|
If an older chronicle sheet opened up a character option and stated a specific resource is the Adventurers Guide considered a new legal resource if it reprinted that option?
I have the option of creating Thassilonian wizard characters from a certain (well known) chronicle sheet. It states an older and harder to find resource a being needed to make such a character. Thassilonian magic rules are also found in the much newer Adventurers Guide.
|
There was at least one earlier instance, involving new mythic options becoming available from Distant Shores. The Additional Resources text for the new source made it clear that it added to the options available from previous chronicles that gave an explicit source. The AR citation for Adventurer's Guide may do the same.
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
I don't have the boon myself, but I suspect it specifically mentions the Thassilonian Specialist archetype (rather than just a general specialist in Thassilonian magic.) So the archetype in question is not legal from a new source anyway.
The Thassilonian Specialist archetype is similar to, but not the same as, the Runesage archetype. For instance, it's impossible to use a familiar as a Runesage, and it doesn't stack with certain archetypes (replaces arcane bond.) The "original" specialist also gives you the school powers of whichever school you specialize in, rather than sticking you with Hand of the Apprentice.
Thassilonian Specialist is in the Adventurer's guide.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the text of the class is unchanged in Adventurer's Guide, then Adventurer's Guide is also a legal source if you have the necessary chronicle.I was referring to the Boon from finishing the season 4 scenario Waking Rune.
I am fully aware; I've ran that scenario twice. If the text is the exact same, I can't imagine anybody giving you trouble for it.
Edit: It appears on page 63 and appears to be unedited from the original version.
|
|
No, you are required to have the original for use with the boon.
Adventurer's Guide is not a listed source for the the archtype on the boon, and therefore cannot be used.
Many GMs wont give you a hard time about it but some might. better safe than sorry.
BTW i know how irritating it must be. i'm playing a Thassalonain Wizard Cyphermage, and got called on using the wrong book.(i had the other book though i was just looking up in the new one.)
|
|
No, you are required to have the original for use with the boon.You can use the Adventurer's Guide version for that boon as well.Nan'er nan'er...
LoL, just kidding :-P
I think Asheira was trying to help What you're seeing there is a player repeating what a GM or Venture Officer has ruled when the situation came up for them. There seem to be three stances taken on items like this, either "It doesn't say you can, so you can't," or "I'm not sure," or "That seems logical, I'm sure it's fine." Thankfully on this issue, we now have an answer. I just sometimes wish fewer GMs would jump straight for the more restrictive options when a situation isn't clear. And maybe that at least VOs would get some instruction on how to handle similar things in the future instead of it varying so widely depending on who is interpreting the rule.
Thanks, Linda, for clearing this one up.
|
|
...maybe that at least VOs would get some instruction on how to handle similar things in the future instead of it varying so widely depending on who is interpreting the rule
That’s hard to do considering there are many more questions that go unanswered, or at least go a long time before an answer is received than the ones that are. The developer’s primary job is creating content much more than Q&A so VOs, organizers, and GMs are often required to make intuitive decisions with a lack of a definitive direction.
Generally speaking the game rules are exclusive more-so than inclusive, so it makes sense to rule conservatively more often than liberally (no political connection implied). In most cases, we are left trying to forecast what we think the intent of a rule is and most people, after hearing some discussion, make a decision that becomes somewhat “firm” in their mind. Obviously <this> is the way Paizo would rule, if not then the person would change their position. Sure there are people who decide fiat in whatever way benefits them the most, but in my experience that is not the norm. And when Paizo does make a ruling that is not inline with our decision, people are often surprised. This is all a philosophical perspective though so YMMV
|
|
Note: I’m just suggesting this. I’m not demanding it, or saying you should already be doing this, or even that you should have the time to do this. But I think doing it would make for a better experience for the people participating in events put on by the Organized Play Foundation and PFS.
This isn’t a rules of the game (Pathfinder) issue, though. This is a how does PFS work issue. And I’m not suggesting that someone need make a ruling on every possible corner case. I’ve never been a VO, so I don’t know what material is out there for them. I don’t think there is an equivalent to GM101 aimed at VOs and how to mediate PFS specific issues, but I think something like that existing might be a good idea and something to think about before PF2 gets too far along. Questions like what should you do if Additional Resources isn’t clear? The answer to that might be take a conservative reading of it and don’t allow the option until it’s made clearer. Or it might be allow the option for that game then go looking for more information after. That’s all I’m suggesting, that instead of every individual VO deciding for themselves with no advice, maybe collectively you could come up with some advice and provide that as part of whatever packet VOs receive when they sign up. The VO corps has become more structured over the years. Suggesting that part of that structure might include some general guidance on how to approach issues they might run into with vague or unclear campaign rules shouldn’t be that unusual. Maybe something like this exists behind the scenes already. If it does, I’d suggest including information on how to handle unclear language in the Additional Resources or on a boon in the future.
I think in this situation specifically, a lot of newer boons that open up options say something like “or another legal source,” which solves this particular issue for the most part.
|
|
The problem is it’s not that simple. There are as many occasions were permissive is the right answer as exclusive. There is no one right way to adjudicate rules ambiguity. The best you can do is read the related rules, read similar rules and any clarifications/FAQ, listen to arguments on both sides, and then decide what you think is “right.” Generally, I believe that is exactly what people, including VOs do. As such, there are times when people don’t agree. It’s inevitable. Only on the most passionate cases, usually involving a ruling that directly affects them do these things escalate to the point someone feels like they are being screwed.
|
|
I think you’re still conflating what I’m asking about with the mechanics of the game. What is or is not a legal source shouldn’t have to be ambiguous. There shouldn’t need to be table variation on whether or not the book you bought can be used. And general guidance like “when in doubt, don’t send a player away from the table” should be possible. There will always be decisions that the VOs have to make that aren’t clear. I guess I’m asking if there is any material to help them make those decisions. Because there are definitely VOs out there who take the hardest line possible and don’t allow anything without something specific addressing it, and VOs out there who allow everything. And multiple versions in between. Table variation around who can play at a table, what a legal source is for an ability, and other PFS specific, non-Pathfinder mechanic related issues really doesn’t have to be as common as it is right now.
|
|
Table variation around who can play at a table, what a legal source is for an ability. . . really doesn’t have to be as common as it is right now.
Fortunately, I haven't run into this but once, but shouldn't the fact that the player needs to produce the latest version of the Additional Resources document along with his copy of the source so that he can show where his source is made legal solve prevent that problem?
|
|
I’m talking about situations where the latest version of the Additional Resources isn’t clear (edit: or the guide, or a boon, or whatever). Like was described above. A boon made an option legal from a specific book. The option then appeared in a newer book with identical text. Does that mean a player with that boon can use the option if they only own the newer book? Or only if they own the previous source? The archetype is not legal from either source without the boon. So a player shows up at one location and the VO decides the new book is probably fine, at another location and is told they can’t play the character unless they purchase a different, older book that might not have anything else in it they care about.
We now have an answer for that specific item, thanks to Linda. As Bob pointed out, the PFS team doesn’t always have the time to provide those answers.
The suggestion is more around providing guidance to VOs on how to handle the situation when something isn’t clear. Not around answering every rules question specifically. We have GM101 which does things like suggest to GMs that they have a conversation with the player when there’s a difference in interpretation of a rule, make their best judgement call, and let the player know it only applies for that session until/if more information can be found.
What often happens on the VO side (and GM side when there’s no VO present) is that there’s no discussion. There’s a definitive answer given to an unclear question, which then gets relayed by the player to others as the definitive answer, because it came from someone with some authority.
It may be assumed that VOs will take care when confronted with that kind of issue, but it definitely doesn’t always happen in practice. VOs are human, and everything that comes with that, just like GMs and players. If a document can exist to help GMs who might be new to the role become better GMs, why not something similar for VOs to become better VOs? Not to clear up every unclear issue, but to help them handle it better and more consistently.
Not to mention a large percentage of the VOs will never see the clarification and don’t visit the boards. So even though we have clarifications on this issue, or whether you can replay for no credit when there are already 3 players at the table, or what’s meant by adjacent subtiers and whether or not a 5th level character can sit at the same table as a 1st level character in a 1-7, there will continue to be VOs and GMs out there ruling contrary to those clarifications, and bad information will continue to spread among players.
I don’t know if a more restrictive approach is better or worse than a less restrictive one. I do think a lot of VOs and GMs are deciding that for themselves and not on a case by case basis, which results in a wide variation of what’s allowed on some of these issues, and which often comes across as chastising the player for having done something wrong. That’s not a good situation for building a community. At least if there was some document somewhere saying, “We’ve looked at how to handle ambiguity, and we decided it’s best for the campaign to err on the cautious side and restrict options that aren’t clearly legal,” a player would know they aren’t being singled out or a VO would know it’s ok to say no.
I understand a lack of time to accomplish things like putting yet another document together. I don’t understand a general resistance to the idea that VOs, much like GMs, could maybe use some advice on how to handle situations like these or just in general to benefit from the experience of people who have excelled at being VOs. And, I’m suggesting that now, while PF2 is about to launch and lots of new players and Venture Officers will be joining (I hope)might be a good time to look at how things have been working and whether or not there is room for improvement. What it seems like I’m getting as a response is if we can’t cover every issue, there’s no point in trying to improve things.
|
|
The suggestion is more around providing guidance to VOs on how to handle the situation when something isn’t clear
We already have that—"use your best judgement." There simply isn't any standard rule for how to evaluate when something isn't clear. One of the reasons we have VOs is to empower someone to make a determination in the absence of one. We are empowered to review the situation, consider whatever guidance we are aware of or have immediate access to, listen to the argument/position of those present, and make a decision that in our perspective is in the best interest of the community. We trust our leaders to do that until they prove otherwise. Generally speaking that's how leadership works virtually everywhere.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Columbia
|
There has been table variation since the first book printed by Gygax was released. There is no way around it. The ultimate goal is for everyone to have fun at the table.
I think what you really want, Ferious Thune, is a guidebook for VOs. That would not be a bad thing, but if they don't read it, then what?
We need VOs to organize things. I think we need more than we have. They're not going to get paid. They're volunteers. Do you think a training program would help? Sure! It would be great. Who is going to put it together? Who will run it? How do you get the VOs to go through it? What do you do when they fail? What about refresher training?
Should we have something similar for GMs? Could we? Who does all of this? Who puts the time into it? Do they get paid?
A lot of questions there.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The VO handbook never seems to make it out of committee :/
I think the flip side of this problem is really: how do you recognize that an option in two books is the same thing - or not? By name?
* If an option appears in two books with totally different effects, like a dueling (PSFG) vs. a dueling (UE/APG), then we'll assume they're really different things.
* If an option appears under the same name and with roughly similar text, we assume they're the same. Sometimes the new version is a bit nerfed though (Jingasa, Clear Spindle, Lorewarden, Fencing Grace) but the old book remains a valid source. Most of the time, the Clarifications will tell you that you can use the old book to prove your right to use the option, but refer you to the new text as to how the option works.
* But sometimes it doesn't. Take the trait Lessons of Chaldira Zuzuristan. Using quotes from d20pfsrd because Nethys only shows one version, but I don't see anything in AR/Clarifications that says to use the new version. The old version is a lot better.
* And then you have stuff nobody can keep straight. I dare anyone to recite from memory how many times the current version of the rules flip-flopped on scorpion whips being whips for feats and having 5, 10 or 15ft reach.
There's a tendency among VOs to say "the newest printing is always right", but that's not a rule at all. Not in Pathfinder. It's a rule in Magic the Gathering, which has lots of rules for resolving issues like this. Those rules have such a market share that people import them in Pathfinder. But the fact of the rules is that if a book is a legal source and there's no clarification to contrary, you can use that text with all its advantages even if the same option is published weaker in a different book later on.
So yeah, I think VO decision guidelines for this would be a good thing, instead of pinning our hopes on the Clarifications team catching every individual thing.
|
|
There has been table variation since the first book printed by Gygax was released. There is no way around it. The ultimate goal is for everyone to have fun at the table.
I think what you really want, Ferious Thune, is a guidebook for VOs. That would not be a bad thing, but if they don't read it, then what?
We need VOs to organize things. I think we need more than we have. They're not going to get paid. They're volunteers. Do you think a training program would help? Sure! It would be great. Who is going to put it together? Who will run it? How do you get the VOs to go through it? What do you do when they fail? What about refresher training?
The VOs have a hierarchy now. I’m not looking for a full training session, just some kind of consistent guidance. The RVCs could certainly put their heads together and come up with something and see that it is distributed to at least the VCs, who could then distribute it down the line. The more separate the OPF becomes from Paizo, the more this becomes the responsibility of the OPF and not Paizo. This is primarily about making sure that the events the OPF put on are run as consistently as possible and that volunteers in the OPF have some help doing so. Turning a player away from the table or denying their character when the rules aren’t clear, or just VOs who don’t take the time to do the things Bob has said they should and instead rule in very direct, very abrupt ways, leads to players leaving organized play. The reason we don’t hear about it more is because those players have left PFS.
Should we have something similar for GMs? Could we? Who does all of this? Who puts the time into it? Do they get paid?
A lot of questions there.
We do have something similar for GMs. It’s called GM 101, and it’s a free download. It was put together by volunteers. I don’t know how many GMs read it, but I also don’t know how many VOs make their GMs aware that it exists. Encouraging them to do so is an example of the type of thing that could go in the VO document. As to who puts in the time, maybe there isn’t anyone who can. That’s a much more acceptable answer to me than being told there’s no need for it and the situation is fine as is. As to being paid, that’s a topic around the OPF I’d rather not get into here.
The VO handbook never seems to make it out of committee :/
It’s good to know it’s been discussed. If Bob had said so up front, I wouldn’t have felt so much like he was denying that there’s a problem. Again, knowing that you’d like to do something, but don’t have the resources (or can’t agree what to do) is much better than being told individual VOs can do whatever they want and you don’t understand how that’s a potential problem.
Your other points are valid, but again, it’s not about any one decision. It’s about how the VOs go about making their decisions, the perception of PFS that leaves players with, and the propagation of bad information as a result.
We are empowered to review the situation, consider whatever guidance we are aware of or have immediate access to, listen to the argument/position of those present, and make a decision that in our perspective is in the best interest of the community. We trust our leaders to do that until they prove otherwise. Generally speaking that's how leadership works virtually everywhere.
True to a point. In very few situations is leadership empowered in such a way without some kind of guidance from the higher ranks about the organization’s philosophy. Does the OPF want players turned away from tables when VOs (and GMs) aren’t sure if they should be? Does the OPF want individual areas of PFS operating differently from each other where basic questions are concerned? Does the OPF want the only method of addressing that behavior to be a player complaining about the volunteer in their area? Because that last thing is unlikely to happen. Much more likely is that the player just decides it’s not worth it and stops showing up to game at that location.
Bob, you are the higher ranks for the OPF. Not Paizo. The RVCs are the ones put in place to manage the VCs, etc. That’s why it’s troubling when you respond in what comes across as a very dismissive way.
I’ve been asking myself why I got into this now, and I think it comes down to three things:
I saw an RVC make a joke at a player’s expense, when all that player was doing was repeating something that one of that (or another) RVCs volunteers has told them. I know that you didn’t mean it as a put down, but to me it came across very poorly for a high level volunteer in the OPF, since it highlights one of the problems that I see with the way things have been for at least the 7 years I’ve been involved with PFS. Dissemination of bad information as fact leads to a lot of confusion, and to me it’s a big problem when two VOs can’t agree if someone can sit down at a table and play. And then the player goes out and repeats whatever they’ve been told. And then a VO tells them they’re wrong for doing so in not the greatest way. So now they’ve had one experience where a GM told them they were wrong for bringing the character to the table, then they repeat what the VO told them, only to find out they were right (or at least fine going forward), then to be slammed, whether intentional or not, for repeating the information they were given the first time they were told they were wrong. I have no idea if Asheira took the joke that way, but it didn’t look good from my perspective.
Second, PF2 is coming and there’s going to be a lot of new information. It doesn’t have to get disseminated with the amount of variation that we have now. Whether or not it does is largely up to you given your role in the OPF, so you seemed like a good person to bring the issue up.to. There will also be a lot of new players and volunteers if PF2 is successful, so it seems like a good time to try to catch the problem before it recurs. And there’s been a renewed focus on gauging the quality of the volunteers in addition to the quantity of time that they spend volunteering with the suggestion of a review process for GMs.
And finally, that your response came across as you don’t see a problem with the current system. A basic question like can a level 5 character sit at the table with a level 1 character in a 1-7 is not something that should have table variation. It should not have VOs disagreeing with each other. Whether or not In Service to Lore is retired shouldn’t be a matter of table variation, and yet I’ve seen people stating that it is. I don’t remember if a VO stated it directly, or if it was another “my VO told me it was” situation, but it is confusing and bad for the game when the people organizing the game can’t agree on simple questions like that. And it’s exhausting having to go through the process of pointing out to people where the clarification is over and over and over again, when often times they are the people who are supposed to know these things or know where to look. I’ve seen it argued that old clarifications on the forums don’t matter because they’re old and never made it into the FAQ or the guide. I have no way of knowing if they’ve been told to do that or if they’ve decided that for themselves. I can go on.
You are in a position to see if there is anything that can be done to improve the situation, but you don’t seem to think any of that is a problem. And if that’s where you are with it, then I can’t really do anything else to convince you.
One last time I’ll say that I don’t think any of this is done intentionally by VOs, and I don’t think anyone is a bad VO because they’re doing what they think they’re supposed to be doing. They are all volunteers. But I do think everyone’s experience would be better if they were given more guidance than they currently are. Ultimately I’m not in a position to make that happen. You are.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And there’s been a renewed focus on gauging the quality of the volunteers in addition to the quantity of time that they spend volunteering with the suggestion of a review process for GMs.
Whose suggesting this because Im relatively sure that any suggestion is just going to end up rife with abuse and harassment?
|
|
It’s not a big change. Just increasing the number of observed games for getting a 5th glyph from 1 to 3 and adding evaluation rankings along the lines of didn’t meet expectations, met expectations, or exceeded expectations in several categories. Nothing that would keep someone from GMing. Just increasing the requirements for a 5th glyph and making it more reflective of the GMs abilities than the number and type of games they have run. I see positives and negatives to that approach, with the negatives mainly being around access to VCs to do the review (I don’t have one in my state).
Sorry. I didn’t mean to bring that discussion here. I was just pointing out that another, somewhat related conversation is taking place with regards to GMs, which was part of why I thought now might be the time to have a conversation about VOs as well.
EDIT: HERE is a link to a blog where the plans were announced. Most of the discussion on GM novas is in that thread. It’s a better place to post questions about it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... much better than being told individual VOs can do whatever they want and you don’t understand how that’s a potential problem.
That’s not at all what I said. We have an informal process by which we mentor VOs. Some VOs are more effective at it than others, and teaching someone how to make decisions does not automatically mean they will always do the right thing. Yes, VOs like any member of our community can do whatever they want IN THE MOMENT. It is how we react to it that matters. If someone demonstrates poor judgement, address it. Explain to them what was wrong and encourage improvement. Failure to improve or demonstrating repeatedly poor judgement should result in the VO being dismissed. It really is that simple. The complications occur when the process is not followed. From that perspective, no I don’t see a problem.
|
|
... much better than being told individual VOs can do whatever they want and you don’t understand how that’s a potential problem.That’s not at all what I said.
It is very much how it came across. Your explanation below is a good bit clearer.
We have an informal process by which we mentor VOs.
I’m far from convinced this is happening consistently across PFS, but at least it’s something and better than just trusting everyone will figure it out on their own. I’ll submit that the existence of a document would provide a source for VOs who don’t get the mentorship you’re describing, and that it might even make that mentorship easier in the future.
Some VOs are more effective at it than others, and teaching someone how to make decisions does not automatically mean they will always do the right thing. Yes, VOs like any member of our community can do whatever they want IN THE MOMENT. It is how we react to it that matters. If someone demonstrates poor judgement, address it. Explain to them what was wrong and encourage improvement. Failure to improve or demonstrating repeatedly poor judgement should result in the VO being dismissed. It really is that simple. The complications occur when the process is not followed. From that perspective, no I don’t see a problem.
I’ll continue to disagree that a system which relies on the complaints of players/GMs to know there is a problem is an effective system.
I’ll also continue to disagree that a system with as much confusion as PFS has had around its rules is a good system, and say that I hope going forward more of an effort is made in whatever form to avoid that.
There are a lot of things that PFS gets right organizationally, but the difficulty in getting a consistent answer to a simple question about the rules of organized play has definitely not been a strong point, and has caused a lot of damage to the community over the years. In many ways, the problem seems to have gotten worse the more things have decentralized from the OPC. I appreciate when Linda or one of the other members of the campaign management drop in and provide clarity on an issue like above. As you’ve said, they don’t always have the time for that or can take a while to get to it. I just feel that when they don’t get to it, it’s possible to have a better system than we have currently for sorting it out in the meantime.
|
|
Generally speaking RVC don’t have a magic crystal ball to determine what is the best answer to unclear situations, neither are any other VOs. The instructions you seem to be asking for is something that would have to be produced by Paizo themselves, from the perspective of those who have the final say with the clarifications. If we were to do it, it will have the same type of hypothetical process as we already have. Given their demonstrative lack of time to address all the variable questions that come in, I doubt they would have the time to generate such a manuscript in any meaningful way.
To a large extent our community is a volunteer driven one. Meaning that many of the tools and conveniences we have were created by someone who recognized what they perceived as a problem and created a solution. My advice is that since you seem to be more passionate about this topic and see the problem moreso than we do, try your hand at creating the solution.
|
|
I don’t know why you think the RVCs aren’t in the position to do this. No, you don’t know what Paizo will ultimately say on a given issue, but if anyone can ask them, it’s you. Yes, you can instruct the venture officers on what they should say in the meantime on any given issue or in general how they should approach making rulings. If your (or the RVCs collective) best judgement is that everyone rule the same on a situation until Paizo provides a better answer, you could absolutely make that call, tell your VCs, and so on.
You (the RVCs) could also, for example, appoint a Venture Officer who is not responsible for organizing games, but is instead responsible for staying on top of and collecting all of the forum clarifications into one place so that other VOs and GMs can find them. At least the clarifications as they relate to the operations of the OPF and organization of events. (I’m not looking for that job, see note below).
You (the RVCs) could appoint a VO or team of VOs to work on a VO guide.
Maybe I could go out and collect the rulings myself, if I had the time. Players have done that in the past before the OPF existed. But I certainly don’t feel qualified to write a guide for VOs having never been a VO. I don’t know all of the resources available to VOs, and am apparently not supposed to know about the ones I do. So I would be a very poor choice to write such a guide.
The point being, if an individual VO can make a decision on how to rule in any given situation, then the group of VOs could collectively make a decision on how to rule. And a consistent rule in most cases would be very much preferable to the confusion we often have now.
Note on myself: Despite contributing a significant amount of time over the years to the campaign locally and doing the work of at least a Venture Agent organizing games for the last couple of years, it’s been my choice not to apply. Largely for reasons unrelated to the game itself. I’ll happily discuss them through private messages if you really need more of an answer, but the situation is not going to change for me for at least a year.
|
lots of passionin here and will say I agree with both sides on some things. there are so many rules out there that are hard to track down and find an answer for. GMs have to make quick rulings and often are not the popular right answer. would it be nice if VOs stayed up to date on current rules and hot topics,YES, but people have lives and sometimes dont have time. The worst thing I have heard over the years is a 4 star telling me they didnt even know of the FAQ. Or try reading FB posts where 30 differant people have varing answers to a question when it has already been answered in the FAQ. I have been a VO and think I keep up on rules but there are times Im wrong when answer someone. it happens, even with things i knew really well last here but have forgotten. Than VOs get blamed for just being there because they didnt correct a ruling, but they want to have fun too and shouldnt jump in with advice in every game.