Venture-Captain, Netherlands
|
| 4 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...
Hey...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
|
.. 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.I don't think that BNW is denying that inexcusable, community-destroying behavior is real.
Uh, nooooo, when there's enough lead that it's making people sick you take action agianst it.
|
|
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.
|
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).
|
|
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.
| 1 person 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.
Based on my experiences on the internet, that trick never works. It only undermines the whole board's etiquette.
|
|
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
|
|
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.
|
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.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
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...
|
|
Add a level of lorewarden to a character you'd rather rebuild anyways...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.
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.
|
|
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.
Add a level of lorewarden to a character you'd rather rebuild anyways...
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.
|
| 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.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Appalachia
|
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
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.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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
|
|
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.