. It assumes that VCs have the required level of rules mastery (including the playtest) to be able to give a valid review. While I'm sure many are also very experienced GMs, VCs are appointed for their organisation skills and familiarity with PFS workings (chronicle sheets, reporting, etc.) not knowledge of PC builds using non-core classes.
2. It assumes that all VCs will agree on what is a reasonable rebuild. The level of ill-will generated when a player finds out that he wasn't allowed a minimal rebuild by VC 1, while another player was allowed a more liberal rebuild by VC 2, would be significant. And how do you stop players flooding to VC 2...
3. It assumes all players have a VC nearby. Almost all of my play is face to face, but my nearest VC is nearly 200 miles away.
Nothing will be perfect. Even an approved rebuild would be nay sayed, but others.
Now VCs are(atleast to my understanding) be able to judge a PFS game. If they can judge a game they should be able to read and understand the rules well enough to make a decsion. A VC that can not do that I feel is not worht being a DM. If a player wants to make a change they should present the VC with books they own to do so if the VC is not famalair with the rules. So honestly I think your first point is completely moot.
VCs are approved and selected by Mr. Brock. They are representatives of PFS. Well if a VC is being to liberal or harsh. Then report that to Mr. Brock like always. That could be an issue. I do not see it as one, but I understand it could be one.
Email easily reaches 200 miles in a couple of seconds. On the back of every guide to OP there is the VCs emails.
|
|
One can be a great GM, but not be well-versed in some of the absurd theorycrafting that goes on in PFS. And, honestly, if I am sitting down to play a game, I'd rather have the person who is the great GM than someone who is great at theorycraft.
Many VCs do GM, but they have a greater responsibility to PFS than GMing - their organization skills are critical, including the non-game play stuff they have to deal with.
Simply because a VC hasn't spent his or her time in theorycrafting in an attempt to break the game, or find that one trick pony that completely shuts down encounters, or that renders nearly every other character at that table useless, shouldn't disqualify them from being a VC.
Asking VCs to take on THIS role, in addition to the thousands of other things they are required to do is just too much. I don't think having VCs or VLs, for that matter, adjudicating rebuilds and giving a thumbs up or down is the way to go, and frankly, I think it gets us further away from finding a reasonable solution.
Great points guys, Again my only worry is that disallowing a full rebuild sorta feels like claiming badwrongfun to me. If you select a feat or trait or anything you are accepting it as is for your character, not as it could be later. Say they change dodge(the feat) to give plus 20 AC(crazy i know but bear with) yes its better, but its NOT what i selected for the character, it may not fit the image i have of my character, and feels little different than a GM or another player demanding i use a option for my character i didn't agree to select. The issue i have is that better or worse, rebuild "abuse" or not, you have complete control over what you select for your character, errata removes that control any could change my character conceptually even if the only difference is i feel it being different, at the core players craft characters with love and connection, its of primary importance that nothing but the player(as long as they follow legal rules) decide how much they love their creation
And as for they issue reason about "what if I select a feat i know may be on the chopping block as that when errata occurs i can rebuild?" Simply put, I don't care. There is no such thing as a sorta legal option, a feat or trait or whatever is legal until it isn't legal. There is no "not really legal now because there is a good chance it isn't later" column for anything. Thanks again for the great input guys!
|
|
Knowing the rules for classes is essential to dming. If a Dm does not know the rules well enough to be explained how a character works. They are not good enough to be a DM either. I am sorry, but thatis a sad response. They do not need to experts on theory crafting. Just enoguh to understand rules and be knowldegable enough to know they effect eachother.
Now I do not know the time constraints on a VC. I have close friends that are VLs and I chat my local VC for extended periods at every con. I could easily explain many different of characters were derailed by a rule change. So I highly doubt time is an issue.
Now, if they want the responsibility is a better way to question the proposal. I am sure some VCs would prefer to not have to deal with these kinds of issues. I could see some VCs not wanting to deal with the crybaby antics some will definately bring. But they have to deal with that anyway. This would just invite more.
|
|
Now VCs are(atleast to my understanding) be able to judge a PFS game. If they can judge a game they should be able to read and understand the rules well enough to make a decsion. A VC that can not do that I feel is not worht being a DM.
The only part of the VC role description that refers to GMing is the requirement to GM one game a month. That doesn't necessarily make them an expert on the tetori monk, or a dual-wielding gunslinger, or the changes between the playtest and final versions of the warpriest.
VCs are approved and selected by Mr. Brock. They are representatives of PFS. Well if a VC is being to liberal or harsh. Then report that to Mr. Brock like always. That could be an issue. I do not see it as one, but I understand it could be one.
It's not about being too liberal or harsh. It's about your suggestion being extremely subjective. You can see for yourself in the warpriest thread how experienced GMs make different interpretations based on the same information.
If a player wants to make a change they should present the VC with books they own
Email easily reaches 200 miles in a couple of seconds. On the back of every guide to OP there is the VCs emails.
I'm supposed to email my books now?
Any anyway, what if my characters are a sheaf of character/chronicle sheets? I'm supposed to scan them or manually type them in?
|
|
Asking VCs to take on THIS role, in addition to the thousands of other things they are required to do is just too much. I don't think having VCs or VLs, for that matter, adjudicating rebuilds and giving a thumbs up or down is the way to go, and frankly, I think it gets us further away from finding a reasonable solution.
Yes, this is a key point I overlooked. WHEN is this review supposed to happen?
|
|
Knowing the rules for classes is essential to dming. If a Dm does not know the rules well enough to be explained how a character works. They are not good enough to be a DM either. I am sorry, but thatis a sad response. They do not need to experts on theory crafting. Just enoguh to understand rules and be knowldegable enough to know they effect eachother.
You and I are not going to agree on this point. There are many solid GMs who don't know the rules for all classes. They may know some, be familiar with others, but they don't know all the rules for the classes, or more significantly, the various archetypes.
Now I do not know the time constraints on a VC. I have close friends that are VLs and I chat my local VC for extended periods at every con. I could easily explain many different of characters were derailed by a rule change. So I highly doubt time is an issue.
If you don't think time is an issue, try being a Venture Officer. Remember, VOs are volunteers, and as someone who spends a large amount of his time outside of PFS doing a significant amount of work related to volunteer recruitment, development, and retention, I can tell you there is only so much you can ask of unpaid volunteers. I don't know what your VCs or VLs have told you, and maybe it's different for them, but the amount of time we donate to these volunteer positions, generally, isn't insignificant.
Now, if they want the responsibility is a better way to question the proposal. I am sure some VCs would prefer to not have to deal with these kinds of issues. I could see some VCs not wanting to deal with the crybaby antics some will definately bring. But they have to deal with that anyway. This would just invite more.
Oh, by all means, let us just invite MORE of that sort of stuff. Honestly, there is too much of it now in PFS. I cannot fathom how someone can essentially say, "oh, we already deal with it now, more won't hurt."
I don't support a complete rebuild (which, by the way, is a boon for higher Tier GMs at Gen Con, etc.) each time something changes. I would support a limited rebuild, but in no case would I want the VO (either VC or VL) to have to approve it. I can't agree with that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps a more reasonable solution would be to put a notice in the AR document to the effect of
"With all new releases, there may be specific cases of items or abilities that turn out not to be in keeping with the philosophy or practice of organized play. If you choose to use material from a resource soon after it is published, understand that there will be a period during which some things may be errata'ed or removed from play. Be aware of the rules regarding such changes before you use this material."
In other words, be an educated and reasonable consumer of leading-edge material.
|
|
We will agree to disagree then. If I came across a PFS DM that could not learn the rules, I would be upset. More so if they are a VO. I would report it to the organizer and try and have them removed. To me not being able to leanr the rules for a class is sill if they plan to ever DM.
I think you severly over judge the amount of time it would take, and under value the time you have available. You have time for everything important, if you do not have time for it, it is not important.
Mr. Brock reads EVERY single post int he PFS forums. He alerted me it bothers his wife he does this so much. Not only because it is his job, but he has a passion for the game.
You VOs are the same. If some person came up to you and talked about their character would you not have time for them? I doubt it. You woudl be excited to talk to them abotu something you both love. The same with character builds and rule changes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We will agree to disagree then. If I came across a PFS DM that could not learn the rules, I would be upset. More so if they are a VO. I would report it to the organizer and try and have them removed. To me not being able to leanr the rules for a class is sill if they plan to ever DM.
Emphasis mine.
I'm sure the vast majority of PFS GMs could learn the rules to a class if needed (e.g. the first time they play it, or the first time it comes up in an adventure they're running). If that's what you mean, then we're good.
But for every PFS GM to know all the rules for every class (including those in the ACG)? That's a ridiculously unreasonable expectation, and I sincerely hope it isn't one you hold.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We will agree to disagree then. If I came across a PFS DM that could not learn the rules, I would be upset. More so if they are a VO. I would report it to the organizer and try and have them removed. To me not being able to leanr the rules for a class is sill if they plan to ever DM.
I think you severly over judge the amount of time it would take, and under value the time you have available. You have time for everything important, if you do not have time for it, it is not important.
Mr. Brock reads EVERY single post int he PFS forums. He alerted me it bothers his wife he does this so much. Not only because it is his job, but he has a passion for the game.
You VOs are the same. If some person came up to you and talked about their character would you not have time for them? I doubt it. You woudl be excited to talk to them abotu something you both love. The same with character builds and rule changes.
Alright, since you asked:
1. I have two small children at home.2. I work three jobs - 1 full time, and 2 part time.
3. I volunteer for a not for profit, where I serve on the board of directors, which is an unpaid position. I travel frequently, on my own dime, for that.
And with all of that, I still find SOME amount of time to serve as a VL, organizing events, running games at the local game store etc. With respect to you, it is entirely presumptuous of you to say that I under value the time I have available. How could you possibly know about the time I have available, and whether or not I under value it? And please, do not lecture me about what is and is not important. Things in life have differing levels of importance. I set aside the time I need to, but I can't make more hours suddenly appear in the day. Some things in life are more important, and so they get more time (see #1, above.)
If a player came up to talk with me, presuming I had the time available, I'd be happy to do so. That, however, is not a luxury I always have. If I'm between games at a con and I need to run to the bathroom or grab dinner, I'm sorry, but that player is just going to have to wait. If I am organizing an event where I am responsible for making sure a number of tables go off, players get seated, etc., that takes precedence and that player may be waiting an hour or more, depending.
Just because someone wants to come up and talk with me right then about something (whether PFS or other aspects of my life), they don't just get to talk to me about it forever if there are other, more important things to which I must attend.
How nice it must be to live in some fantasy world where all the time one needs is automatically available whenever one needs it. I assure you the real world doesn't work that way.
And you still have not answered my question as to how long you think this adjudication would take, even by a VO who knows everything about EVER class. How many characters would they be looking at on a daily basis? How long would it take to look at each one? What if ONE player floods a VO with character after character? What about other players - don't they deserve to have their characters looked at, too?
This is, if I may be frank, a terrible idea to have VOs involved in this. If you are insistent on total rebuilds every time one thing gets changed, then you need to figure out another way for it to happen.
|
|
i'm hoping Zen archer gets banned to I can rebuild into a more fun class, instead of this super broken monstrous thingy...
Heh. I keep hoping the "clarification" for the Sound Striker Bard comes through, so I can rebuild out of it for free. The clarification is definitely errata, not just clarification, and, for some of us, changes the fundamentals of how the archetype works.