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


Pathfinder Society

351 to 400 of 697 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade 1/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I can see both sides on the "stockpile" issue. This happened when I'd only been involved in the campaign for 7 or 8 months, so I didn't have any plane-touched PCs (still don't).

I think if you read the blog post literally, it does say "yes, you can make 10 aasimars." Some people are going to read that completely literally. (Some people will only be able to read it literally). Now, I tend to agree with the view that says "but we're trusting you'll exercise good taste and..." means that Campaign Leadership didn't actually want players to go ahead and make 10 aasimars. But that being the case, the blog could have been worded differently.

In my experience, if you give an instruction it has to be a clear instruction. If you give a view, or you give guidance, you have to expect that some people are going to differ with your view or choose not to follow your guidance. It's generally reasonable to hold a different view, and it can be reasonable to choose not to follow guidance. Ergo, don't give guidance when you mean to give an instruction.


Bob Jonquet wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
How was the Lore Warden unbalanced?
I don't really think this is a relevant question anymore. Some say it was, some say it wasn't. Either way, the design/development team decided to make some changes to it and did so. Generally speaking, PFS follows the rules as published really only deviating when a game mechanic is not compatible with the logistics of OP. In this case, the compatibility of Lorewarden has nothing to do with it. The fact it changed just means we have to deal with the effect. That Paizo has not finalized how we are going to deal with it yet seems to show they are concerned with making the best decision possible for our community and that decision seems to be extremely hard to arrive at. In the end, some people are going to be unhappy. IMO that is unavoidable. I kinda wish they would just make a ruling, post to the AR and be done with it. The sooner we peel off the band-aide the sooner we can heal the wound and move on.

With respect, Bob, I believe it is still relevant because it gives some guidance about what the criteria are for an established game mechanic to be revised after several years in play. It may not matter in regards to the Lorewarden change (as you said, the decision there is made), but it does still matter. I do not play PFS - which is a personal choice because I like playing fighter-types of characters, and there have been a number of times over the last few years where an option came out that seemed really cool and fun, and then was disallowed or nerfed for PFS play. It's not worth it to me to play such a restrictive game, even if it means less game time total. I've made paper characters that were PFS legal, and then months later they weren't. I'd rather not play and spend my time and money elsewhere, than play and worry about what part of my character is going to be invalidated with the next round of "Errata".

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

2 people marked this as a favorite.
supervillan wrote:
In my experience, if you give an instruction it has to be a clear instruction. If you give a view, or you give guidance, you have to expect that some people are going to differ with your view or choose not to follow your guidance. It's generally reasonable to hold a different view, and it can be reasonable to choose not to follow guidance. Ergo, don't give guidance when you mean to give an instruction.

Hence why the campaign staff have been MUCH more strict with their wording and likely why the Lore Warden issue is taking longer to resolve.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Agent, Rhode Island—Lincoln aka Upaynao

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If it is in good faith, sure.

But it strains (my) credulity that you would believe that ten planetouched PCs at 1 xp would be reasonable. Up until that point, it was barely manageable to get 15 characters to 33 xp (don't quote me on that, I did the calculation at the time for reasons unrelated).

So when I hear talk of 20 total planetouched characters, I do not believe that there was any good faith.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
supervillan wrote:
In my experience, if you give an instruction it has to be a clear instruction. If you give a view, or you give guidance, you have to expect that some people are going to differ with your view or choose not to follow your guidance. It's generally reasonable to hold a different view, and it can be reasonable to choose not to follow guidance. Ergo, don't give guidance when you mean to give an instruction.
Hence why the campaign staff have been MUCH more strict with their wording and likely why the Lore Warden issue is taking longer to resolve.

I think they are learning some principles of politics along the way, trying to look for the balanced position that will be palatable to as many people as possible, since their goal is to get the PFS audience as sustainably big as possible

Liberty's Edge

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

If it is in good faith, sure.

But it strains (my) credulity that you would believe that ten planetouched PCs at 1 xp would be reasonable. Up until that point, it was barely manageable to get 15 characters to 33 xp (don't quote me on that, I did the calculation at the time for reasons unrelated).

So when I hear talk of 20 total planetouched characters, I do not believe that there was any good faith.

Well, I did read 10 up there in good faith. But then I am not a native speaker, so nuances might escape me

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

I might quibble over 'sustainably big', but I suspect its just semantics.

Scarab Sages 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Tallow wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

I read we will allow 10, but if you do this, it is bad taste, aka BADWRONGFUN.

But we will not forbid it, just shame you for doing it :-(

NOTE : I think they got better at the Leadership job :-)

I'm with Schopmeyer on this one.

Saying, "We understand its possible to do X, but please be reasonable." Is not in any way tacit approval to do X. It really boggles my mind that this is what people are comprehending from that.

And still it happened in good faith :-(

Blaming people for what they understood in good faith is not fair IMO

I'm sorry, but I don't feel that it was done in good faith. Were there some people that ended up getting in on some of those speed runs without understanding all the details? Sure. I fully believe that some of those players may have not been avid forum goers and so only knew what those who set the speed runs up told them.

But willfully misreading something to mean what you want it to mean, is not good faith. And those interpreting what was written, after the fact, to mean something other than what was said in an attempt to alleviate themselves from any blame or guilt, is frankly disingenuous at best.

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

Gregory Rebelo wrote:

If it is in good faith, sure.

But it strains (my) credulity that you would believe that ten planetouched PCs at 1 xp would be reasonable. Up until that point, it was barely manageable to get 15 characters to 33 xp (don't quote me on that, I did the calculation at the time for reasons unrelated).

So when I hear talk of 20 total planetouched characters, I do not believe that there was any good faith.

I have no trouble believing that someone could, from the wording that has been presented, believe that stockpiling enough aasimars to be all their characters for the next few years would be reasonable. That would give a number of 10-20 as a maximum.

I didn't start PFS until a few months after this mess, but I think it's likely I would have put aside 4 or 5 if I had been playing at the time. But that's just because I see aasimars as a little less powerful than humans, but a lot more flavorful.

Scarab Sages 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Redelia wrote:
Gregory Rebelo wrote:

If it is in good faith, sure.

But it strains (my) credulity that you would believe that ten planetouched PCs at 1 xp would be reasonable. Up until that point, it was barely manageable to get 15 characters to 33 xp (don't quote me on that, I did the calculation at the time for reasons unrelated).

So when I hear talk of 20 total planetouched characters, I do not believe that there was any good faith.

I have no trouble believing that someone could, from the wording that has been presented, believe that stockpiling enough aasimars to be all their characters for the next few years would be reasonable. That would give a number of 10-20 as a maximum.

I didn't start PFS until a few months after this mess, but I think it's likely I would have put aside 4 or 5 if I had been playing at the time. But that's just because I see aasimars as a little less powerful than humans, but a lot more flavorful.

4 or 5 would seem reasonable to me. Especially since the blog post really implied strongly that 10 was too many.

I'll agree that it probably should have been explicit, and I argued as much behind the scenes before the blog went live. But Mike and John decided they were going to be really lenient and give the player base the benefit of the doubt, in good faith. You should have seen how livid Mike was after the speed run thing came to light.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

:(

*offers hugs to Mike*

Silver Crusade 1/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

Scarab Sages 5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
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 is assumed to be played (in 3 to 5 hour time periods). This method directly disrespected leadership and other players. That was the breach of trust.

Not 3 or 10 or 20 planetouched grandfathered in. The number created was frankly immaterial. It was the method by which it was done that was really egregious.

EDIT: And not to throw another can of worms into this hornets nest (yup, mixed metaphor). But this is also a huge reason why more lenient or open replay of scenarios won't happen. Masters of the Fallen Fortress was specifically farmed (due to the ease of playing this in less than 1/10th the time expected) for this particular situation. Completely open replay would result in other forms of farming for more power. Want that partially charged wand on your wizard's chronicle? Well just replay scenario X then.

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can understand a non-native English speaker missing the subtlety in the blog post. That happens.

I don't understand how someone would come to think that a speed run of The Confirmation was within the spirit of the rules.

Scarab Sages 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM OfAnything wrote:

I can understand a non-native English speaker missing the subtlety in the blog post. That happens.

I don't understand how someone would come to think that a speed run of The Confirmation was within the spirit of the rules.

I agree. A non-native speaker could potentially misread that easily. However, the primary suspects that did the egregious actions were native speakers.

Scarab Sages 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

:(

*offers hugs to Mike*

spitting nails comes to mind.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Tallow wrote:
Rysky wrote:

:(

*offers hugs to Mike*

spitting nails comes to mind.

*offers more hugs*

Liberty's Edge 4/5 Venture-Captain, Indiana—Northern

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Folks, we are way off the topic and into the realm of strongly implying (short of outright saying) that people are lying or dishonest. Can we please not impugn the character of people here? This situation is difficult enough without folks attacking one another personally.

Let's not do that, please.

Grand Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

11 people marked this as a favorite.

Thank you, Mark.

You just put my thoughts into words. I am going to go further and suggest another strategy for all of us. Instead of pointing fingers at other players and saying, "This is why we can't have nice things!" I'd like to try something new.

Let's envision what we would see as the best possible scenario for rules changes. What would it look like?

NOTE: Comments like "There would be no changes at all" are unrealistic. We are in a living campaign where changes will happen. Developers need to rebalance game rules as they see fit, somehow.

But what I would like to see instead is a proactive way of building trust, working together, and communicating how we would like to see those necessary changes to occur.

★ ---- ★ ---- ★ ---- ★

I'll start.

My Ideal Response from Campaign Leadership

In my ideal world, Campaign Leadership would post proactively about upcoming rules changes. They would post it for a few weeks for community comment (including the occasional forum explosion as people realize that their beloved characters will be hit by the rules change).

In this world, we know outright whether we will have to sell back items at full price, or get a free retraining for our characters, or whether there will be a grandfathering. There would be no uncertainty on the player's parts about what will happen to their characters. They would just know, one way or the other, what will be coming ahead.

I strongly believe that even if we don't like the answer, most players would rather know what is coming and the steps that lay ahead when dealing with the rules change. Uncertainy causes stress. Knowledge is power.

I also want to see you extend trust to the community by allowing character rebuilds to those whose characters are affected.

My Ideal Response from the Player and GM Community

Some forum explosions will happen. That is only natural when players become invested in a beloved character that they roleplay to the hilt.

Still, it is my dream that most posters will treat Campaign Leadership and each other with respect. If we want to be trusted, we also have to extend trust in return. If we need to express dismay, I want posters to include details about how the change affects their characters. I don't want to see gloating posts that imply others have built bad characters. Instead, I want to community to understand and respect that we all have different opinions.

If given advance warning, I expect us to thank Campaign Leadership for the warning and make the adjustments we need to once the initial shock of the rules change has passed.

Those are mine... What are yours?

I think that we can create a better environment for change. I'd like to challenge all of us to rise to the occasion.

Hmm

3/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

supervillan wrote:

2, Revisions to genuine mistakes need to come in early, not after 6 or 7 years. Again, for PFS (because a home campaign can just houserule at will) this is a bad thing because the longer an option is in legal play for the more use it will see. Change a feat or archetype after three months when campaign play demonstrates a genuine problem, OK sure that's probably the right thing to do. Change a feat or archetype after 7 years of play by a growing community that hasn't pointed to a problem, well that's disruptive and unhelpful.

Except they've been building up to it for a year now that they are going to be errating six to seven year old material so its not like its this is coming out of nowhere.

EDIT:
Not that it would have been obvious to notice unless you're going for a really really really really really specific build.

1/5

MadScientistWorking wrote:
supervillan wrote:

2, Revisions to genuine mistakes need to come in early, not after 6 or 7 years. Again, for PFS (because a home campaign can just houserule at will) this is a bad thing because the longer an option is in legal play for the more use it will see. Change a feat or archetype after three months when campaign play demonstrates a genuine problem, OK sure that's probably the right thing to do. Change a feat or archetype after 7 years of play by a growing community that hasn't pointed to a problem, well that's disruptive and unhelpful.

Except they've been building up to it for a year now that they are going to be errating six to seven year old material so its not like its this is coming out of nowhere.

EDIT:
Not that it would have been obvious to notice unless you're going for a really really really really really specific build.

Really? Where?

The blog posts, as far as I know, didn't say "reprint with errata", nor did they say "now part of your balanced build." The release post just mentions the "wealth of new player options", as does the product description. I didn't see any other mention of the Adventurer's Guide back through early Season 8 (using the in-site search.) Is it buried in the forum somewhere, not directly associated with the AG, or did I just miss it?

And even if it was online somewhere, that's still coming out of nowhere for the players that don't trawl the forums and read every single blog post for hints of the future.

3/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

shaventalz wrote:


Really? Where?
The fact that if you look at specific class abilities the wording on them has changed from earlier renditions of the same mechanic to the point where its kind of obvious that they are going to errata the APG version of it.
shaventalz wrote:


And even if it was online somewhere, that's still coming out of nowhere for the players that don't trawl the forums and read every single blog post for hints of the future.

Once again it wasn't on the blogs or the forums. I just noticed the copy editing and wording change very subtlety and that between PFS and the softcover/Adventurer's Guide its been very consistent.

1/5

MadScientistWorking wrote:
shaventalz wrote:


Really? Where?
The fact that if you look at specific class abilities the wording on them has changed from earlier renditions of the same mechanic to the point where its kind of obvious that they are going to errata the APG version of it.

Which class abilities?

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

LINK

John Compton wrote:
We also recognized that these conditions would enable however many people to exploit the system and create a dozen new native outsider characters for a rainy day. In a way, that's a feature and not a bug. Although I scratch my head a bit at stockpiling aasimars, I'm also aware that the campaign serves a wide range of play styles and interests, so if someone is wild about aasimars and wants to play a bunch of scenarios in a month, that's his or her business.

So, while it's I guess possible to read the Blog post as "10 is too much, don't do it", I think this, from that same thread makes it clear that that was the intent. Secondly, it also tells people that above ten, "a dozen", is ok, IF THAT"S WHAT PEOPLE WANT TO DO.

LINK

John Compton wrote:

I've tossed around a few numbers over the past week mostly to give a sense of what is appropriate in my estimation as a participant in the campaign. Making more aasimars than that may make me as a person less comfortable, but in few cases would it make me as a developer lay out official guidelines of how many is too many. It's important for me to be able to separate (or at least distinguish between) my feelings as a gamer and my feelings as a developer, such that my way of having fun is not the only way of having fun (i.e. "badwrongfun").

In that way, Mike and I haven't laid out precise numbers of how many native outsiders one can create over this month, and we recognized going in that there would be some statistical outliers who might make 5+ additional characters. As many have said or alluded to upthread, "how much is too much" is largely a matter of individual judgment. So long as folks are following all of the other campaign rules and are having fun while playing the game, I think it's in the campaign's and community's best interests that we let this play out and avoid passing judgment on others' play styles.

. . . interesting. But even more so if you read upthread a little bit and someone was suggesting that the blog emphasized 1-3, and also that 10 was too much.

But perhaps most interesting here, is the literal name of that thread.

I know there is one more, where they specifically mention that people that desire to make a bunch of Aasimar or Tieflings freely may, but realistically, due to the limitations on the amount of playable scenarios, would ever really be able to play a small handful past level 3 or so, which is kind of self defeating.

3/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

NOTE: Comments like "There would be no changes at all" are unrealistic. We are in a living campaign where changes will happen. Developers need to rebalance game rules as they see fit, somehow.

Except that some of us disagree with the premise that these are all "necessary changes" - they aren't, they're the product of an inconsistent design philosophy whose inconsistency is getting worse, not better.

This doesn't mean a lack of respect (unlike accusations of the loaded term "abuse" - an especially toxic term to those of us in the medical industry), but that some of us feel poor choices were made from emotional responses which continue to haunt the campaign to this day. The belief that if we disagree or think that poor decisions were made is somehow disrespectful is a large part of the division that has been slowly growing on these types of topics and likely our PFS community in general (also, this isn't aimed at you Hmm, but is a general statement - I'm replying to your statement as it's the least aggressive and one of the best summation of "the other side"'s point of view I've seen. You remain an awesomely positive person - even if I do disagree with some of your stances.).

I can think that Mike's decision about APG Summoners was one of the worse decisions in the history of PFS which caused a huge loss of faith in PFS leadership and still want to buy him (or John Thursty on John's behalf) a beer as a thank-you for all of the awesome things he did for PFS which vastly out-number the few decisions he made that I disagreed with.

A better environment for change? Make new things or make better things, stop errata'ing good things into crap after we've paid for them with real $ ... and for PFS, feel just as free to ignore the design team's decisions about things like the jingasa of the fortunate soldier and the Lorewarden as you do boots of the earth, evil characters, and item crafting feats in PFS.

Silver Crusade 1/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MadScientistWorking wrote:
shaventalz wrote:


Really? Where?
The fact that if you look at specific class abilities the wording on them has changed from earlier renditions of the same mechanic to the point where its kind of obvious that they are going to errata the APG version of it.
shaventalz wrote:


And even if it was online somewhere, that's still coming out of nowhere for the players that don't trawl the forums and read every single blog post for hints of the future.
Once again it wasn't on the blogs or the forums. I just noticed the copy editing and wording change very subtlety and that between PFS and the softcover/Adventurer's Guide its been very consistent.

Not obvious to me, and I'm on the forum most days. Have been for a while (even if not posting everyday).

But I'd like to move on.

Thank you Tallow for the background information, and your insights into Campaign Leadership.

Thank you Hmm for your proposals to address change processes in the campaign.

My 2cp:

I'd like the campaign to be more democratic.

I'd like for changes to be discussed openly for a while before implementation. This would help Campaign Leadership and the Development Team see how possible changes might impact players, before a final decision is made. It would also allow for advance notice, to provide time for adaptation.

I'd like rebuilds to be very permissive. It's better to allow a player to make "free" changes that let her carry on playing a beloved character rather than force retirement.

I'd like grandfathering to be the norm; if reasonable limits need to be defined so as to avoid a repeat of the "planetouched incident" then go ahead and define them.

I want to know that the 30-odd softcover products I've purchased already aren't going to be subject to imminent revisions that are going to prevent me from using the products' content in the campaign.

3/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
DM Beckett wrote:

LINK

John Compton wrote:
We also recognized that these conditions would enable however many people to exploit the system and create a dozen new native outsider characters for a rainy day. In a way, that's a feature and not a bug. Although I scratch my head a bit at stockpiling aasimars, I'm also aware that the campaign serves a wide range of play styles and interests, so if someone is wild about aasimars and wants to play a bunch of scenarios in a month, that's his or her business.
So, while it's I guess possible to read the Blog post as "10 is too much, don't do it", I think this, from that same thread makes it clear that that was the intent. Secondly, it also tells people that above ten, "a dozen", is ok, IF THAT"S WHAT PEOPLE WANT TO DO.

It is impressive how well you read around context. Describing players that create "a dozen" new characters as "exploit[ing] the system" is not what I would consider encouraging of the behavior.

John Compton wrote:
... and we recognized going in that there would be some statistical outliers who might make 5+ additional characters.

Again, 5+ is considered a statistical outlier reserved for passionate players that are "wild about aasimars". The noble intent is what justifies the excess. Excess is not justified in and of itself.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

My Ideal Response from Campaign Leadership

In my ideal world, Campaign Leadership would post proactively about upcoming rules changes. They would post it for a few weeks for community comment (including the occasional forum explosion as people realize that their beloved characters will be hit by the rules change).

In this world, we know outright whether we will have to sell back items at full price, or get a free retraining for our characters, or whether there will be a grandfathering. There would be no uncertainty on the player's parts about what will happen to their characters. They would just know, one way or the other, what will be coming ahead.

I strongly believe that even if we don't like the answer, most players would rather know what is coming and the steps that lay ahead when dealing with the rules change. Uncertainy causes stress. Knowledge is power.

It seems as though there would still be uncertainty. This just adds an element of user participation - and not in a good way. If uncertainty is the enemy, probably better to tear the bandage off and be done with it.

So we start with Leadership announcing their decision. Is it final? If so, then what part does "community feedback" play? I must assume that it's not final, and the point is to get peoples' opinions.

So now the decision is announced. There's still uncertainty - will the decision stand, or will community feedback overturn it?

And in the time between announcement and implementation, the forums will erupt in a storm of arguments as competing viewpoints struggle for supremacy. Look at how things are now... and then add the motivating factor of expecting Leadership to actually base their decision on your posts.

So... I'm not sure what the solution is. I just have some concerns about this one.

Silver Crusade 1/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Democracy is hard. But worth the effort, I think.

Grand Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

TimD wrote:
(also, this isn't aimed at you Hmm, but is a general statement - I'm replying to your statement as it's the least aggressive and one of the best summation of "the other side"'s point of view I've seen. You remain an awesomely positive person - even if I do disagree with some of your stances.).

Thanks. I am not sure that I am on the 'other side' of the argument though... The Lorewarden change baffled me! I think I may be firmly in the middle, questioning some changes and embracing others.

Some changes are needed for the campaign to adjust and rebalance. Still, there are times when I think that the design team overreacts and swings too far in the other direction. A good example of this was the Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier. Did the item need to be rebalanced? I believe that it did. But to rebalance they could have made a change to either the luck bonus or the once per day crit-cancelling effect. Changing both crippled the item. Who will ever spend five thousand on one now?

What I hope is that we can create an environment where everyone can discuss these changes without tearing each other apart. Sometimes, we successfully advocate for changes of our own -- especially when once banned items, spells or abilities are allowed into the campaign. I see it grow and change in both directions.

Hmm

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

What I hope is that we can create an environment where everyone can discuss these changes without tearing each other apart. Sometimes, we successfully advocate for changes of our own -- especially when once banned items, spells or abilities are allowed into the campaign. I see it grow and change in both directions.

Hmm

While I normally agree with this, I think, in this case, there has been too many band aids applied, and the wounds have just been left to fester for too long. There is a time for peace and a time for war, so to speak.

In regards to how to proceed forward, and what we would like to happen, I would outright concur that errata such as with happened with the Boots of Earth, Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier, and now the Ioun Stone, the changes are simply unreasonable, and following suite should simply be out of the question. In the case of the Jinasa, for instance, adding something like 10,000 to the cost might have been another appropriate option.

We have, at this point, had plenty of time to evaluate the benefit of these changes, and it honestly might be time for PFS to take another good look and see if those prior choices where actually in the communities best interests, or the best decision that could be made. If not, what else could be done to improve it.

I'd like to see Aasimar and Tieflings reintroduces as freely playable options, (though maybe not the various different versions). I think we are at a point now that the vast majority of the issues people had with them are no longer reasonable, (native outsiders, darkvsion, spell-like abilities), and it's been a long enough time, and there are so many other options that I do not believe that they would skyrocket in popularity as they did when they where the only two special options.

I'd really like the focus of all further decisions to really, really focus in on a few key points, like keeping in mind that different people enjoy the game differently, and that even if we don't understand it, we don't have to, because they are not wrong.

We really need to get out of this mindset that there is a best or better way to play the game.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:
A good example of this was the Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier. Did the item need to be rebalanced? I believe that it did. But to rebalance they could have made a change to either the luck bonus or the once per day crit-cancelling effect. Changing both crippled the item. Who will ever spend five thousand on one now?

First: terms like "crippled" aren't really a polite way to address changes you disagree with. It's still hyperbolic and reactionary, just targeting the Design Team (who appear to be generally considered exempt from expectations of polite treatment). But that's a minor quibble, I suppose.

The problem with the jingasa is that both halves were individually problematic. The luck bonus was powerful on its own - maybe too powerful, maybe not - and, in conjunction with Fate's Favored*, was entirely ridiculous. Especially with all of the Sacred Tattoo builds running around.

The 1/day crit negation is something else. In practice, it equates to total critical immunity - if not most of the time, then certainly far more often than an item of its price should be capable of.

There are some issues with the final version, from weirdness of resale value to deflection being maybe too common of a type. But "just change half" still causes half the problems.

*Yes, I know, "just fix Fate's Favored". Paizo's "only errata on reprint" policy causes a lot of problems.

Grand Lodge 3/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't always agree with the changes the design team makes, but I've been pretty happy with how the PFS team implements those changes.

For the Lorewarden, we've had a few months to evaluate how the changes to the archetype would affect characters. John requested feedback about what those effects are and how the characters could be transitioned more easily.

3/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

supervillan, don't conflate the issue of the fuzzy boundary with the method by which some players leaped over that boundary. Difference in language and playstyle can excuse the former, but do not excuse the latter.

Rule number one should be to play to have fun, whatever that fun may look like to you.

3/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:
A good example of this was the Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier. Did the item need to be rebalanced? I believe that it did. But to rebalance they could have made a change to either the luck bonus or the once per day crit-cancelling effect. Changing both crippled the item. Who will ever spend five thousand on one now?
First: terms like "crippled" aren't really a polite way to address changes you disagree with. It's still hyperbolic and reactionary, just targeting the Design Team (who appear to be generally considered exempt from expectations of polite treatment).

Except it's not and that's part of the problem - once emotions get engaged we've now moved from a criticism of a specific example (the Jingasa change) to the person or people who made / make the decision and somehow this is seen as attacking the team rather than one of their decisions.

Again, we can criticize a decision and still respect the person who made that decision (though I'm glad I don't know who wrote the original Prone Shooter feat, as that might be a bit more of a stretch).

Grand Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:
A good example of this was the Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier. Did the item need to be rebalanced? I believe that it did. But to rebalance they could have made a change to either the luck bonus or the once per day crit-cancelling effect. Changing both crippled the item. Who will ever spend five thousand on one now?
First: terms like "crippled" aren't really a polite way to address changes you disagree with. It's still hyperbolic and reactionary, just targeting the Design Team (who appear to be generally considered exempt from expectations of polite treatment). But that's a minor quibble, I suppose.

That's a fair criticism.

Sigh. It appears that I could also use lessons about using non-heated language and being respectful to all members of the community. Thank you for pointing this out, Kalindara. I will endeavor to be better about my own language too!

I did not mean to heap criticism on the PDT here. I just wanted to point out that the rebalancing process is complex, with many sides to it. And that I don't always agree with changes!

Apologetically yours,
Hmm

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

Some changes are needed for the campaign to adjust and rebalance. Still, there are times when I think that the design team overreacts and swings too far in the other direction. A good example of this was the Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier. Did the item need to be rebalanced? I believe that it did. But to rebalance they could have made a change to either the luck bonus or the once per day crit-cancelling effect. Changing both crippled the item. Who will ever spend five thousand on one now?

Vial of efficacious medicine is similar. At 750gp, it was, "Hey, that's a pretty good deal!" At 7,500gp, it's "are you freaking kidding me?"

Dark Archive 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A couple of different things are worth mentioning, player companion's are apparently soon to transition to a less frequent release schedule.

Per the additional resources document no one is forced to buy a new book to keep access to an item they had before.

1) The first is certainly an opportunity to provide more consistent control on rules crunch and hopefully head off some discussions

2) Shows a pretty deep level of commitment not to extort money from folks

Conclusion there has been substantial improvement of handling difficult decisions.

All of which is an important set-up to a key question. How else would you handle changes to the game rules? Complaining that it should have happened awhile ago is pointless, for the very simple reason that changes are unavoidable at any timescale. Any system this complicated will have weird unpredictable emergent properties ( just think about every Utopia failure or the limitations of any human engineered solution). So adjustments are inevitable, to deny this will only accelerate a collapse of Pathfinder into an actual need for a second edition at which point all those resources become invalid. From that angle the number of updates seems relatively modest at this stage. Even things I found annoying like the jingasa time has proven that fun was not diminished.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Saw 80 New posts and thought we had gotten a ruling

a lot of what is being Glazed over is the track record of the design team over the last few years - and yes many of us are ignoring the fact of what they have done to add to this issue

ARG alternate racial favored class bonus Nerf
Jingasa and much of the Ultimate Equipment Errata
Early Access to prestige classes for Plane touched characters
Ultimate Magic Archetype Nerfs
Ultimate Combat Archtype Nerfs
Adventurers Guide Nerfs
Statments that their softcover lines dont get as much editing and review love as the hardbacks

the list goes on and on .. its not just 1 thing that has undermined the credibility of the Company ... its everything .... its watching the bridge get made from lego's in Still motion photography ...
most people are going to see 1 thing that affects them directly and go "Well %$^& that Im done" few of us are going to see all the issues that have caused we the Consumers to become disillusioned with the Company

Heck I would be welling to bet Dollars to Donuts thats how the company sees it as well

Yes this is a living campaign
Yes we expect changes
yes inevitably some of the softcover books we bought will be made worthless after the fact - hopefully Months and not years
No I do not believe there is a catchall answer because in the end we are only human
Yes I understand that the thing right now is to do blanket balance passes

but really Heavy handed change one after another after another is Not the way to Keep people playing your game
Look at the MMO Market ... games that undergo this usually pay the price on their bottom line ... granted we aren't talking SWG:NGE Level changes here ... but they are starting to add up

all in all I think what the community is asking for is transparency and Speed ...
and ya its only been a month since the fan got hit with the turd cannon
but we've been having repeat instances of 3+ Month delays on content being cleared vs/ not cleared .. which is another nail of mistrust being stuck into the wall

once you put everything onto the scale it starts weighing heavily in favor of the "Why should I bother" ... now yes MOST of that is on the pathfinder design team ....
but I bet that noone will argue that anything that the PFS Team can do to ease some of the growing tensions surrounding these issues would be Welcome

should the Community have a say in what rules changes become legal vs not legal .... I dont know ... Implementation of such a system would be difficult to do - even the most simple one like having a yes / no / don't care straw poll added to the PFS Forums based on each book would be simply too Cumbersome to implement

3/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

rknop wrote:
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

Some changes are needed for the campaign to adjust and rebalance. Still, there are times when I think that the design team overreacts and swings too far in the other direction. A good example of this was the Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier. Did the item need to be rebalanced? I believe that it did. But to rebalance they could have made a change to either the luck bonus or the once per day crit-cancelling effect. Changing both crippled the item. Who will ever spend five thousand on one now?

Vial of efficacious medicine is similar. At 750gp, it was, "Hey, that's a pretty good deal!" At 7,500gp, it's "are you freaking kidding me?"
Nope. Its actually cheaper than the spell equivalent wand which is really bizarre because that was not intentional. And by not intentional is that the spell equivalent only came out this year.
Kalindlara wrote:

*Yes, I know, "just fix Fate's Favored". Paizo's "only errata on reprint" policy causes a lot of problems.

I thought even with Fate's Favored the +2 bonus was mathematically insignificant at higher levels. I get people getting annoyed at that item being changed because it fundamentally was just fixing the math on a broken enough system and the issue of having a character instant gibbed because of dumb luck.
TimD wrote:

This doesn't mean a lack of respect (unlike accusations of the loaded term "abuse" - an especially toxic term to those of us in the medical industry),

Its not accusations. Paizo just tends to delete the most abusive of posts and its not exactly like I haven't gone off on people before because they were abusive.

351 to 400 of 697 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Handling of changing rules: Why has it been getting harsher? All Messageboards