|
5 years ago ::
Sep 28, 2008 - 7:22PM
#161
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
I have no idea what a revision of the RPGA general guidelines will say.
In LFR, Chris Tulach (with approval) created the campaign staff structure to include POCs to help answer gamer questions about the campaign. Not to make definitive rulings about a specific situation at a game table, but to communicate what the campaign rules are. It does boggle my mind when players or DMs say, "no thanks, I don't care what the campaign staff says the campaign rules are."
Now, sometimes staff may provide their take on how to rule in a specific D&D game situation; that is fine, but it is different than explaining a campaign rule.
Keith
In regards to the second part of what you have said (italics are mine) I think it would depend on the specific conversation. If I had a drow who worshippped Lolth  and a campaign person said I couldn't do it, I might be inclined to ask where it said that - given the information we now know exists we can see that this is not officially disallowed - if a Senior GM insisted it was I might be inclined to ignore that individual as they were not communicating what the rules were but rather making their own - and in fact I think I'd inititate just such a conversation as we're having... But by and large I would think that most folks do exactly what you're saying and they are listened to and given the respect they've earned.
In regard to the first question - I would think that the General Rules should be changed to remove specific game information - in addition it would spell out the roles of the campaign staff and then cover the things all club rules and bylaws cover; i.e. membership, renewals, etc... What we have now isn't bad - it's just not general enough to be applicable to whatever comes down the pipe and it doesn't represent what currently exists. If folks are interested we could have the VCL set up a forum to hash out what we as a group would like to see and perhaps we might even come up with a way to drive these documents ourselves.
For games/campaigns I would think two documents would be ideal; one for character creation and one for rules clarification...
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 09, 2008 - 12:19PM
#162
|
|
|
(Post deleted. Too off topic.)
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 09, 2008 - 12:29PM
#163
|
Date Joined:
Jul 16, 2002
|
In the end, though, what deity and concept worshiped is up to the DMs. There are a several concepts that I know would not go well with every DM or DM staff. However, if you can make a good story out of it, why not at least propose it...provided it is not against the rules in general?
I have been doing a lot of reading since I made my concern/rant post in the 4.0 Discussion section. I suppose that taking things too literally only brought me more problems.
Your post is all well and good for a home game... but not for LFR. The inherent problem is that in LFR the table DM/Senior GM cannot adjudicate matters of character concept/creation. The rules for the campaign state that you cannot worship an evil deity. Granted when this discussion first started that language wasn't in the CCG and then much debate ensued over whether the DMs had the power to adjudicate such a thing when the PHB said it was up to the DM to decide if you could.
So again... good for a home, not good for a world wide shared campaign. Even with DM Empowerment, a certain amount of stability in the campaign needs to be maintained. Allowing options where it's fine at one table and not at another are problematic. By that I mean "perfectly reasonable" options that require DM adjudication.
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 09, 2008 - 2:15PM
#164
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
[off topic]
This is how it works for all the real world examples folks have brought up; in the case of speeding laws in the US there is a default speed limit for most roads (as well as default reckless laws and such); if it is changed to a different limit that change must be posted, etc... If 90% of the folks choose to follow this limit that's great - the 10% who do not are not liable for any crime as no crime currently exists. In an area I lived they did just that; they moved a school thus moving a school zone - the speed limit slows but until such time as the area is posted as a school zone in an official manner the mandatory speed limit could not be enforced.
You might want to reconsider this part of your post, since one of the fundamentals of a court case is "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." Just because you miss seeing the speed limit sign is no excuse for speeding.
In other words, the change to the campaign was posted, and mentioned in multiple places. If you missed it, it is still no excuse for not playing by the rules.
Also, you will note that it is stated that you need to use the latest version of the rules, not just the latest version of the D&D rules. Important distinction.
[/off topic]
|
|
|
