We are forced to use a feat if it lack the text "you can choose to"?


Rules Questions

151 to 175 of 175 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Yeah, but you can't market a product that doesn't do what it says it does.

Well, yeah.

Now, I have this snake oil here that will cure all your woes. Plenty of people buy it, so it must work. Want some?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Edited.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Yeah, but you can't market a program that doesn't do what it says it does.

Still, perceptions that objectively "good" products naturally rising to the top is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the economy works. It sounds great in high school intro to econ classes, though. So, insinuating a "put up or shut up" spin to the discussion is really counter productive and fallacious itself.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Buri Reborn wrote:
So, insinuating a "put up or shut up" spin to the discussion is really counter productive and fallacious itself.

You shouldn't read into things that aren't there.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Buri Reborn wrote:
So, insinuating a "put up or shut up" spin to the discussion is really counter productive and fallacious itself.
You shouldn't read into things that aren't there.

Stop trying to drop witty one liners and acting like nothing else is going on.


Maybe something productive?


Not in this thread


I was until you popped up, guy.

Is guy too soon? "Pal" and "buddy" seemed too antagonistic even though it goes along with the meme.

But, really, even when I pointed out your error you persisted trying to act oblivious. So, yeah...


Buri Reborn wrote:

I was until you popped up, guy.

Is guy too soon? "Pal" and "buddy" seemed too antagonistic even though it goes along with the meme.

But, really, even when I pointed out your error you persisted trying to act oblivious. So, yeah...

You should probably just fold.


TriOmegaZero wrote:

I still don't see an error.

Edit: Well, other than continuing this tangent. At least we can still clean it up ourselves.

The error was pushing a fallacious narrative.

You said:

Quote:
And anyone who can program that would likely have a very profitable software to market.

The fallacious potion is likely. It feeds into the mindset that I mentioned, which, again, is great from the "ra, ra, go America" angle but just having a working product doesn't get you anything.

To which, your likely response is as you said: if you don't have anything then you don't have anything to market. That doesn't counter or resolve anything with the prior statements. So... >.> <.<


Ascalaphus wrote:

Good (without significant bugs), on time, on budget. Pick two.

Writing game rules is more like writing software (that runs on peoples' minds) than it is like scientific papers.

Wow! What a wonderful metaphor! (The rest of your quote, pointing out the difficulties with the "software" project in question, was iMHO also well-worded.)

BigDTBone wrote:
At any rate I would agree with your assessment that of "good, timely, and cheap" only two can be had. Which is a fine argument, however is not the argument I was pushing back against. I was simply trying to point out that "the only way to add clarity is to add length" is patently false and a terrible argument.

This whole discussion reminds me of how I learned in college that I could put a whole lot more editing into a maximum-two-page paper than a minimum-ten-page paper. I turned out crisper, clearer writing as it had to get terser, by dint of rewriting the whole thing at least twice. So clear text, on time, within word-count is doable... for small projects. The bigger the project, however, the easier it was to simply add text as a fix for ambiguity. If you want clarity, both work, but verbosity is far, far faster than brevity!

And the writers for our favorite books have big projects that still come with a maximum, not minimum, length. They can't literally rewrite an entire chapter -- twice -- to cut the word-count in half while making it clearer. They've got the next chapter to get to. And maybe they tried quickly adding an extra, disambiguating sentence or paragraph somewhere, but the editor cut it to get the word-count in line.

I actually want to come to the editors' defense, too. They've got a big, tough job as well, and they're naturally not given the time to carefully read each chapter three times over. I don't have the personal experience, unfortunately, to speak about their job. I just think there's room in the world for kindness over a missing "you may" in a feat description. Or an even more glaring error making its way into print.

For context's sake, a very old -- but published -- short story featured a lunar colonist stranded out on the moon's surface with nothing but a spacesuit. He was eventually rescued... by helicopter. I haven't heard of anything that bad here yet!


DrDeth wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


As an example comparing his idea of taking 10 to the FAQ(made after he left), and you see that it is not the same at all.

where is that FAQ?

It was not an FAQ, but a ruling so I apologize for misspeaking, but it still is a different direction than the team had when SKR was around, which is the point I was making.

Here are the relevant replies.

PDT wrote:


The point of the Take 10 option is to allow the GM to control the pacing and tension of the game, avoiding having the game bog down with unnecessary and pointless checks, but still calling for checks when the chance of failure leads to tension or drama, as well as when a series of checks would have a nonsensical result if all outcomes were exactly the Take 10 result. To that end, it would be counterproductive to attempt to make a strict ruling on what counts as “immediate danger and distracted” because that’s going to vary based on the pacing and dramatic needs of the moment. The very soul of the Take 10 rule is in the GM’s discretion of when it applies, and tying the GM’s hands, forcing them to allow Take 10 in some cases and disallow it in others would run counter to the point of the rule’s inclusion in the game. The rule is currently flexible enough to allow this, and it should maintain that flexibility.
DM Blake wrote:


So, to translate into simpler terms: No FAQ required because Rule Zero...

This is quite unacceptable. We bought the rulebook, and keep buying supplemental rulebooks, because we want rules. Or at least guidelines telling us when it's a good idea to apply a rule and when it's not a good idea.

Saying "Oh, here's a fun rule but your GM is expected deny your use of it whenever he whimsically feels it would be more dramatic" is worse than having no rule at all. If we wanted that game, we could all just sit around playing "make-believe".

Why even sell a rulebook at all? The CRB could have been one page long and would have said "Everything is whatever the GM wants; you're all subject to his whims, fancies, and interpretations. Deal with it." End of rulebook.

"Design" is the middle word of "Pathfinder Design Team" but this non-answer is also non-design.

Very disappointed.

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:


I understand you are disappointed, but quite frankly the rest of what you say is hyperbole.

There are rules for take 10, but the last thing we are going to do is try to cover every instance on when you can take 10 or not. The game is far too complex and has a narrative structure where we must trust our GMs to make the best decision possible during play. And we do trust our GMs as well as the players to make arguments as to why they should be allowed to take 10 at a certain instance. Creating a long list of yes and no for all the situations of the game would end up being nothing more than advice anyway.

That is at least why I supported the answer how it stands. No FAQ needed.

Good gaming!

However I had already seen that bolded sentence as a possible reply when I wrote the FAQ so I addressed it with the idea to take care of it before it could be used as a non-answer. I specifically asked for a "good rule of thumb".


Trouble with that is, doesn't it give credence for a PFS GM to say "no take 10, period"?


Buri Reborn wrote:
Trouble with that is, doesn't it give credence for a PFS GM to say "no take 10, period"?

Yes. It can be used to justify literally any behavior by the GM so long as they can say that they were doing it because of "mah dramah and pacing".

That is exactly why it is a widely despised "non-FAQ". It is as if part of the player base asked "This is too vague, can you be more specific?", and the PDT responded "Too vague you say? 'k then, to be more specific, it can be anything your GM wants it to be because they know how to write their story better than you, you poor stupid player...why are we giving this non-answer, you ask? &$*% you, that's why."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, that's dumb. I can understand the PDT's consternation over the topic, but that shouldn't dissuade them from giving a comprehensive answer. I mean, they let FAQs rack up hundreds of requests and not answer them. Why not take some time to really mull this one over?


Snowlilly wrote:
Agodeshalf wrote:
To me the problem is clearly one of editing. I would love to see the standardization of language usage.

Standardization of language is one of my favorite arguments for Pathfinder 2.0

It is too late to try to standardize language in the existing game.

I'd love to see a stand-alone, heavily-edited "The Compleat Pathfinder" set of books. Something like Core, but addressing a lot more (albeit not all!) of the current set of classes, including archetypes, along with many of the profusion of feats & spells that have come out.

Heavily edited to address language issues and interaction issues and lack of clarity issues with the existing set of books.

Stand-alone, because the minute you call it "Pathfinder 2.0" and start adding to it, you'll quickly stretch the language and the interactions to the breaking point. And because the idea would be to consolidate everything into one truly integrated but multi-volume guide. All of the mundane stuff you need to build a character in one book, for instance, listing each covered class side-by-side. The rules on magic and the spell listings for those classes might be in a second, and what you need to actually play -- combat and GMing and such -- in a third. Oh, ICE did that, didn't they? Before... supplement after supplement. Well, umm, this would be better. Really, it would. Stand-alone.

Scarab Sages

Buri Reborn wrote:
Trouble with that is, doesn't it give credence for a PFS GM to say "no take 10, period"?

Well, yes and no. Because they as a team are trusting the GMs not to be jerks about it, and players to be accepting of times when the GM says no.

The problem is some GMs don't see it as jerky to say no every time, and some players don't take no well when they wanted a yes. Welcome to the human condition. Then again, this is the same problem you run into with many many many different rules and concepts. Everyone's idea of how to play the game will be different in at least small ways and sometimes large ways. The PDT purposely leaves room in the rules and design space in their world for the GM to do as they please. (Personally, I dislike holes purposely left in the world... a GM is free to change whatever they like at any time already. I'd prefer they create a complete world.)

The only answer is just don't play with the GMs you don't like and try to avoid players who don't gel well with your GM style. That'll mean you'll have unsatisfactory games sometimes, especially in PFS. You can try to use the leadership system in PFS to help the GM in question better understand the social contracts involved with the game and the rules in question... but sometimes that won't help either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Buri Reborn wrote:
Yeah, that's dumb. I can understand the PDT's consternation over the topic, but that shouldn't dissuade them from giving a comprehensive answer. I mean, they let FAQs rack up hundreds of requests and not answer them. Why not take some time to really mull this one over?

I would happily settle for a rule of thumb and a short, reasonable, non-inclusive list of examples. Something like "Take 10 should generally be disallowed when your attention or focus is split between multiple things, or when you are in an extremely distracting environment. For example, leaping over a river of lava or climbing up a sheer cliff face would permit taking 10. Leaping over that same river while bits of flying volcanic debris are coming down, or climbing up that cliff with a struggling hostage would disallow take 10".

Instead we got "GMs can do whatever for their story, yo".

Dark Archive

johnlocke90 wrote:
By RAW, yes it is mandatory.

Yeah, I had a GM that demanded I always have Power attack and Combat expertise active at all times.

He also kept telling me my dwarf with racial hatred of orcs and goblinoids feels sorry for them.
Needless to say I didn't play with that railroading GM for long.

Scarab Sages

Gurby wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
By RAW, yes it is mandatory.

Yeah, I had a GM that demanded I always have Power attack and Combat expertise active at all times.

He also kept telling me my dwarf with racial hatred of orcs and goblinoids feels sorry for them.
Needless to say I didn't play with that railroading GM for long.

Well, he was right. Both Power Attack and Combat Expertise can be ruled to always be on. Of course, the feat may be "on" but the benefit allows you to choose when you use it. Meaning it does nothing till you choose to use it. If he claimed you couldn't not power attack, then he was changing the rules(which is something he is allowed to do) but in an almost definitely bad way.

But a GM shouldn't tell you how your character feels unless you are under some effect. I can understand you leaving the game.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Bill Dunn wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
A true professional writer can absolutely make statements quite clear and concise without having to sacrifice brevity.

Since it doesn't say "may", does this mean that they have no choice but to do so?

Professional writers try to do so. They don't always succeed. This isn't a question of "no TRUE professional writer ever writes something too briefly to be clear", it's a question of "not everything works out the way you intended."

Note that I said "can." Just because I CAN get an A on an English test, doesn't mean I'm always going to.

It's merely in the realm of likelihood. However, a poor writer trying it isn't likely able to do the same.

Being able to write clearly and concisely is one of the ways people can tell the difference between an experienced and talented writer, and an inexperienced talentless hack.

151 to 175 of 175 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / We are forced to use a feat if it lack the text "you can choose to"? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.