|
3 years ago ::
Feb 08, 2010 - 7:01PM
#221
|
|
|
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.
Hi Allen,
You have some good points. I did play LG and it did have several large documents you in general had to know what was going on in. It had pages full of ARs and it was the most popular of all the campaigns that required you to level up.
Other RPGA events that were designed to be easier access such as the Dungeon Delves, Game Day events, and the Eberron campaigns had very little documentation and were much easier to jump into. These brought in a different kind of player. Maybe its some guy trying to use up a generic ticket at Gencon. If your this kind of player, you don't want any documentation at all. You just want to be able to pay your dollar for a pregen character and sit down and play the module and leave at 6pm to have dinner and the house pale ale at the RAM with your friends.
I don't think putting this kind of player and players of the campaigns with stricter rules works.
Edit: I retract what I said. If your goal is to convert as many group B players into group A players as possible, then you should give group B players what they want. If using a 50 page campaign document keeps them away, dont write a 50 page campaign document.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 09, 2010 - 12:47PM
#222
|
Date Joined:
Jun 26, 2003
|
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 is pretty clear. You do only need to ask permission. It isn't just that people insist on having their own personal interpretation of the rule; that's just what's written.
If the rule had been written "Player characters cannot target other PCs with attacks unless the player of the PC being attacked gives the player making the attack permission", then the rule would require consent. With some well-considered phrasing (better than just what I would write off the top of my head), it would hardly take up more room than it does now.
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.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 09, 2010 - 1:46PM
#223
|
Date Joined:
Mar 17, 2005
|
WotC does have a pretty good-sized staff. Surely they could get one or two people on QC!
Except that they don't. No one from WOTC works on the LFR campaign anymore. It's all volunteers. 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. That role, as of DDXP, has been passed onto the LFR admins (so there will now be more eyes on the rules document), but I don't think we should expect 100% perfection out of volunteers who have real jobs and try to help us put out fun gaming content in their spare time.
As for other player's PCs attacking someone without their consent and arguing its what the rules say, I've made that joke at my tables too. Hopefully the unsportsmanlike conduct comment, or simply the fact that there under that rule interpretation there is no reason you can't murder another PC in their sleep as long as you ask first (even if they don't consent); is reason enough to get the offending player to behave in a reasonable manner. That said I will add fixing the wording of that rule to my list for CCG 2.0.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 09, 2010 - 1:49PM
#224
|
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2008
|
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!
Blah blah blah
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 09, 2010 - 7:41PM
#225
|
|
|
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!
If you are in control of your character and wish to make an attack that includes other PCs in its effect, you must obtain the permission of the players whose PCs are in the attack's effect - otherwise, you cannot make the attack. Violation of this rule is grounds for "Unsportsmanlike Conduct" penalty to be applied to the offending player by the judge or head judge of the event.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 10, 2010 - 7:38AM
#226
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
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.
True, but I think it's a fair complaint that he did not need to shoulder the burden on his own.
There are a lot of player who would be willing and able to help tear down rules and help rebuild them to the betterment of the campaign. Leaving them with no option but to tear down the rules after the fact doesn't really help anyone.
For the next CCG, I would suggest a lengthy process (heck, no reason not to start now), with a draft by the global admins, revisions based on comments from the regional admins, and then a public posting of the draft doc with a RFC period. For that matter, you could simply put the draft document up on a wiki and get comments that way.
My suggestion would also be that 'fixing wording' is the wrong way to go. The current CCG is a Frankenstein-like creation that reeks of orphaned language and concepts. Optimally, CCG v 2.0 would be written anew, starting from scratch and writing it from the bottom up.
As far as the particular issue at hand, personally, I think the entire discussion of whether you have to listen or just ask misses the point. The point of that whole paragraph is that it's a cooperative game and you shouldn't be a jerk. The point is not that the hand of god comes down and stops you from being a jerk in one very limited instance of directly damaging another PC, the point is not to be a jerk in general.
If I'm running, and someone uses an area effect spell, it gets resolved however the standard D&D rules say it gets resolved. If there's a dispute between players, we handle that outside the game, either afterwards or (if serious enough) right then and there.
I read that sentence as saying "Being a good gamer means you talk to your teammates before doing something that harms or hinders their character." I think that's a true statement whether we're talking about dropping a fireball on the party, dropping a cloud that puts the enemy in obscured terrain or charging into the midst of the enemy and screwing up the rest of the party's tactics.
From my POV, reading this as "You are not physically able to cast a fireball spell that includes a member of your party in its area of effect unless that member has verbally consented to being included" misses the point as much as reading it as "Before casting a spell that could harm another PC, you must ritually say the words 'May I?' before casting the spell, but need not pay any attention to any response."
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 31, 2010 - 11:55PM
#227
|
|
|
Now on the point of "friendly fire", my sorerer bard hybrid tossed an area effect right on top of a rash companion who had charged forward and gotten in the center of 7-8 enemies. In another case where I was just one of the players, another player got a third player in the area of effect, critted, and killed him, in a case where the party was about to be swept off the board. In neither case was the opinion of the victim allowed to rule, tho I am not sure that either objected too hard. The potential benefit for the party was simply very large, if the dice behaved. [Of course, in neither of these cases did the dice bounce in favor of the party, so there is always a serious risk to consider. I soothed my victim with a cure.] There simply are plenty of cases out there where taking the risk can turn a potential TPK into a cakewalk and we do not want the player to have an absolute ability to outirght ban a highly party-useful action. We want his opinion considered, and a careful look to make sure this is not a trigger-happy caster who wants to wrack up some kills to his personal total, but in the end, if the odds look good and the benefits great enough, our back row caster should have the right to shoot and yell "Duck!"
Now back to the Rust Monster. This is a creature that has always terrified the high level PC with lots of expensive goodies. An extended battle with one could leave your character as pretty much unplayable, much worse off than dead. 4.0 might have been wiser just to forget it, but it's so much fun to have the entire party running in terror from this critter that sometimes could not cause a hp of damage. So they tried to make a little less distrous to meet one, and overdid it.
But they didn't overdo it that much. You still only get items of your level or lower as a result, and by the original plans, you were supposed to be walking around with several items above your level. But with the growth in classes/races/weapons/armor/etc, the chance of getting something you really want has gone way down. So this fiddle does not make the PC way more powerful than was intended. You still have to respect the monsters, unlike several spells and combos that pretty much break an encounter.
|
|
|
