I think you're falling into the "me and everyone I know" fallacy. All of your LFR groups have at least one person who pays attention these boards -- you. I do think there's a very large number of LFR players out there who have never been on these boards (if they're even aware that they exist).
So is the better solution to stop using the community for anything important, or is the solution to make sure more people know about the boards? I'd suggest the latter. Last time I checked, this is "Living" Forgotten Realms. That suggests that it's an evolving and expanding community. There are always going to be home LFR groups that will be behind the curve, but where there's a choice, I'm going to choose progress over insularity and more integration over less.
And no, I'm not just the only person in my groups that pay attention to what's going on. But that's partly because I make it a point whenever possible to tell people about this community. And those of us that do pay attention to this community and want it to be more relevant should as well. I've made suggestions on other threads about how we can do that from a campaign perspective. While ignorance in this case is a good excuse, we shouldn't cater to that ignorance by curtailing the usefulness of these boards and the discussions that take place here.
So is the better solution to stop using the community for anything important, or is the solution to make sure more people know about the boards? I'd suggest the latter.
Oh, you're right, but there's a saying about leading a horse to water...
The LFR Wizards.community group is noted in the CCG (though, we also know that not everyone reads that, or reads it closely). In a thread over in the LFR group a few days ago, someone suggested putting the URL for the group on every story award (a really cool idea). But, even with all that, and even with people like yourself talking it up, I guarantee you that you'll still have a significant number of people who aren't visiting the group, or keeping abreast of what the campaign staff is saying.
"Of course [Richard] has a knife. He always has a knife. We all have knives. It's 1183, and we're barbarians!" - Eleanor of Aquitaine, "The Lion in Winter"
But, even with all that, and even with people like yourself talking it up, I guarantee you that you'll still have a significant number of people who aren't visiting the group, or keeping abreast of what the campaign staff is saying.
Agree. But I'm of the opinion that we should do everything we can to get people here, and once we've done that, proceed with the assumption that we have enough of a critical mass to start using this site for official stuff.
That doesn't mean we can't try to be as accessible as possible. For example, let's take my idea about the globals issuing rules interpretations between CCGs. Let's have one of the globals post the new rulings in the blog every other week. Let's include a one or two-page .pdf in the .zip files of new mods. And then let's use them as a starting point when we formulate a new CCG.
This new leaner version of LFR has advantages. For one, it allows us to be quicker and more responsive to rules issues. The Windrise Ports decision is a great example. In the same way that we're using these forums to discuss new ideas, we should use them as a vetting process for everything new we come up with. I think it can be done, and I think LFR will be better for it.
So we should follow the CCG, and if there's an ambiguity that comes up (like this), I think the Globals get to issue interpretations, and those are final. Since I understand this process from law school, you can imagine my surprise when there's still debate on this after Skerrit has said (any number of different times and ways) that themes aren't allowed. It shouldn't matter if there's no explicit language in the CCG. If you're going to tell a Global, who's in charge of the campaign, that his interpretation is wrong, I can't help you.
Your lessons from law school haven't served you well, because what you describe isn't what we have here. This isn't a case where the rules are ambiguous, with several possible meanings. The CCG is clear that Dragon content is accessible. If a Global, who's in charge of the campaign, thinks that some specific Dragon content ought to be excluded -- well, I guess that's his prerogative, and I'm not going to tell him that he can't. But that's not interpreting the rules, it's overriding them.
As others have pointed out, it's not beneficial to have the rules in the CCG if they're going to be overridden by additional rules in the blogs, the message boards, the Globals' Twitter accounts, and the disused lavatory in the basement, since it forces players to trawl all those locations to figure out what they're allowed to do. You also get sticky situations where somebody in charge issues a ruling in person at a convention, and then 10 months later it's still unclear what the rule is supposed to be.
I'm of the opinion that we should do everything we can to get people here, and once we've done that, proceed with the assumption that we have enough of a critical mass to start using this site for official stuff.
Speaking from personal experience, I'd say that one of the biggest problems this community has is a lack of empathy. Many people here are incapable of looking at things from any perspective other than their own. Because you read the boards, and you know what the Globals have said about themes, you immediately assume that anyone who asks a question about it is either stupid or acting in bad faith. The idea that he just might not have read the same things you did apparently doesn't even occur to you.
One of my local guys is starting to try his hand at being a DM. If he were to read the recent Dragon article, pop in here and ask about themes, he'd find out that he's a ****, that he's incompetent, and that he's unintelligent -- and that's just from a Global.
None of this encourages people to join our community. For myself, personally, it was the most difficult obstacle for me to overcome. In fact, I still haven't completely overcome it; I often feel like an outsider because I can't devote as much time to keeping current as most other people here.
If you assume that a critical mass of people is reading the boards on a daily basis and start to use it as another source of critical information, all you're really going to accomplish is widening the gap between the people who already read the boards and those who don't. The latter will have an even harder time keeping up, and they'll encounter even more condescension and scorn if they ever show up here to ask questions.
Your lessons from law school haven't served you well, because what you describe isn't what we have here. This isn't a case where the rules are ambiguous, with several possible meanings. The CCG is clear that Dragon content is accessible.
Let's start here. Which law school, pray tell, did you learn your lessons from? Because if you had gone to law school, you'd know that the situaion you're describing is a common occurrence in the law. Laws that seem clear to some are ambiguous to others. And that's why we have independent adjudication of disagreements.
As others have pointed out, it's not beneficial to have the rules in the CCG if they're going to be overridden by additional rules in the blogs, the message boards, the Globals' Twitter accounts, and the disused lavatory in the basement, since it forces players to trawl all those locations to figure out what they're allowed to do.
Absolutely. And that's why I said, in my very last post, "Let's have one of the globals post the new rulings in the blog every other week. Let's include a one or two-page .pdf in the .zip files of new mods. And then let's use them as a starting point when we formulate a new CCG." Problem solved.
Speaking from personal experience, I'd say that one of the biggest problems this community has is a lack of empathy. Many people here are incapable of looking at things from any perspective other than their own. Because you read the boards, and you know what the Globals have said about themes, you immediately assume that anyone who asks a question about it is either stupid or acting in bad faith. The idea that he just might not have read the same things you did apparently doesn't even occur to you.
First of all, your personal attack about my chosen profession is really helping your argument here. Second, things got heated because the OP did what most trying to prove loopholes do—make his case, and then argue when people don't agree with him. He wasn't asking whether it was ok. He assumed it was, and then set out to prove it. If he was truly asking for advice, he would have accepted it when it was given. So, yes, we responded as if he was asking in bad faith, because he showed through his response to the advice that he was.
If your friend came to these boards with a legitimate question, and was willing to accept the answer he received, he would be pleasantly surprised. That's not what happened in this case.
If you assume that a critical mass of people is reading the boards on a daily basis and start to use it as another source of critical information, all you're really going to accomplish is widening the gap between the people who already read the boards and those who don't.
And that's why, as I've also said before, "I make it a point whenever possible to tell people about this community. And those of us that do pay attention to this community and want it to be more relevant should as well." Problem solved.
I try to make it a point not to debate point-by-point like this. But, as I've pointed out, I feel like your post not only mischaracterizes the situation, but demonstrates a severe lack of knowledge of my previous posts on this topic. If you're going to quote me, make sure you know what my position is.
Yaknow battles..before you go argueing with others and call them on bringing up lawyers and the like..you might try to..yaknow..actually get your facts strait.
This post has gone on for 3 pages..only 2 posts (the origional..then the 2nd reply) are from me. All other posts on this, and the complete change of topic from me finding an amusing loophole that I think needs to be addressed into people saying the entirety of the rules need to be heavily looked at and that making the boards being a spot to get official rules from is bad. All of that..is not due to me, I've had no input on this thread other than those two posts.
And then you go and say that I, argued badly when presented with other evidence. The ONLY person I've responded to was pedr who actually misunderstood a part of my post. As he completely ignored the fact that I posted in the origional post that all the rules for themes you would need are presented in dragon magazine. So I had to respond and re-itterate the point that I already said the mechanics needed were already posted.
I have from there not responded to any other posts. Partially because I was working when most of the posts were made. And partially because after the second reply to me (from a global choosing to be very rude, condescending and harsh, not just to me but to anyone who dosn't read these boards and who actually believes 'anything in dragon magazine compiled is legal'), no-one actually directly talked to me or spoke about the topic (except to agree its possible but against what people on these boards agree LFR is about). So I've been quiet and mostly just reading whats going on because I honestly have little input that hasn't already been said reguarding how badly the rules need a good going over.
So battles, as much as his post, in quoteing you and mentioning your profession might have done to hurt his post. You stating mistruths about how I've been acting in this thread really hurts yours.
First of all, your personal attack about my chosen profession is really helping your argument here.
You've taken this much too personally. You're the one who brought up your vaunted law school education as a means of establishing your own credibility. I spent nine words to dismiss that, because your education doesn't much matter if you're wrong. To the extent that those words came across as a personal attack, I apologize, but dude, you really need to grow a thicker skin. If you want to discuss that part further, please take it to PM.
Anyhow, getting back to the important stuff, yes, I'm aware of how different interpretations are resolved. But Skerrit didn't claim that an existing rule prohibits the use of themes, he pointed to announcements he's made elsewhere that declare themes won't be used in LFR. That isn't interpreting rules; it's making new ones by fiat. That's what everybody has a problem with.
As others have pointed out, it's not beneficial to have the rules in the CCG if they're going to be overridden by additional rules in the blogs, the message boards, the Globals' Twitter accounts, and the disused lavatory in the basement, since it forces players to trawl all those locations to figure out what they're allowed to do.
Absolutely. And that's why I said, in my very last post, "Let's have one of the globals post the new rulings in the blog every other week. Let's include a one or two-page .pdf in the .zip files of new mods. And then let's use them as a starting point when we formulate a new CCG." Problem solved.
Skerrit just said he's unwilling to post weekly updates for this sort of thing because it's too much work. I'll go out on a limb here and conclude that bi-weekly updates are also out of the picture. So, while the people in charge are coming up with new rules, those rules won't be published in a consistent fashion. Our collective experience has already shown that confusion will be the natural result.
Besides, to solve the problem of players being unable to rely on the CCG alone, you've suggested sending them to trawl through several months of blog posts. I fail to see how that even addresses the problem, let alone how it solves it.
If you assume that a critical mass of people is reading the boards on a daily basis and start to use it as another source of critical information, all you're really going to accomplish is widening the gap between the people who already read the boards and those who don't.
And that's why, as I've also said before, "I make it a point whenever possible to tell people about this community. And those of us that do pay attention to this community and want it to be more relevant should as well." Problem solved.
You haven't solved anything; you've only demonstrated, once again, that you're not looking at this from any perspective other than your own. Many of my local players have limited free time, and can't afford to spend time trawling the message boards in addition to the time they already spend actually playing the game. Another two or three have visited the community, but found it not to their liking. There's even one player who doesn't have Internet access. I can tell them about this community and say "Rah Rah LFR" until I'm blue in the face, but if they lack the opportunity, inclination, or means to participate, then they won't.
You've got everything you need to be a part of this community. That's great. Others don't. You shouldn't assume that they do, nor should they be cut off from critical information because they're not as fortunate as you.
Anyhow, getting back to the important stuff, yes, I'm aware of how different interpretations are resolved. But Skerrit didn't claim that an existing rule prohibits the use of themes, he pointed to announcements he's made elsewhere that declare themes won't be used in LFR. That isn't interpreting rules; it's making new ones by fiat. That's what everybody has a problem with.
That's dependent on your viewpoint.
Let's hypothesize that at some point there's an article about Gamma World. And as part of the article, they make up an article about Gamma World which introduces a new Superior Blaster Weapon called a Blaster Rifle that you can spend a feat to gain proficiency. And for whatever reason, they don't in any part of the article say, "This is not for D&D."
That seems well within the realm of possibility. I think I can safely say the vast majority of players would see an LFR character toting a Blaster Rifle on the basis of that Dragon article as being illegal. Especially in the context that no other Gamma World weapons would have been made legal for LFR. And Gamma World is quite clearly not a legal campaign reference.
Think of Gamma World as being a campaign world that happens to be D&D with a few obvious differences and an article about Dark Sun isn't all that much different. Skerrit is saying, "Dark Sun is a campaign world. We can't go around identifying every single product that R&D is going to come out with, but campaign worlds in general are going to have things that we won't let into LFR because they're tied to a specific campaign."
Using the slave theme IS technically legal, but to those who read/listen to the administration clearly not intended..
There are several scenarios in which players innocently decide to use it.
There are several scenarios in which players decide to use it because it is technically legal, while knowing they should not.
The players mentioned in point 2 probably need some extra communication attention.
The players mentioned in point 3 are actively being D*cks.
All in all fairly clear cut?
To DME, or not to DME: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous powergaming, Or to take arms against a sea of Munchkins, And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;No more;
Several recent posts, by several posters, have gone over the line and gotten personal. Tone it down a notch, please.
[/VCL HAT]
"Of course [Richard] has a knife. He always has a knife. We all have knives. It's 1183, and we're barbarians!" - Eleanor of Aquitaine, "The Lion in Winter"
