It's funny. I joined the local LFR because I wanted my son and I to play characters together at cons and while I like the local LFR people and have a surprisingly good time with them, my desire to play a LFR game at a national convention is pretty much non-existant at this point. I simply don't want to sit at the same table with someone who wants to rust monster their way past having modules be challenging. Neither me nor that player is going to have a good time playing with the other. I'll keep going to the local group because I like them, but I think we'll find something else to do at larger conventions.
It's funny. I joined the local LFR because I wanted my son and I to play characters together at cons and while I like the local LFR people and have a surprisingly good time with them, my desire to play a LFR game at a national convention is pretty much non-existant at this point. I simply don't want to sit at the same table with someone who wants to rust monster their way past having modules be challenging. Neither me nor that player is going to have a good time playing with the other. I'll keep going to the local group because I like them, but I think we'll find something else to do at larger conventions.I wouldn't worry too much about this. I played a LOT of games at DDXP, and had a really good time. If anyone had artificially twinked up their characters, I really couldn't tell. I think what you are seeing here is a small but very vocal minority trying to get people to admit that they are oh-so-clever.
Shawn (@shawnmerwin on Twitter)
Check out my latest work:
DDEX1-1 Defiance in Phlan
Encoded Designs Blog "Mastering Dungeons"
"Against the Cult of Chaos" D&D Encounters Season"War of Everlasting Darkness" D&D Encounters SeasonHalls of UndermountainP3: Assault on Nightwyrm Fortress
The problem can be solved by writing up some clearer documentation.
In the end, I think we can't really have a productive discussion based on what was INTENDED, because there will be god-awful number of interpretations of intent! Only when the rules are tightened up and run based on what was WRITTEN can we have relatively argument-free games - in a context in which you are getting players that approach the game from different mentalities.
Well, I am going to jump on this early and reply to smerwin29.I disagree with you. I don't think 1000 players will be scared away by a larger campaign document. I think most people are going to use the document as a reference. I am not attacking you here, but only your logic.
More documentation just leads to more arguement about correct interpretation of the documentation.Allen.
At any rate - I think we all understand that the system is open to abuse. Can we really shame the players for taking advantage of the system? I say - no. As long as it is allowed by the rules, the players aren't doing anything wrong. Change the rules, change the game.
People keep saying this -- but it doesn't get any more true by repetition.
Let's look at MMOs; those are fun. MMOs have perfectly defined rules which apply to every player in the game in the exact same way. There are no questions of interpretation, because the rules are code. You can't say "oh, that weapon was supposed to do frost damage." It either does frost damage or it doesn't.
Sometimes the engineers who code MMOs make mistakes. Every MMO ever released has bugs. Everyone knows this, everyone accepts it. Sometimes those bugs allow players to do things that weren't intended.
Blizzard is the biggest MMO company in the world. They have 11 million players; in comparison, LFR is a tiny teeny little group of people.
When you take advantage of a bug in the game, Blizzard doesn't say "oh, it was allowed by the rules we put into the game, so you aren't doing anything wrong." Blizzard bans you. Blizzard believes that its players are capable of distinguishing between intended behavior and unintended behavior, and it expects its players to make that distinction and act appropriately. If you are playing at a high level, and you fail to make that distinction, you get banned. You probably complain about it, and sometimes you have a valid point, but you're still banned.
WoW also has Terms of Service. Those terms say, among other things:
Now, that's language which is open to interpretation. But you know whose interpretation counts? Blizzard's.
A few posts ago, Sean Molley told us that rust monster abuse was "a cheap metagame excuse to justify doing something that people intuitively realize is against the spirit of the rules." WotC is not going to ban anyone for rust monster abuse; I'm not sure there's any practical way to do that. But it's ridiculous to pretend that people who know what he said and who continue to abuse rust monsters shouldn't be ashamed of themselves. It's also ridiculous to claim that you have to outline every single possible rules violation. The biggest MMO company in the world doesn't do that, and life proceeds just fine.
Mr. Merwin,Even though I understand your opinion, I do disagree with the notion of pages and reams of rules that need to be added to LFR. As Newpaintbrush points out, I think myself and others are looking for some concise documentation to address this thread's issue as well as others that may appear in the future.
Your point is well taken but let me direct you to another point from your Blizzard example. Blizzard also FIXES the bug which we are discussing here with MYRE/Rustmonster issue... a fix for that.
Just for the record, I do acknowledge this issue as something to discuss but it is my opinion that it is not really a big deal, because I take the attitude that if a player needs to go that length of action to keep up with me at the table, let them. I will get mine eventually... usually through superior play.
LFR Characters: Lady Tiana Elinden Kobori Silverwane - Drow Control Wizard | Kro'tak Warscream - Orc Bard | Fulcrum of Gond - Warforged Laser Cleric
AL Character: Talia Ko'bori Silverwane - Tiefling Tome Fiend Warlock
Actually, they started out that way years ago, but they really don't do that anymore. They realized the same thing I did when I was campaign rules-guy for Procampur and Shining Jewel.They have, as have most other MMO companies, switched largely to a "fix the problem and ignore the few players that abused the problem before we fixed it" attitude. At most they've been removing rewards from folks that didn't earn them properly. Actual punishments, banning and the like, are being reserved for actual rules infractions.
They have, as have most other MMO companies, switched largely to a "fix the problem and ignore the few players that abused the problem before we fixed it" attitude. At most they've been removing rewards from folks that didn't earn them properly. Actual punishments, banning and the like, are being reserved for actual rules infractions.
Now that I think about it, this really does reinforce my comment about punishing only for actual rules infractions. Over in WoW, bug exploiting IS specifically against the rules.
More documentation just leads to more arguement about correct interpretation of the documentation.Allen.Allen, I think you're arguing a different point. Who said we need to lug around crates, or write reams of documentation? All I think is being asked for is some carefully edited, concise documentation so these problems of ambiguity can be resolved. Which is something I very much agree with, and that I think, on reflection, you'll agree with too. For Atras - yes. But as correct as you are, I for one, would prefer that the rules be clarified. Rules errata are getting rather long, but I think it's *far* better that we *have* them than *not*.
Did you play LG? It had pages of "this is not allowed", "you can't do that" or "you can do this only if you have access". All in an attempt to better balance the game. It didn't work. People still managed to find highly effective builds and combinations. Meanwhile we had to read through pages of documents when building characters and had to haul around boxes of documents with random signatures to "prove" our characters were legal. The "living paperwork" syndrome of LG drove a lot of people away.Getting 100% agreement amongst gamers is virtually impossible. More documentation just leads to more arguement about correct interpretation of the documentation.Allen.
Take the rule on not hitting fellow pc with AOE attacks. I think it's pretty clear ... but some people insist that you only have to ask, you don't have to get permission. . . . Allen.
It's simply a question of what's there in black and white.I know, though, that a lot of die hards insist on intent, though, so I'll give another example -If you bought a toy for your kid for Christmas, assembled it strictly according to instructions, then found that you had an irreparable heap of junk - then went online, posted on the toymaker's forums, and had the writers of the manual tell you "clearly no one would EVER want to put sprocket A into doohickey B; that's just crazy talk! The INTENT is clear; people that don't follow the INTENT are the ones that are wrong!" would you feel more or less than sympathetic to the makers of that toy?Oh, I know it's not a parallel situation. But it has certain similarities.My proposed fix? Rather than having rules book writers that rely on the *intent* of their message getting across - have writers, or at least editors, that hack things apart and make sure the *intent* comes across in what's *written*. I know this would require having someone with knowledge of game design, able to communicate effectively with others, that knew how to mince words, assemble them into coherent sentences, and serve them up piping hot. But that's what's really required to have a high-quality product. WotC does have a pretty good-sized staff. Surely they could get one or two people on QC!That said - since I run things By The Book, here's how I handle the question of PC vs PC attacks.If the player says "Oh, I only need to ask; you don't want me to do it; I'm doing it anyways!" (and it has happened), and say a player really really doesn't want his or her PC attacked - then I say "That's absolutely correct, by the book. Now, by the book, I am telling you as your judge that that's unsportsmanlike conduct." Then I whip out the 9 year old (or however old it is) RPGA guideline, and point to "Unsportsmanlike Conduct". This has always settled the matter so far.(edit) - hey, I know we're getting off the topic of Rust Monsters . . . it's more just "monsters" we're talking about now. Ah, my bad. Anyways. I think the rust monster is fine, and I think most other players do too. It's the *guidelines* that need to be clarified, I'd say, to keep the *intent* in line with what's *written.
WotC does have a pretty good-sized staff. Surely they could get one or two people on QC!
That said I will add fixing the wording of that rule to my list for CCG 2.0.
That said I will add fixing the wording of that rule to my list for CCG 2.0.Might I suggest this as a wording fix...If you are in control of your character and have an attack that includes PCs in its effect, always ask the players controlling the affected characters if it’s OK to damage or otherwise hinder their character before you make the attack. And yes, this means you actually have to get their permission first as well. Duh!
Chris Tulach is the sole WOTC employee in the D&D OP (and truthfully he did write those rules), and he was fairly overworked doing 100% of everything for LFR as far as oversight went.