Post/Author/DateTime	Post
WotC_Mel 02-01-06, 05:04 PM	[Posted on Chris's behalf.] Before you start to post on various issues regarding the LGCS draft, I would like to go over some ground rules that will help the Circle to weed through what is sure to be a massive amount of information. We want to hear everyone’s voice that posts on this forum, so please bear in mind the following rules. If you don’t adhere to these rules, there’s a pretty high chance that an entire thread will be ignored because of offending posts. 1. You have one week to post LGCS 5.0 draft issues on this forum. After that time, you can comment on rules or documents as much as you’d like on this forum, but we will only consider issues for the final copy of the LGCS 5.0 brought up during the week of posting. 2. Stay on topic. Don’t start a thread about new base classes, and then turn the debate to morality in D&D. All topics considered for the LGCS should keep focus; if you want to discuss another potential issue for the LGCS that is not on the current topic, start a new thread. 3. Keep your posts brief – get right to the point. Explain only as much as you need to get your point across. Don’t over-explain, or get involved in unnecessary point-counter-point discussions. 4. The following topics are off limits (any thread containing them will be ignored): Calling for a rules item (a feat, spell, prestige class, or base class) to be “moved up” from a more restricted status to a less restricted one (for example, asking that Mordenkainen’s disjunction be moved up from restricted to limited), asking for books not currently allowed in the campaign to be considered for the campaign (for example, Magic of Incarnum or the Eberron Campaign Setting), talk not specific to content that would be found in the LGCS (for example, talking about information that should be in the high-level option or the LG Deities document), and debating whether the Living Greyhawk campaign should change D&D game mechanics to make a rule “fit” (for example, proposing that a feat’s rules be altered to make it more palatable for an organized play environment). The final document should be posted to the RPGA portion of the website just before Winter Fantasy. Thanks very much for your help and contribution to the Living Greyhawk campaign! Chris Tulach Living Greyhawk Circle Iuz’s Border States
Morgan the Bold 02-01-06, 06:41 PM	I noticed that one of the restricted topics is asking for a rules item to go from more restricted to less restricted in the campaign (see Mord. Disjunction). Can we ask for a rules item to go from less restricted to more restricted? For example, could we ask for Mord. Sword (core spell) to become a limited or restricted spell?
Drezden 02-01-06, 06:48 PM	I frankly don't understand this restriction on talking about "moving up" an item. Those type of topics should be a focus of the public discussion. Saying that they can't even be discussed is just another heavy handed, rule from above ruling that LG is famous for, but I thought was trying to get away from. I think the current Circle has done a good job of listening to player concerns - I like most of the changes in the new LGCS - but I don't like this ruling cutting off debate on a large part of LGCS changes. Daren
paigeoliver 02-01-06, 06:58 PM	Well, the LGCS is essentially a guide listing what items are core, limited, or restricted. By banning all discussion on that then there is very little to talk about, which makes the review period go oh so much simpler. Oh, I guess people could argue about how much gold you can earn via pickpocketing between regional adventures.
WotC_Tulach 02-01-06, 07:38 PM	I noticed that one of the restricted topics is asking for a rules item to go from more restricted to less restricted in the campaign (see Mord. Disjunction). Can we ask for a rules item to go from less restricted to more restricted? For example, could we ask for Mord. Sword (core spell) to become a limited or restricted spell? Yes.
JohnduBois 02-01-06, 07:42 PM	I support Chris's request that we not ask him to allow a spell or feat to move to a less restricted access. The reason this document has come out so late is that the Circle and Triads have spent a very long period of time discussing which feats and spells might be inappropriate for this campaign for power reasons or for flavor reasons. To hear mounds of complaints about not having the latest broken feat or spell is not something that the Circle needs to hear, nor is it something that most players want to hear. The choice has already been made, and we should respect the work they have all put into making this campaign what it is.
WotC_Tulach 02-01-06, 07:46 PM	I frankly don't understand this restriction on talking about "moving up" an item. Those type of topics should be a focus of the public discussion. Saying that they can't even be discussed is just another heavy handed, rule from above ruling that LG is famous for, but I thought was trying to get away from. I think the current Circle has done a good job of listening to player concerns - I like most of the changes in the new LGCS - but I don't like this ruling cutting off debate on a large part of LGCS changes. Daren You can discuss all you want about moving items from a less restricted status to a more restricted status. Rules items that are NPC Only or Restricted are there for a reason, and until there is errata issued for a particular rules item, they won't "move up". We're just trying to keep the debate more focused; I don't want to have to plow through hundreds of posts on why certain rules items should become core, when they won't. I just don't want to give anyone an illusion here - I wanted the non-impact topics to be addressed right away, so it keeps things a little more trim.
JamesMaissen 02-01-06, 07:57 PM	You can discuss all you want about moving items from a less restricted status to a more restricted status. Rules items that are NPC Only or Restricted are there for a reason, and until there is errata issued for a particular rules item, they won't "move up". We're just trying to keep the debate more focused; I don't want to have to plow through hundreds of posts on why certain rules items should become core, when they won't. I just don't want to give anyone an illusion here - I wanted the non-impact topics to be addressed right away, so it keeps things a little more trim. It's been my experience that learning the reasonings behind things makes it easier to accept certain rulings. While for you they are old hat, for others it is not always obvious. I know time is pressing right now, but after the review period is over would it be acceptable to ask why certain specific feats/whatever were made NPC only or Restricted? Thank you for your time, and best of luck to you during 'hell week' -James Maissen
magebeast 02-01-06, 08:57 PM	It's been my experience that learning the reasonings behind things makes it easier to accept certain rulings. While for you they are old hat, for others it is not always obvious. I know time is pressing right now, but after the review period is over would it be acceptable to ask why certain specific feats/whatever were made NPC only or Restricted? Thank you for your time, and best of luck to you during 'hell week' -James Maissen I'd definitely be interested in hearing why a PrC or two is restricted, even if I can't get it changed.
WotC_Tulach 02-01-06, 09:14 PM	I'd definitely be interested in hearing why a PrC or two is restricted, even if I can't get it changed. Sure, we're always willing to talk about such things; perhaps that would make a good article for the website. If you want, we can even sit and chat about it at a big con, if you go there (perhaps Winter Fantasy or Gen Con Indy).
Britt 02-01-06, 09:24 PM	I'm always willing to discuss the arguments I know, off list. I don't know all the reasons for all the decisions, but I've seen some of the arguments for some of the items. Hitting up Chris at a con would be better; he's more fun than me anyway ;)
Karlindel 02-01-06, 10:32 PM	I was wondering if we could have the Player/Character Certification section changed to remove the reference to classes and class levels. It's especially bad for characters with multiple classes, who can't possibly fit them all on the line provided. I have one character whose full name will barely fit on the blank. Perhaps requiring the most recent class level taken on an AR when the character levels, perhaps writing it next to the checked box for gained a level, would serve the same purpose and require less writing. In addition, many players don't bother, and it would be an annoyance to have a character audit waste everyone's time as a player writes the classes and levels on all of his ARs.
Zalarian 02-01-06, 11:33 PM	I was wondering if it makes sense to make some threads sticky in the hopes of compiling them all in one place. For example, I posted a correction to the discussion group for the PoU discussion group under a Veluna Website thread. Should I have made this posting under a new specific PoU thread? Should such a thread have an updated title such as Chapter Ten Corrections and Updates and made sticky? Should other general threads such as the following be made: 1. Typos 2. Clarifications
Arvagor 02-01-06, 11:56 PM	For example, I posted a correction to the discussion group for the PoU discussion group under a Veluna Website thread. Should I have made this posting under a new specific PoU thread? Should such a thread have an updated title such as Chapter Ten Corrections and Updates and made sticky?Z -- for the sake of clarity, I have edited my own post to change the title to what you suggest :tiphat:
WotC_Tulach 02-02-06, 01:27 AM	I was wondering if it makes sense to make some threads sticky in the hopes of compiling them all in one place. For example, I posted a correction to the discussion group for the PoU discussion group under a Veluna Website thread. Should I have made this posting under a new specific PoU thread? Should such a thread have an updated title such as Chapter Ten Corrections and Updates and made sticky? Should other general threads such as the following be made: 1. Typos 2. Clarifications Typos can be consolidated into one post. Clarifications or changes should be made in separate posts, if possible. A correction to a discussion group should be in its own post.
LordStorm 02-02-06, 07:06 AM	Did I miss something? I don't see the draft? LordStorm
Sieylianna 02-02-06, 07:31 AM	I just read through all 54! threads and noticed a significant amount of duplication in multiple threads. That's from less than one day of availability. Can we get the moderator to define threads for broad sections of the LGCS to minimize duplication and keep related topics grouped together? The fact that the search function doesn't work aggravates the problem. Ed
WotC_Tulach 02-02-06, 10:06 AM	Well, the moderator doesn't really know the ins and outs of the LGCS, so that probably won't help, and I can't be moderator of these boards (as I'm not a WizO). Really, these threads are for my edification, since I'm the one that has to go through all of them to find issues. Duplication is pretty much inevitable; I'll just ignore duplicate threads when I go through it all.
Moryath 02-02-06, 11:41 AM	I support Chris's request that we not ask him to allow a spell or feat to move to a less restricted access. The reason this document has come out so late is that the Circle and Triads have spent a very long period of time discussing which feats and spells might be inappropriate for this campaign for power reasons or for flavor reasons. To hear mounds of complaints about not having the latest broken feat or spell is not something that the Circle needs to hear, nor is it something that most players want to hear. The choice has already been made, and we should respect the work they have all put into making this campaign what it is. Well I posted two questions in that regard, in the normal LG board, and they were apparently ignored by the Circle completely. So I'm going to assume this is heavy-handed business as usual and go on with my life. I wasn't even discussing "broken" items, but simple and relevant things (the dearth of Evocations for warmages to pick from with Advanced Learning and the ridiculousness of Multiattack being NPC-only). Additionally, the blanket "You can't ask this we're not listening" is very disrespectful to us, the players. We play the game all year, and only once a year do we have any opportunities to officially state our opinions on items like these. To be told "don't even bother" is just another way of proving that the Circle isn't really interested in getting away from their heavy-handedness of the past, and that's sad. In my area, we have many people who have expressed some severe disgust over WotC's heavy handedness in terms of books that we now "have" to buy, and the methodology of fixing WotC's blunders (read: restricting things left and right rather than having an errata or two). When they leave, it's because they feel the campaign isn't responsive. That is a bad thing. A simple response to questions on items people think ought to be more universally available (or even just moved from NPC Only to Limited) of "we thought about it, here's our thoughts back" would be far better than ignoring the questions and then declaring it out-of-bounds in the yearly review!
hoppy 02-02-06, 12:17 PM	Could we Pretty Please get the list of web site addresses in the back of the LGCS corrected? Many of them refer to living-greyhawk.com and are invalid. It makes it difficult to find web sites. I went looking for the Keoland web site last week and never did find it. If a region doesn't have a web site now, and doesn't know what the address will be, they can go to GoDaddy.com and register a domain for about $8.00/year, and then point that domain to their web site when they get it up. That way we could put the correct web site address in the LGCS, and the address would work when they got the site up. Even if the region has a web site, registering a domain for it would make it easy to move without changing the address. I'd be willing to do the work to register any regional domains just to make it easier for me to find regional sites, although I am not willing to pay for them. I do not work for GoDaddy.com, although they do hold my domain registrations. Hoppy
nony2klerch 02-02-06, 12:38 PM	Here is the corrected address for the region of Veluna. www.veluna.net Thanks. Lynn Register
LCJJohnson 02-02-06, 12:40 PM	I'm always willing to discuss the arguments I know, off list. I don't know all the reasons for all the decisions, but I've seen some of the arguments for some of the items. Hitting up Chris at a con would be better; he's more fun than me anyway ;) Chris is an especially tough act to follow. Give yourself some credit. :cool:
WotC_Tulach 02-02-06, 01:38 PM	Well I posted two questions in that regard, in the normal LG board, and they were apparently ignored by the Circle completely. So I'm going to assume this is heavy-handed business as usual and go on with my life. I wasn't even discussing "broken" items, but simple and relevant things (the dearth of Evocations for warmages to pick from with Advanced Learning and the ridiculousness of Multiattack being NPC-only). Additionally, the blanket "You can't ask this we're not listening" is very disrespectful to us, the players. We play the game all year, and only once a year do we have any opportunities to officially state our opinions on items like these. To be told "don't even bother" is just another way of proving that the Circle isn't really interested in getting away from their heavy-handedness of the past, and that's sad. In my area, we have many people who have expressed some severe disgust over WotC's heavy handedness in terms of books that we now "have" to buy, and the methodology of fixing WotC's blunders (read: restricting things left and right rather than having an errata or two). When they leave, it's because they feel the campaign isn't responsive. That is a bad thing. A simple response to questions on items people think ought to be more universally available (or even just moved from NPC Only to Limited) of "we thought about it, here's our thoughts back" would be far better than ignoring the questions and then declaring it out-of-bounds in the yearly review! I don't have the time to respond to all queries made (and I certainly won't on these boards), but I did read your post. Both the issues you brought up were considered. I am pretty much the only guy working on most of the rules documents for the campaign. You need to understand that I don't have time to reply to every query made on an unofficial Yahoo group. If you post your question on the RPGA boards (the official boards for the campaign), usually Tim Sech will get around to answering it. If you send me an email, I'll make my best effort to respond in a timely fashion. If you post it here as part of the draft discussion, it will be considered, although you probably won't get a reply.
Moryath 02-02-06, 02:18 PM	I don't have the time to respond to all queries made (and I certainly won't on these boards), but I did read your post. Both the issues you brought up were considered. I am pretty much the only guy working on most of the rules documents for the campaign. You need to understand that I don't have time to reply to every query made on an unofficial Yahoo group. If you post your question on the RPGA boards (the official boards for the campaign), usually Tim Sech will get around to answering it. If you send me an email, I'll make my best effort to respond in a timely fashion. If you post it here as part of the draft discussion, it will be considered, although you probably won't get a reply. 1. The questions WERE entered on the official RPGA boards right here. 2. I don't have your email, nor do I recognize your name since you're under pseudonym and didn't leave a signature. 3. Assuming my query was made "on an unofficial yahoo group" just tells me you didn't really bother reading my post, or just skimmed it. 4. IF you are the "only guy" working on rules documents, for the sake of whatever metaphysical entity is appropriate, ASK FOR SOME HELP. There are plenty of us who would freely offer. There are plenty doing it now, whether you're dead set on ignoring them or not. 5. "If you post it here as part of the draft discussion, it will be considered, although you probably won't get a reply." - EXCEPT THAT THE "RULES" FOR THE BOARD SPECIFICALLY DISALLOW ASKING FOR THINGS TO BE MADE MORE AVAILABLE. I'm sorry if I'm seeming rude, or shouting, but this is ridiculous. I posted a question to the official RPGA boards, had other people agreeing, and never saw anything of an official response. I then expected to bring it back up here, but the "rules" for this board prohibit even ASKING THE QUESTION. We only get one time per year when the LGCS is edited, to give our feedback. Putting things out of bounds is ridiculous. Declaring that "Question X will just be ignored" is insulting to the player base.
Britt 02-02-06, 02:34 PM	2. I don't have your email, nor do I recognize your name since you're under pseudonym and didn't leave a signature. Further up in this very thread you can find his name and position: Chris Tulach, Circle. I believe his email is in the LGCS. 3. Assuming my query was made "on an unofficial yahoo group" just tells me you didn't really bother reading my post, or just skimmed it. You are assuming that your lack of information means he didn't read the post. Your post only says the "normal LG" board. To most people that means the LG Discussion Y! group. I don't see how his using the common interpretation means he didn't read the post. 5. "If you post it here as part of the draft discussion, it will be considered, although you probably won't get a reply." - EXCEPT THAT THE "RULES" FOR THE BOARD SPECIFICALLY DISALLOW ASKING FOR THINGS TO BE MADE MORE AVAILABLE. The items on the NPC and Restricted lists have been debated back and forth many times in the past. They are on those lists because they cause some sort of problem for the campaign. Debate will not eliminate the problems that the items cause, nor will it be likely to bring up new and relevant points that weren't discussed in the past. There's only a limited amount of time to review the LGCS. If every decision that has ever been made was reopened for discussion every time the LGCS was edited, nothing would get done. How many times must the same issue be argued before the Circle is allowed to consider it a closed point? I then expected to bring it back up here, but the "rules" for this board prohibit even ASKING THE QUESTION. The question isn't prohibited; asking the question in a post on this forum is prohibited. He already said you can email him and ask him offlist. If you think there's some interesting point that wasn't brought up in the past that might sway them, email him. We only get one time per year when the LGCS is edited, to give our feedback. Putting things out of bounds is ridiculous. Declaring that "Question X will just be ignored" is insulting to the player base. And to make that feedback useful, why shouldn't the Circle tell you up front what they are willing to change? I think that's far more respectful than letting you post and just ignoring it without telling you.
Moryath 02-02-06, 06:43 PM	The question isn't prohibited; asking the question in a post on this forum is prohibited. He already said you can email him and ask him offlist. If you think there's some interesting point that wasn't brought up in the past that might sway them, email him. Fine. I've PM'ed him. I still think this ridiculous refusal to have discussions out in the open is unhelpful.
gibson2004 02-03-06, 01:00 PM	Lets stay constructive
WotC_Mel 02-03-06, 01:27 PM	Well, the moderator doesn't really know the ins and outs of the LGCS, so that probably won't help, and I can't be moderator of these boards (as I'm not a WizO). Just FYI, as on other boards, Chris you or anyone else is free to do some self-organizing of common topics by creating threads like "Post all your questions about X here!" Of course, if there is critical mass about certain topics, they can get a subforum all their own. Just let Shadow, the moderator here, know by way of PM or drop me a line at boards@wizards.com. Mel