Handling of changing rules: Why has it been getting harsher?


Pathfinder Society

601 to 650 of 697 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

a couple quotes just seem to be called for here...

"There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch."

and

"I can tell people are judgmental just by looking at them."

yeah...

The Exchange 5/5

nosig wrote:

....snipping to make this more "on track"...

Crud... this is a massive derail again.

Back on track again!

"Handling of changing rules: Why has it been getting harsher? "

IMHO: it might be because there are more players now, and (with the interconnectedness of the Board) TPTB notice the "problem" children more. In 100 gamers, if you have 1 bad apple, it means you have 10 in a thousand. 100 in 10,000 etc. And if that Jerk plays only once a month, used to we would hear about problems say once a month. Increase the player base by a factor of 4 and you have problems being reported once a week. Increase by a factor of 10 and you get a problem report once every few days... by a factor of 100? and you get drowned in problem reports. So harsher rulings begin to pile up. Or the occasional Harsh ruling - given out one a month suddenly becomes a daily thing...

Yeah, maybe that is what we are noticing

yeah - even I am starting to repeat myself... ;)

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wow... I keep thinking "this thread couldn't be more of a dumpster fire" and I keep being wrong.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Well, when ya get us all together, these things happen.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Well, when ya get us all together, these things happen.

You mean TOZ and TriOmegaZero?

5/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.

We were arguing before it was cool.

Scarab Sages 5/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Well, when ya get us all together, these things happen.
You mean TOZ and TriOmegaZero?

Wouldn't that cause an implosion?

Scarab Sages 5/5 Venture-Captain, Netherlands aka Woran

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Take 10 wrote:

a couple quotes just seem to be called for here...

"There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch."

and

"I can tell people are judgmental just by looking at them."

yeah...

Hey...

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

In war, like in love, you need to be two

Each post by any of the sides fuels the fire

I have several times now started to type a retort to a post on this thread (and a few other recent ones like it) and realized in time that I would only have been adding more fuel :-(

It is hard not to respond when you feel that people will think the other side had the better arguments and thus won, just because you did not want to add to the tension

Dark Archive 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
Wouldn't that cause an implosion?

NO THEY JUST STUFF YOU IN A BOX!

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

Not really, it is still completely valid. It ranges from defending your position so aggressively that you hurt it to just being so negative you turn people away, whether you're defending or attacking. Which has been occurring a lot in this thread.

Which, because those variables are dependent on the audience and not any particular standard, will happen every single time your audience is as large and diverse as the internet.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
rknop wrote:

I don't think that BNW is denying that inexcusable, community-destroying behavior is real.

.. just that its inevitable to SOME extent. You don't call tap water toxic because it has .01 parts per million lead, you just accept that in any large enough cup of water there will be some lead there and move on.

Scarab Sages 5/5

QuadOmegaZero wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Wouldn't that cause an implosion?
NO THEY JUST STUFF YOU IN A BOX!

What's inside the box!?

Dark Archive 5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
What's inside the box!?

PAIN.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
rknop wrote:

I don't think that BNW is denying that inexcusable, community-destroying behavior is real.

.. just that its inevitable to SOME extent. You don't call tap water toxic because it has .01 parts per million lead, you just accept that in any large enough cup of water there will be some lead there and move on.

Uh, nooooo, when there's enough lead that it's making people sick you take action agianst it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Bob Jonquet wrote:
GM Eazy-Earl wrote:
If the players barrel through a scenario, but everyone got to do their cool thing and have fun doing it, does it matter to me if the NPCs and monsters I'm running get shut down?

I agree and have had that philosophy for a long time, but someone finally presented this to me in such a way that that I finally said, hmmm maybe?!? Dunno!?!!

So, if a player does something clever or just uses their character's abilities optimally to quickly and efficiently curb-stomp an encounter, we usually applaud them for their ingenuity, and generally encourage said behavior, except in the rare case when they are doing it to an extreme stealing all the action from the other players. However, if a GM uses the same methodology of clever tactics or optimized abilities, we cry "badwrongfun" and call them an adversarial GM. We seem to expect GMs to only play bad guys well enough to inconvenience the players without actually killing them. Now, I'm not saying I disagree with that, but some would say it is unfair to expect experienced players to turn off their tactics/rules mastery whenever they are GMing.

Once the GM kills or disables my PC, I am done and cannot participate anymore.

I have yet to see an in-game trick from a player that thus shuts down the GM and prevents them from participating.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Killing all their NPCs seems to work.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

Considering this thread has been locked at least three times and posts removed, I seriously doubt any meaningful new dialog is going to present itself. I'm happy to be proved wrong, but I won't hold my breath. I am quite certain Paizo designers and developers are keenly aware of this thread and if they felt it prudent, would have commented long ago. Their silence indicates they are either unable to respond (because they have not decided on how to adjudicate the new rules for PFS) or are unwilling to respond (perhaps because no matter what they say, they are going to be attacked by someone/s who feel slighted or marginalized).

Scarab Sages 5/5

The Raven Black wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:
GM Eazy-Earl wrote:
If the players barrel through a scenario, but everyone got to do their cool thing and have fun doing it, does it matter to me if the NPCs and monsters I'm running get shut down?

I agree and have had that philosophy for a long time, but someone finally presented this to me in such a way that that I finally said, hmmm maybe?!? Dunno!?!!

So, if a player does something clever or just uses their character's abilities optimally to quickly and efficiently curb-stomp an encounter, we usually applaud them for their ingenuity, and generally encourage said behavior, except in the rare case when they are doing it to an extreme stealing all the action from the other players. However, if a GM uses the same methodology of clever tactics or optimized abilities, we cry "badwrongfun" and call them an adversarial GM. We seem to expect GMs to only play bad guys well enough to inconvenience the players without actually killing them. Now, I'm not saying I disagree with that, but some would say it is unfair to expect experienced players to turn off their tactics/rules mastery whenever they are GMing.

Once the GM kills or disables my PC, I am done and cannot participate anymore.

I have yet to see an in-game trick from a player that thus shuts down the GM and prevents them from participating.

Depends on what you consider meaningful participation from the GM.

Silver Crusade 3/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Online—PbP aka Redelia

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's also possible that the designers and developers are leaving this thread alone as much as possible, realizing that a place to vent can help keep everything else more friendly.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
TOZ wrote:
Killing all their NPCs seems to work.

I must admit I have never seen a GM stop participating at the table yet

Also are we not supposed to get rid of our opponents in combat scenes (and our targets in faction missions) ?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Redelia wrote:
It's also possible that the designers and developers are leaving this thread alone as much as possible, realizing that a place to vent can help keep everything else more friendly.

Based on my experiences on the internet, that trick never works. It only undermines the whole board's etiquette.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Also are we not supposed to get rid of our opponents in combat scenes (and our targets in faction missions) ?

I think you misunderstood the 'all' part. :)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I think the team wisely avoids adding fuel to the radioactive bonfire, maybe in the dim hope that things will settle down eventually

Also they likely have more valuable ways to spend what little time they have available

That said some nuggets of wisdom might still appear in this thread

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
TOZ wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Also are we not supposed to get rid of our opponents in combat scenes (and our targets in faction missions) ?
I think you misunderstood the 'all' part. :)

That was what I feared truth be told

But I thought NPC VCs and other such in-game luminaries, like unto gods, did not have stats and thus were beyond the reach of PCs

Liberty's Edge Venture-Agent, Online

The whole lore warden nerfing came as a surprise to me because I never thought of using to build maneuver focused PCs that can shut down an encounter.

My one maneuver specialized PC isn't a lore warden and doesn't shut down encounters by herself.

My one lore warden PC only took 2 level because I wanted Combat Expertise and some bonus feats. Never took enough levels to care about maneuvers.

Dark Archive

Redelia wrote:
It's also possible that the designers and developers are leaving this thread alone as much as possible, realizing that a place to vent can help keep everything else more friendly.

I can guarantee that this thread, in no way, will make the rest of the board "more friendly". I'll be honest, some of the attitudes I've seen on this thread and the multitude of others like it make me question if I really want to continue to participate with PFS outside of my local lodge and I suspect I am not alone in that assessment.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

GM 7thGate wrote:

Interesting. I don't have a CMB character in PFS, but my first pathfinder character was a near-core fighter in Rise of the Runelords based off enlarge reach tripping. ...

I was kind of looking forward to building him as optimally as I could in PFS with his main levels as a lore warden, but I guess I won't get that chance.

Can I take a moment to point out something here?

We know that Field-Guide Lore Wardens are currently legal, but the class is going to be replaced, soon, with AG Lore Warden. As far as I know, how generous a rebuild our current Lore Wardens will receive is up for debate.

It would be easy -- but unethical -- to just make a Field-Guide Lore Warden now, and see how much of a rebuild one would receive. (Indeed, if somebody really liked Lore Wardens, to make dozens of Lore Warden PCs.)

That doesn't seem to be happening. Most players, like 7thGate, are respecting the environment and the desires of campaign leadership.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Chris Mortika wrote:
GM 7thGate wrote:

Interesting. I don't have a CMB character in PFS, but my first pathfinder character was a near-core fighter in Rise of the Runelords based off enlarge reach tripping. ...

I was kind of looking forward to building him as optimally as I could in PFS with his main levels as a lore warden, but I guess I won't get that chance.

Can I take a moment to point out something here?

We know that Field-Guide Lore Wardens are currently legal, but the class is going to be replaced, soon, with AG Lore Warden. As far as I know, how generous a rebuild our current Lore Wardens will receive is up for debate.

It would be easy -- but unethical -- to just make a Field-Guide Lore Warden now, and see how much of a rebuild one would receive. (Indeed, if somebody really liked Lore Wardens, to make dozens of Lore Warden PCs.)

That doesn't seem to be happening. Most players, like 7thGate, are respecting the environment and the desires of campaign leadership.

I agree with this observation, and it is encouraging.

The Exchange

Why would somebody make a lorewarden? At best they get a full rebuild to remake what they could have just made instead. At worst they wasted their time.

It doesn't sound like respect as much as it be completely nonsense to make a dying archetype.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Ragoz wrote:

Why would somebody make a lorewarden? At best they get a full rebuild to remake what they could have just made instead. At worst they wasted their time.

It doesn't sound like respect as much as it be completely nonsense to make a dying archetype.

Add a level of lorewarden to a character you'd rather rebuild anyways...

The Exchange

Tallow wrote:
Ragoz wrote:

Why would somebody make a lorewarden? At best they get a full rebuild to remake what they could have just made instead. At worst they wasted their time.

It doesn't sound like respect as much as it be completely nonsense to make a dying archetype.

Add a level of lorewarden to a character you'd rather rebuild anyways...

That sounds different from making a new character like in the described example.

I don't have an opinion either way about it though. Situations like these only occur because of the extreme lag time between publication and legality.

1/5

Ragoz wrote:

Why would somebody make a lorewarden? At best they get a full rebuild to remake what they could have just made instead. At worst they wasted their time.

It doesn't sound like respect as much as it be completely nonsense to make a dying archetype.

I didn't want to be the one to bring it up, but I have to agree with this sentiment. It could be player respect for the presumed wishes of the PFS team, sure. Or, it could be people not knowing what's going on and not wanting to run the risk of being stuck with a class that doesn't work for what they plan.

Speedrunning a single module for an aasimar or tiefling, which have all kinds of interesting RP possibilities and several race-restricted options? Might be worth your time. Speedrunning for a Lore Warden? Probably not. And exactly how many of those are you actually going to use, anyway? Plus, you'd also have to play each once at level 2 in case they did the same kind of thing as the summoner grandfathering, which would actually consume one of your limited-play scenarios. Why do that and run the risk of having the credit stuck on a (to you) unplayable PC?

Tallow wrote:
Ragoz wrote:

Why would somebody make a lorewarden? At best they get a full rebuild to remake what they could have just made instead. At worst they wasted their time.

It doesn't sound like respect as much as it be completely nonsense to make a dying archetype.

Add a level of lorewarden to a character you'd rather rebuild anyways...

But that's betting your existing character on a very permissive rebuild happening. If the final decision is anything less than a full rebuild, you're out a PC and the scenario(s) you played with them to gain a level of Lore Warden.

Scarab Sages 5/5

shaventalz wrote:


Tallow wrote:


Add a level of lorewarden to a character you'd rather rebuild anyways...

But that's betting your existing character on a very permissive rebuild happening. If the final decision is anything less than a full rebuild, you're out a PC and the scenario(s) you played with them to gain a level of Lore Warden.

If you feel you are out a PC regardless, then the risk might be worth taking. That being said, I would certainly find doing this fairly distasteful if technically legal.

1/5

Tallow wrote:
shaventalz wrote:


Tallow wrote:
Add a level of lorewarden to a character you'd rather rebuild anyways...
But that's betting your existing character on a very permissive rebuild happening. If the final decision is anything less than a full rebuild, you're out a PC and the scenario(s) you played with them to gain a level of Lore Warden.
If you feel you are out a PC regardless, then the risk might be worth taking. That being said, I would certainly find doing this fairly distasteful if technically legal.

Fair enough. I'd also find this quite distasteful, but some players would probably be perfectly fine with it.

Lantern Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I will restate I'm for these rules regarding rebuilds:

If an item you own has any changes you may sell it back at full price.

If a feat you know is changed you may swap it for free.

If your class or any class feature is changed you are allowed a full character rebuild.

ALL of these must be done before you play the next scenario with that character.

It keeps the rules simple and doesn't punish people into playing a nerfed build.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

People would not need to do the kind of "distasteful" things mentioned above if rebuilds were always possible

Where does this restriction of rebuilds comes from ?


Rebuilds after 1st level are explicitly disallowed in the Guide. Therefore, any rebuilds allowed by PFS brass when something gets nerfed are actually latitudes, not restrictions. PFS brass tries to walk the fine line between ameliorating the effects of a nerf, and not allowing wholesale changes to characters after nerfs. It is difficult to know here that line should be inscribed because everyone has a different opinion.

1/5

I don't think the question was "where does it say we can't rebuild?", but rather "why was the decision made to disallow rebuilds?"

There's a thread here on the topic, from when the APG came out. I wasn't playing at the time, but I gather that some other game system's organized play campaign allowed very free rebuilds, which rubbed certain people the wrong way. Among other things, they allowed a player to have basically a totally-different character halfway through their career.

Personally, I'd like to think there's a workable solution somewhere in between "suck it up/errata are good" and "amorphous XP blob."

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
shaventalz wrote:
there's a workable solution somewhere in between "suck it up/errata are good" and "amorphous XP blob."

I honestly do not understand how people believe a rebuild only when the devs / PFS officials change something is suddenly going to turn all PCs into an amorphous XP blob.

You can only change your character if the devs / PFS officials make a change to your character.

If someone sells you something, then goes to your house and changes how that product functions, I think you'd be justified in having the option for a full refund OR to keep the new changes. This doesn't mean that now every product in your house will always have that option.

The Exchange 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Lieutenant, North Carolina—Charlotte aka eddv

Tallow wrote:
supervillan wrote:

Bit of a screw-up all round then.

I feel bad for Mike and John, who may well feel like their trust was abused.

I also feel bad for the players who read the blog and thought that they were being told that 10 planetouched PCs would be OK, but who are now being told that they're wrong, and that such was clearly not Campaign Leadership's intention. Because it is possible to read the blog as being permissive.

And I feel bad for all of the players in the campaign who now stand to lose out, if current Campaign Leadership genuinely feel that the only way to stop future "abuse of trust" is to take away the toys. (I really hope that's not what they feel they have to do).

It doesn't feel lenient to me to say let's not set a hard limit, and then take punitive measures later on because there was a limit after all and people exceeded it.

I feed bad for everyone.

Lessons learned, I hope.

It wasn't that some arbitrary, yet ambiguously defined limit was exceeded. If that were the case, I would completely agree with you.

Its the way in which this limit was exceeded. The assumption (and yes, I understand what that means) was that people would build up a small stockpile by playing normally. That means they would get together and play a few scenarios at 0 XP to get their aasimar/tiefling grandfathered in. What does normal mean? Well, they spend 5 hours playing a game. And at the time, even the most prolific of players only played 3 or so times a week, but would they play all three times a week just to stockpile these character options?

I think the thought process was, that realistically, players would only have time to create 3 to 6 of these within the window between announcement and implementation. But when people specifically spent an 8 to 12 hour day running as many runs of a module in 20 to 35 minutes each, as they could, to stockpile as many as they could, that was the breach of trust. It was a willful and malicious attempt and blatant disrespect to the way the game...

I already see this with GM Stars and

Name of Scenario:
Feast of Sigils

To the point where I actually have come to sort of oppose the open to everyone star recharges not a year after thinking that was a really nice treat.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can only RE rerun the same scenario once , ever, so i don't see why it matters if you can refresh your stars once, once per year once per decade or once a month.


shaventalz wrote:

I don't think the question was "where does it say we can't rebuild?", but rather "why was the decision made to disallow rebuilds?"

There's a thread here on the topic, from when the APG came out. I wasn't playing at the time, but I gather that some other game system's organized play campaign allowed very free rebuilds, which rubbed certain people the wrong way. Among other things, they allowed a player to have basically a totally-different character halfway through their career.

There is a selection of PFS players that do not want to allow free rebuilds because it offends there sensibilities. There is a selection of PFS players that don't give a hoot what other players do with their characters. This is a personal thing. PFS brass early on decided to side with the former.

Why is a question I cannot answer.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Pink Dragon wrote:
Why is a question I cannot answer.

It erodes a characters identity if the rebuilds are too easy.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:

Add a level of lorewarden to a character you'd rather rebuild anyways...

and this is an excellent reason why the fact that this is taking so long is a bad thing ... the abusive Ideas and loopholes not only start to flow ... but begin being discussed in public

and as soon as these things become public it puts a sour taste in the mouths of the people whom are making the decisions

The Exchange

This is another conflict still solved by just allowing the material to remain legal alongside the brand new material. It's not like the design team makes that decision. A new version of the archetype being created does not mean you MUST retire the old option.

Paizo can maximize the value to the customer of the products they have sold by keeping the old one legal, legalize options players can use from their newest material, and have an ending result of the most content available as possible for the campaign by including both options.

601 to 650 of 697 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Handling of changing rules: Why has it been getting harsher? All Messageboards