|
"This player used the breath of life purchased on chronicle number 23 "
I am unsure of your point as that would again net nothing. The player can still make the trade of gold for service, given the rule becoming legal.
Unless you were trying to support my point with more frivolous things he could write? But, if so, I tell you it is already covered.
|
"This player used the breath of life purchased on chronicle number 23 "I am unsure of your point as that would again net nothing. The player can still make the trade of gold for service, given the rule becoming legal.
Oops. My bad. I thought the there was nothing you could do was in regards to the current situation where they could do it anyway.
|
|
"This player used the breath of life purchased on chronicle number 23 "I am unsure of your point as that would again net nothing. The player can still make the trade of gold for service, given the rule becoming legal.Oops. My bad. I thought the there was nothing you could do was in regards to the current situation where they could do it anyway.
No. My words were predicated on his, where the basis is 'after the rule becomes legal, I will deny it at my tables'.
I'm trying not to get sucked into this ridiculous conversation, but that post irked me just from how illogical it was and how infused it was with "I am G.M.! That means God Master of the universes! Both real and imagined! My say is all there ever was and ever will be!"
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mayyybe it's just my limited newbie perspective.
Maayyybe it's just that I've been playing PFS for almost two years.
I haven't seen any of the apocalyptic visions of doom spring from someone having an 'off' wand, or using their PFS CLWW MK I MOD O like it's going out of style.
But if someone bailed out my character, that character (with the aforementioned one exception FOR A GOOD REASON) would do everything in their power to clear that debt. ICA=ICC, to use the old MUSH lingo.
So if they could balance the books for someone much more easily than a vague promise to maybe someday maybe never ever help someone else if the stars align but only if there's an odd number of letters in the day of the week that the game is played on they'd be on board for it as would I as a player.
Not having that option is really frustrating because being able to repay someone who had the foresight to bring 'x' (and then plan accordingly in the future) doesn't leave this loose karmic end that's sort of dangling, a quantum karma as it were.
Maybe I'm just weirdly wired.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mayyybe it's just my limited newbie perspective.
Maayyybe it's just that I've been playing PFS for almost two years.
I haven't seen any of the apocalyptic visions of doom spring from someone having an 'off' wand, or using their PFS CLWW MK I MOD O like it's going out of style.
But if someone bailed out my character, that character (with the aforementioned one exception FOR A GOOD REASON) would do everything in their power to clear that debt. ICA=ICC, to use the old MUSH lingo.
So if they could balance the books for someone much more easily than a vague promise to maybe someday maybe never ever help someone else if the stars align but only if there's an odd number of letters in the day of the week that the game is played on they'd be on board for it as would I as a player.
Not having that option is really frustrating because being able to repay someone who had the foresight to bring 'x' (and then plan accordingly in the future) doesn't leave this loose karmic end that's sort of dangling, a quantum karma as it were.
Maybe I'm just weirdly wired.
Different people show friendship in different ways. Different people show teamwork in different ways.
I prefer people and friends accept my generosity when I give it, than feel beholden to pay me back. And because that's how I personally operate, I would absolutely hate playing a game with people that would expect me to pay them back.
This isn't a transaction game. This is a social game.
|
|
I prefer people and friends accept my generosity when I give it, than feel beholden to pay me back. And because that's how I personally operate, I would absolutely hate playing a game with people that would expect me to pay them back.
This isn't a transaction game. This is a social game.
Yeah, this is my primary objection to the rule. (Together with "but the rule is optional!" being a red herring, as I am quite sure the guilt and social pressure to be transactional would grow.)
NN959 diagnosed my worry as being about fighters getting a short stick because they still have to pay for their armor that everybody benefits from, but that's not right. That's one narrow example of the fact that the shared nature of the endeavor means that there is a LOT more than healing (or even consumables) that people are depending on from each other, and focusing on that one is distorting. But, even that is secondary to the fact that I'd rather be playing a social game than a each-dog-for-himself transaction game.
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Different people show friendship in different ways. Different people show teamwork in different ways.
I prefer people and friends accept my generosity when I give it, than feel beholden to pay me back. And because that's how I personally operate, I would absolutely hate playing a game with people that would expect me to pay them back.
This isn't a transaction game. This is a social game.
Do you only play conventions or something? People won't feel beholden to you if you tell them not to.
"Pay-it-forward" is a respectable paradigm and can coexist with "pay-it-back".
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If my post was illogical and unrationale, than it made its point. People argue over enough, why give more things to argue or be ostracized for?
Then wouldn't the best response be to only put your foot down when they DO argue about it and let those who want to cooperate, cooperate?
You could state up front that there will be no table discussion of it allowed, except perhaps a brief discussion during introduction. Either the subject reimburses someone or they don't and that is the end of it. I am beginning to think that is likely how I would handle it. As a PFS GM I may not have the right to stop them from reimbursement, but I do have the right to silence table arguments.
Seems to me this is similar to the concept of banning certain builds or classes from the table because they might be disruptive. It seems to me the spirit of PFS is to punish people for what they do do, not for what they might do.
|
Pay it forward does not, and can not exist in a game that uses adventure records.
And Rainy, my point was simple. I objected to it, I said I wouldn't allow it, and that if that meant I'd have to stop judging than ok. (Now this is still hypothetical because no rule change has yet been announced, merely discussion.)
Yet since than the replies have been negative.
This somewhat proves the point of being black listed and ostracized. I'm merely talking about it, what happens when someone demands repayment at a table, or else they'll take their action back?
Slippery slopes friends. Be wary.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pay it forward does not, and can not exist in a game that uses adventure records.
It can. It does. To some extent
This somewhat proves the point of being black listed and ostracized. I'm merely talking about it, what happens when someone demands repayment at a table, or else they'll take their action back?
It does nothing of the kind, you're being completely nonsensical. You'd be black listed for forcing your own rules on players rather than the campaigns.
Slippery slopes friends. Be wary.
Its a logical fallacy for a reason.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sin, no one is objecting to you saying you would not participate in the rule as a player. They are objecting to you saying you would willfully and deliberately create an issue as a GM where it doesn't exist by going out of your way to make sure that no one at your tables can participate in a (hypothetically) legal rule, no matter how amicably they do so. Your statement that you will not follow the rule is creating more drama than the rule ever would.
Honestly, we should all just stop responding, as trying to convince someone after they've made the statements Sin has is fruitless. It distracts from any real debate of the issue, which I'm guessing was probably the point.
On topic, if the rule is implemented to allow this, I would suggest that it be very directly worded to state that participation is not mandatory and that GMs have the power to step in if there is an issue. Whether or not to use a consumable is a difficult choice regardless of whether or not they are allowed to be replaced by other characters. If a creature has the ability to blind characters, and there's one potion of Remove Blindness in the party, using it on someone else means it's not there for you to use yourself, if you become the next target. Potions of Fly or anything else can have similar issues. And that's true regardless of whether or not they can be replaced by someone else. I think altering the rule to allow replacement has some merit. I think there is some potential for creating peer pressure. But I don't know that it's any more pressure than currently exists, where a player might feel pressured to use their own consumable on someone else, even though it can't be replaced.
And again, my belief is in either situation you do what is best for the group. Sometimes that will be what's best for your character, too, sometimes it won't. That, to me, is what it means to cooperate.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pay-it-forward cannot exist in a Pay-it-backwards environment.
The current proposal WILL become mandatory, just like buying a healz wand.
One cannot afford to both, purchase for the future and dump wealth to pay for everything.
~
Example, player 1 uses a 500 gp consumable on player 2, player 2 is guilted in to repaying player 1.
Playing in a low tier game, player 1 makes money, player 2 makes chump change or loses money.
THIS IS NOT COOPERATION!
~
Look at the socially mandated purchases, you cannot truthfully tell us that re-pay will not become mandatory.
I HAVE seen new players playing CRB pregens getting lectured by Players and the GM for not having their own healing, and to not expect to be healed by the party.
I have seen the opposite, actually, but was keeping my mouth shut on this because it's an ugly thing.
The 'Oh, hey, burn through all the pregen's stuff! We don't have to pay for THAT. Save your resources, let *insert pregen character here* use their *insert item here*' sort of thinking, before the character playing the pregen even has a chance to offer it.
|
|
The 'Oh, hey, burn through all the pregen's stuff! We don't have to pay for THAT. Save your resources, let *insert pregen character here* use their *insert item here*' sort of thinking, before the character playing the pregen even has a chance to offer it.
We usually make a joke about turning the pregen upside down for lose pocket change and wand charges.
Anyone playing a pregen is probably unfamiliar with the bizzare and exploitable nature of their consumables, they're usually ok with it after the explanation.
|
|
Pay-it-forward is largely an honor system. You can't really codify, require, or manage it else it become something other than pay-it-forward.
I play mostly at the local level. Not at conventions. And I would hate having either an explicit or socially implicit requirement to pay people back. It defeats the idea of teamwork and generosity.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pay-it-forward is largely an honor system. You can't really codify, require, or manage it else it become something other than pay-it-forward.
I play mostly at the local level. Not at conventions. And I would hate having either an explicit or socially implicit requirement to pay people back. It defeats the idea of teamwork and generosity.
Playing locally, you can help establish your local culture. If you don't like implicit expectations to repay people, be explicit about your preference not to be repaid, or purchase from your party members.
Surely, the people you game with regularly will respect your chosen playstyle. The only new requirement is to be up front about your expectations.
|
After reading through most of this thread, I will admit my opinion has been changed. I think the rules that are in play as is are there for a very good reason. I can understand how "paying back for consumables' can basically turn what is a generous act to a monetary exchange, a fee for service.
Anyways, I think things should remain the same.
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Different people show friendship in different ways. Different people show teamwork in different ways.
I prefer people and friends accept my generosity when I give it, than feel beholden to pay me back. And because that's how I personally operate, I would absolutely hate playing a game with people that would expect me to pay them back.
This isn't a transaction game. This is a social game.
Andrew I hear you and I applaud your generous spirit! I think though that the dynamic between say relatives on one end of the scale and total strangers on the other is different. Some people will feel beholden others taken advantage of.
I don't think a player who has forgotten to replace an expensive consumable and had to rely on one of yours should be forbidden to replace it like for like for fear that is going to open the flood gates to players presenting each other with a bill for consumables used or to refuse to offer them without a promise to replace. I prefer to believe the generosity I see in PFS play would continue.
Allowing a player to for example replace like for like a single consumable of a value of 750gp or greater by marking it as bought/consumed on their ITS and the same item on the donor PC's ITs not being marked as consumed stops penny pinching and allow mitigation of a problem. It might even encourage players with a less altruistic philosophy to pony up the consumable the party needs when they need it :-)
I am guilty of letting this happen at a table.
Someone expended a BoL scroll and another player wanted to reimburse. He purchased a scroll marked it expended. The other character did not mark there scroll expended.
I'm curious as to how the scroll worked at all... did the person who cast it walked around with the scroll constantly in his hand?
|
|
I'm curious as to how the scroll worked at all... did the person who cast it walked around with the scroll constantly in his hand?I am guilty of letting this happen at a table.
Someone expended a BoL scroll and another player wanted to reimburse. He purchased a scroll marked it expended. The other character did not mark there scroll expended.
It really should be handed to a second string front liner They pull it out and hold it up, healeo walks over takes it reads it, and touches.
"READ FROM THE BOOK!
"But you said...
"READ FROM THE BOOK!
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is not over exaggeration, it is a possible event.
I ask you, do you want to be stuck at a table with PCs of 2+ level with only 150 gp worth of gear/cash? This is a possibility created by the proposed regressive tax, I mean rule...
It's also possible there is a teapot orbiting Mars. Doesn't mean there actually is, or this nightmare scenario you've constructed will actually happen. I have faith in the people I game with. What jerks do you sit down with? And have you considered other, friendlier venues?
Yes, a CLW wand is a basic contribution everyone can make to not be a drain on another player's resources. So is paying back for consumables you use. And so is buying consumables. If for some reason you prefer to pay forward, it's good to explain that at character introduction.
tl;dr Even de facto rules have exceptions. It's only a bad proposition if you make it bad.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm curious as to how the scroll worked at all... did the person who cast it walked around with the scroll constantly in his hand?I am guilty of letting this happen at a table.
Someone expended a BoL scroll and another player wanted to reimburse. He purchased a scroll marked it expended. The other character did not mark there scroll expended.
spring loaded wrist-sheath.
spring loaded wrist-sheath.I'm curious as to how the scroll worked at all... did the person who cast it walked around with the scroll constantly in his hand?I am guilty of letting this happen at a table.
Someone expended a BoL scroll and another player wanted to reimburse. He purchased a scroll marked it expended. The other character did not mark there scroll expended.
You'd still need the move action to unroll it. It'd have to be pretty tightly wound not to jam up inside the sheath.
You'd still need the move action to unroll it.Citation?
Can you specify where it says that unrolling a scroll is a free action? Can you even say where it specifies that you can even stuff a scroll in such a sheath?
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Without rehashing many great posts in this thread, I have to say it seems like the don't be a jerk rule would get around a lot of the issues if we were to allow co-operative reimbursement.
Agreeing to pay someone back would happen on a player level before it happens on a character level.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can you specify where it says that unrolling a scroll is a free action? Can you even say where it specifies that you can even stuff a scroll in such a sheath?You'd still need the move action to unroll it.Citation?
Eh... not really wanting to argue spring loaded wrist sheathes here, as it's a digression, but you've just created a rule to nerf scrolls. If you want to do that in a home game, it's cool.
But if you don't like the concept, just don't allow scrolls in wrist sheathes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you specify where it says that unrolling a scroll is a free action? Can you even say where it specifies that you can even stuff a scroll in such a sheath?You'd still need the move action to unroll it.Citation?Eh... not really wanting to argue spring loaded wrist sheathes here, as it's a digression, but you've just created a rule to nerf scrolls. If you want to do that in a home game, it's cool.
But if you don't like the concept, just don't allow scrolls in wrist sheathes.
Thread hijack.
A scroll is a heavy sheet of fine vellum or high-quality paper. An area about 8-1/2 inches wide and 11 inches long is sufficient to hold one spell. The sheet is reinforced at the top and bottom with strips of leather slightly longer than the sheet is wide. A scroll holding more than one spell has the same width (about 8-1/2 inches) but is an extra foot or so long for each additional spell. Scrolls that hold three or more spells are usually fitted with reinforcing rods at each end rather than simple strips of leather. A scroll has AC 9, 1 hit point, hardness 0, and a break DC of 8.
To protect it from wrinkling or tearing, a scroll is rolled up from both ends to form a double cylinder. (This also helps the user unroll the scroll quickly.)
This to me says that it doesn't need a move action, maybe a swift action at most, but I would personally even argue that the unrolling is part of the activation, but that never gets mentioned.
|
|
spring loaded wrist-sheath.I'm curious as to how the scroll worked at all... did the person who cast it walked around with the scroll constantly in his hand?I am guilty of letting this happen at a table.
Someone expended a BoL scroll and another player wanted to reimburse. He purchased a scroll marked it expended. The other character did not mark there scroll expended.
...and you're assuming someone has bought Adventurer's Armory? I don't know if there's much else in there that really garners as much attention as that single item. I love the fact that for some reason it never made it into UE.
|
|
Actually, RAW says it's a double cylinder. Dropping one end means you can see the bottom half of the scroll - the top half is rolled up still, in your hand, with the "top" still inside the roll.
I don't run the game that way - I'm pointing out (again) the absurdity of "RAW" in the absence of "RAI" and "it's a game, cut the rules some slack".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So apparently the topic of the thread has been played out so far that the group has decided to move on to a different flame war.
Shouldn't the scrolls in spring loaded wrist sheathes debate get its own thread? For that matter, without actually looking, I'd guess it's already had a few of them in the past.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **Thats not raw. Thats a pair of decisions you're making. Theres no reason you can't just drop one end and have it unfurl. Its parchment, much, much stronger than paper.
I keep thinking of one of those toy guns where you pull the trigger and a rod extends out of the barrel and a flag drops down that says "Bang."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, RAW says it's a double cylinder. Dropping one end means you can see the bottom half of the scroll - the top half is rolled up still, in your hand, with the "top" still inside the roll.
I don't run the game that way - I'm pointing out (again) the absurdity of "RAW" in the absence of "RAI" and "it's a game, cut the rules some slack".
Raw does say its a double ended cylinder
A double ended cylinder does not automatically mean two hands. Flicking it open one handed isn't good for its shelf life, but if you're unfurling a breath of life scroll in one hand in a hurry chances are thats a moot point...