Post/Author/DateTime	Post
thewh0 04-09-07, 01:28 AM	I'm confused. Looking at the new LGCS, I don't see Duskblade listed as either an Open or a Closed class. Then, reading a recent Dispel Confusion (DC), a question talks about rebuilding a character into a Duskblade. So, is the Duskblade an allowed class or not? I was really looking forward to the new rules coming out, so I could play one. The answer to the DC question never said you couldn't become one. Thanks, Rob p.s. Also, the DC answer never mentioned that you couldn't rebuild. I thought only retraining was allowed, not rebuilding.
King Kashue 04-09-07, 02:00 AM	For your individual characters, it's either open or closed. Since the LGCS does not provide a "general" open status, you need specific access for the character you wish to pursue it with. Without that specific access, it is closed for your character.
copper_wyrmling 04-09-07, 02:02 AM	Anything not listed as either Open or Closed can only be taken if you have campaign documentation allowing it (that usually means an AR or a meta-org cert). Some people have ARs which gave access to take Duskblade, thus they can give their characters levels in Duskblade. Rebuilding is not generally allowed. Recently the campaign adopted the wildshape errata, and the campaign administration decided that the changes were sufficiently severe that druids should be allowed a one-time complete rebuild. That's what that Dispel Confusion question was referring to.
bitznarf 04-09-07, 11:40 AM	This 'other' class of rules options is known in some circles as 'Non-Open/Non-Closed' or NONC. Some of us like to pronounce it 'ajar.'
King Kashue 04-09-07, 01:14 PM	This 'other' class of rules options is known in some circles as 'Non-Open/Non-Closed' or NONC. Some of us like to pronounce it 'ajar.' Many of us just acknowledge that the NONC category exists only for the LGCS, and that since the Open and Closed categories specifically apply to each individual PC, thus rules items are either one or the other and there is no third category as it relates to a character...
bitznarf 04-09-07, 01:42 PM	Many of us just acknowledge that the NONC category exists only for the LGCS, and that since the Open and Closed categories specifically apply to each individual PC, thus rules items are either one or the other and there is no third category as it relates to a character... Well, I suppose, if you want to get technical about it. I just like calling it 'ajar.' And by 'some circles' I mean my roommate and I.
King Kashue 04-09-07, 11:59 PM	Well, I suppose, if you want to get technical about it. I just like calling it 'ajar.' And by 'some circles' I mean my roommate and I. Oh, it's definitely clever...Just not terribly useful :D And more seriously, people placing an emphasis on the "NONC Category" confuses many people as to how it works...It's a stunningly elegant and simple system they've developed, and NONC just muddies the water ;)
bitznarf 04-10-07, 12:02 AM	Gnomes.
King Kashue 04-10-07, 12:20 AM	Gnomes. Also clever and useless...
bitznarf 04-10-07, 01:06 AM	Are Gnomes clever and useless or my post?
King Kashue 04-10-07, 01:26 AM	Are Gnomes clever and useless or my post? A little from column A, a little from column B :D
Hariman 04-10-07, 01:47 AM	For your individual characters, it's either open or closed. Since the LGCS does not provide a "general" open status, you need specific access for the character you wish to pursue it with. Without that specific access, it is closed for your character. And to "Open" duskblade for your character, you need access/documentation. This relies either on luck or on getting a special mission to get access to duskblade. Either way, you won't be playing a pure duskblade. You'll have at least one level of another class in the mix.
pedr 04-10-07, 08:05 AM	Unless something special happens like a creation card, or a 'sacrifice your character and your next character can be a duskblade' AR or any of a number of other things which can give characters access to things before character creation. But yes, planning characters based on getting access to things is never terribly wise, doing so with a spellcasting class you probably don't want to multiclass is even less so, I think.
Timlagor 04-10-07, 11:45 AM	"noncy" is just horrid "ajar" (did you get it from me?) is a great term but not terribly accurate since many of the things that are "UNLISTED" are never going to be allowed anywhere near the campaign. The Unlisted category very definitely exists. "Stuff you might get access to" is a decidedly different set to "stuff you will never ever see ever" even if you don't have it yet (especially if it shows up in MetaOrgs)
Mithrus 04-10-07, 12:09 PM	Why not just go back to the previous "limited" category and anything "NONC" is just that, limited based on AR documentation? Why drop an official category only to have a generally adopted unofficial one?
Samwise 04-10-07, 12:46 PM	Or just do what Xen'drik does and have "Closed" (aka, Never Possible"), and "Requires Campaign Documentation," with the LGCS being campaign documentation for everything that is currently "Open." That is what we have anyway. Either you can't take it or you need campaign documentation, and the "Open" category is what you have campaign documentation for. You don't need to list everything players don't have campaign documentation for since it would be, by definition, ever expanding, and because the category, again by definition, would require specific documentation, no favor would be accepted that granted blanket access.
King Kashue 04-10-07, 03:11 PM	Why not just go back to the previous "limited" category and anything "NONC" is just that, limited based on AR documentation? Why drop an official category only to have a generally adopted unofficial one? See, this is the confusion that people talking about NONC causes. The reason we don't need "limited" as a category is because for an individual character, there is no such thing as NONC. As it relates to the LGCS, there is a NONC category, but for an individual character there are things that are open, and their are things that are closed, there is no middle category. And since the terms specifically apply to characters and not to the campaign, the only thing that is important is if it's open to your character, if it's not, it's closed...
King Kashue 04-10-07, 03:13 PM	The Unlisted category very definitely exists. "Stuff you might get access to" is a decidedly different set to "stuff you will never ever see ever" even if you don't have it yet (especially if it shows up in MetaOrgs) But that's campaign relative, and open and closed are character-relative... I think most players are smart enough to recognize the difference between "Closed per the LGCS" and "Closed because my character doesn't yet have access" without creating a third category that isn't universally consistent and doesn't operate the same way the other two categories do...
Zanzibax 04-10-07, 03:59 PM	A little from column A, a little from column B :D Oh that does it! One of my next 2 characters is definitely a gnome...you just sealed the deal buddy. :emp:
King Kashue 04-10-07, 07:08 PM	Oh that does it! One of my next 2 characters is definitely a gnome...you just sealed the deal buddy. :emp: Seeing as I don't play with you, it doesn't phase me much :D
Timlagor 04-10-07, 07:44 PM	I think most players are smart enough to recognize the difference between "Closed per the LGCS" and "Closed because my character doesn't yet have access" without creating a third category that isn't universally consistent and doesn't operate the same way the other two categories do... Are you seriously suggesting that it's easier to discuss the four following categories: 1) Open 2) Closed per LGCS 3) Closed because i don't have access yet 4) Open for character A because I have documentation Rather than 1) Open 2) Closed 3) Unlisted 4) Unlisted but I have Access with character A ?
King Kashue 04-10-07, 08:22 PM	Are you seriously suggesting that it's easier to discuss the four following categories: 1) Open 2) Closed per LGCS 3) Closed because i don't have access yet 4) Open for character A because I have documentation Rather than 1) Open 2) Closed 3) Unlisted 4) Unlisted but I have Access with character A ? There doesn't need to be four categories, and I never said there were. In fact, as I've said this whole time, there's two, and they're the two I've mentioned. For each character, something is either open or closed, that's it... You keep mentioning categories that related to the campaign, except the whole system is character-relative not campaign-relative. "NONC" is not a viable category, since Open and Closed refer to characters, and nothing is NONC in relation to a specific character. Things are either open or closed. The fact that you wish to continue defining things relative to the campaign, while the system is now defined in relation to the character does not illustrate the necessity of naming a "NONC" category, it demonstrates your refusal to deal with the system on it's explicit terms (which is a personal issue, not a campaign issue)...
Timlagor 04-10-07, 09:47 PM	YES: I want to discuss things that are unlisted. I want to discuss hypotheticals. I want to have some idea whether something might turn up later I want some idea of whether an enemy might have something I want to know what something is when I see it Writers also need to consider things apart from particular characters. Your desire to restrict everyone to only discussing particular characters is boring and unhelpful.
copper_wyrmling 04-10-07, 10:26 PM	"NONC" is not a viable category, since Open and Closed refer to characters, and nothing is NONC in relation to a specific character. Things are either open or closed. The fact that you wish to continue defining things relative to the campaign, while the system is now defined in relation to the character does not illustrate the necessity of naming a "NONC" category, it demonstrates your refusal to deal with the system on it's explicit terms (which is a personal issue, not a campaign issue)... There are situations where you want to distinguish between something that your character might, at some future point, be able to get, and something which they can never access. Requesting special missions is the case that springs to mind.
King Kashue 04-10-07, 11:38 PM	YES: I want to discuss things that are unlisted. I want to discuss hypotheticals. I want to have some idea whether something might turn up later I want some idea of whether an enemy might have something I want to know what something is when I see it Writers also need to consider things apart from particular characters. And isn't it interesting that you're capable of figuring all that out without having an official category for it? Your desire to restrict everyone to only discussing particular characters is boring and unhelpful. I'm not restricting anything. The LGCS has a system that defines rules items in relation to characters, me saying that is relaying a fact, I'm not the one who wrote the rules....That you think I'm doing something doesn't make it so...
King Kashue 04-10-07, 11:39 PM	There are situations where you want to distinguish between something that your character might, at some future point, be able to get, and something which they can never access. Requesting special missions is the case that springs to mind. And people are quite capable of figuring that out within the current system. The fact that people can recognize and name a "NONC" category for the items in the LGCS is evidence of that. What we don't actually need is all that listed out because the system as written clearly defines how it works...
bitznarf 04-11-07, 12:04 AM	You do realize that Britt has actually acknowledged this third category?
thewh0 04-11-07, 12:09 AM	Either way, you won't be playing a pure duskblade. You'll have at least one level of another class in the mix. Which really sucks if I want to play an Elven Duskblade and didn't particularly want to start off as a wizard. The whole concept of requiring access for a base class is ridiculous. Oh well, at least I have the World's Largest Dungeon to play him in.
King Kashue 04-11-07, 12:14 AM	You do realize that Britt has actually acknowledged this third category? Indeed...he acknowledged it as an unofficial category as it relates to the LGCS...Which is all it is. However, the LGCS defines the categories "open" and "closed" in relation to individual characters. It's useful to think of the "NONC" category as it relates to the LGCS, particularly in character planning. But that doesn't change the fact it's unofficial, and it doesn't change the fact the "Open/Closed" system is not a campaign-relative system...
King Kashue 04-11-07, 12:15 AM	The whole concept of requiring access for a base class is ridiculous. Well, they could have just made it closed for everyone.
thewh0 04-11-07, 01:32 AM	Well, they could have just made it closed for everyone. They might as well have, since you can't plan for it. The odds that you have an existing character with other classes that makes sense to start taking levels in duskblade when you finally stumble across the accros the access is so astronomical to make it next to worthless. Or worse yet, you have the perfect character for it and end up playing the adventure with another character. I can see putting it on a reward card, or opening it up to people who play a particular story arc, similar to what was done with the asherati and centaur, but if access is limited to an AR, then it's a why bother.
Madfox11 04-11-07, 03:23 AM	I can see putting it on a reward card, or opening it up to people who play a particular story arc, similar to what was done with the asherati and centaur, but if access is limited to an AR, then it's a why bother. You do realize that if we closed it, these options would not be open either? Pieter Sleijpen RPGA Living Greyhawk Circle Member The Splintered Suns
Timlagor 04-11-07, 11:23 AM	And isn't it interesting that you're capable of figuring all that out without having an official category for it? Who said anything about an official category? You started this by complaining about people "talking" about <Unlisted>.
Samwise 04-11-07, 12:11 PM	YES: I want to discuss things that are unlisted. I want to discuss hypotheticals. I want to have some idea whether something might turn up later I want some idea of whether an enemy might have something I want to know what something is when I see it Writers also need to consider things apart from particular characters. It's rather hard to discuss things that are unlisted. By placing them off in some limbo of "maybe" you make it difficult to conceptualize them, which was a stated intent of eliminating the limited list. So if that is your desire, making the category so obscure is doubly self-defeating: 1. It confuses the players, leaving them to constantly ask about the status of something, and having to get quirky answers. 2. It leaves you with an uncertain mass of material to constantly wonder about the status. Again, cut it down. 1. Closed - you can never have it. 2. Requires Campaign Documentation - you might get it. 2a. Automatic Campaign Documentation - you don't have to go looking or wait for this stuff. With that, you know the status of everything. Oh, and to better deal with new material, instead of making it all "NONC" (or whatever euphemism you want to use) when released, make it Closed to start, with an option to be shifted to Requires Campaign Documentation after review. That way you sidestep attempts to be first to get out something new and cool before anyone really knows what it will do.
thewh0 04-11-07, 12:41 PM	You do realize that if we closed it, these options would not be open either? Pieter Sleijpen RPGA Living Greyhawk Circle Member The Splintered Suns Yes I realize that and I'm not saying that it should be closed. I was just responding to something someone had said about it might be allowed on an AR. Basically, I'm just disappointed that it wasn't made open in the first place and now I have to wait even longer if I want to play one in LG.
Zanzibax 04-11-07, 12:49 PM	Naw...it's good as it is...in limbo. I like limbo. Besides...options 2 and 2a are in effect by default. It's the very definition of NONC (Nonsee nse) It's rather hard to discuss things that are unlisted. By placing them off in some limbo of "maybe" you make it difficult to conceptualize them, which was a stated intent of eliminating the limited list. So if that is your desire, making the category so obscure is doubly self-defeating: 1. It confuses the players, leaving them to constantly ask about the status of something, and having to get quirky answers. 2. It leaves you with an uncertain mass of material to constantly wonder about the status. Again, cut it down. 1. Closed - you can never have it. 2. Requires Campaign Documentation - you might get it. 2a. Automatic Campaign Documentation - you don't have to go looking or wait for this stuff. With that, you know the status of everything. Oh, and to better deal with new material, instead of making it all "NONC" (or whatever euphemism you want to use) when released, make it Closed to start, with an option to be shifted to Requires Campaign Documentation after review. That way you sidestep attempts to be first to get out something new and cool before anyone really knows what it will do.
King Kashue 04-11-07, 07:18 PM	Who said anything about an official category? You started this by complaining about people "talking" about <Unlisted>. I said that people talking about "NONC" as if it's an official category confuses the whole way the system works... That's what I initially said. That's what I've said all along. That's what I'm still saying. You're trying to make my statements something they're not, and I won't apologize for refusing to let you use my limited statements to create a generalized strawman... Many of us just acknowledge that the NONC category exists only for the LGCS, and that since the Open and Closed categories specifically apply to each individual PC, thus rules items are either one or the other and there is no third category as it relates to a character... And more seriously, people placing an emphasis on the "NONC Category" confuses many people as to how it works...It's a stunningly elegant and simple system they've developed, and NONC just muddies the water ;) Why not just go back to the previous "limited" category and anything "NONC" is just that, limited based on AR documentation? Why drop an official category only to have a generally adopted unofficial one? See, this is the confusion that people talking about NONC causes. The reason we don't need "limited" as a category is because for an individual character, there is no such thing as NONC. As it relates to the LGCS, there is a NONC category, but for an individual character there are things that are open, and their are things that are closed, there is no middle category. There doesn't need to be four categories, and I never said there were. In fact, as I've said this whole time, there's two, and they're the two I've mentioned. For each character, something is either open or closed, that's it... You keep mentioning categories that related to the campaign, except the whole system is character-relative not campaign-relative. And people are quite capable of figuring that out within the current system. The fact that people can recognize and name a "NONC" category for the items in the LGCS is evidence of that. What we don't actually need is all that listed out because the system as written clearly defines how it works... Indeed...he acknowledged it as an unofficial category as it relates to the LGCS...Which is all it is. However, the LGCS defines the categories "open" and "closed" in relation to individual characters. It's useful to think of the "NONC" category as it relates to the LGCS, particularly in character planning. But that doesn't change the fact it's unofficial, and it doesn't change the fact the "Open/Closed" system is not a campaign-relative system... That's what I've said. It's consistent from first post to last, and it's not what you claim I've said... Ed, you keep portraying me as this strict literalist who won't let you have your fun, but that's bollocks, and as long as you keep saying it, I'll keep refuting it (at this point, all I need to do is point at my existing posts)...
JamesMaissen 04-11-07, 11:11 PM	I said that people talking about "NONC" as if it's an official category confuses the whole way the system works... Personally I think the problem is with 'closed' as calling it something other than the opposite of 'open' would have been more fruitful.. Personally I would have broken it up into two lists called 'removed' and 'npc only'. Anything not 'open' would be 'closed' by default. Anything 'removed' is out of the game entirely. Anything 'NPC only' would be well, only for npcs. Access from an AR or other source could change a 'closed' item to 'open' if it's not 'removed' from the game or 'NPC only'. But by having two lists with meanings that should make the sets compliments of one another there is some confusion that persists even after the initial adjustment period. -James
King Kashue 04-12-07, 12:30 AM	Personally I think the problem is with 'closed' as calling it something other than the opposite of 'open' would have been more fruitful.. Personally I would have broken it up into two lists called 'removed' and 'npc only'. Anything not 'open' would be 'closed' by default. Anything 'removed' is out of the game entirely. Anything 'NPC only' would be well, only for npcs. Access from an AR or other source could change a 'closed' item to 'open' if it's not 'removed' from the game or 'NPC only'. That's exactly the same system the old LGCS had... Considering their goal was to get rid of that system, keeping it sort of defeats the purpose...:D
KarmaInferno 04-13-07, 10:14 PM	We understand how the system is supposed to work. Everything is either Open for your character, or Closed. However, clearly, that's not how a lot of people think. The vast majority of players I talk to automatically assign a third unofficial category to everything not on the LGCS Open or Closed lists. It seems like an automatic tendency. Probably stems from the human mind liking things to be neatly categorized. If it's not A nor B, it must be C, even if C isn't named or official. Also, the earlier LGCS already established a three category system, and people got used to it. So it's natural to think of the NONC stuff as "Limited". For people to use the system as intended, on a "per character" basis rather than campaign-wide, requires they change the way they think about it. Any behaviorist will tell you this is unlikely to happen. People in groups simply don't change they way they think once a particular pattern has been established. Once a particular expectation is set, any change that does not meet that expectation becomes non-intuitive. Any system that requires a shift in thinking away from the expected pattern, without an overwhelming means of FORCING the shift, is therefore a likely failure. People will continue to refer to NONC items as "limited". They just will. It would have been better to simply take advantage of the existing categories rather than re-inventing the wheel, especially since the new system has no significant advantage over the old. -karma
King Kashue 04-13-07, 11:53 PM	We understand how the system is supposed to work. Everything is either Open for your character, or Closed. However, clearly, that's not how a lot of people think. The vast majority of players I talk to automatically assign a third unofficial category to everything not on the LGCS Open or Closed lists. It seems like an automatic tendency. Probably stems from the human mind liking things to be neatly categorized. If it's not A nor B, it must be C, even if C isn't named or official. Also, the earlier LGCS already established a three category system, and people got used to it. So it's natural to think of the NONC stuff as "Limited". For people to use the system as intended, on a "per character" basis rather than campaign-wide, requires they change the way they think about it. Any behaviorist will tell you this is unlikely to happen. People in groups simply don't change they way they think once a particular pattern has been established. Once a particular expectation is set, any change that does not meet that expectation becomes non-intuitive. Any system that requires a shift in thinking away from the expected pattern, without an overwhelming means of FORCING the shift, is therefore a likely failure. Unlikely to happen? Tell me, what's your character's THAC0? Or your chance to lift gates/bend bars? :D The means of forcing the shift is the fact the old system doesn't exist. People can continue to think about the system as it was, but that doesn't change the fact they're wrong in thinking of it that way. The reward in thinking about the system as it is currently written is the fact you'll actually know how it works and be able to properly use it in relation to your characters. ;) And honestly, it's fine to think about NONC, as long as your thinking in relation to "What the LGCS explicitly opens or closes for all characters". However, for an individual character, there is no NONC. It's either open or it's closed. It's not the same as Limited, because even if a character got access to limited, it didn't change category. There is no "closed but open for my character", since that makes no sense. People will eventually make the change in thinking because, as I said, the old system doesn't exist anymore...People eventually stopped calling the country "Siam", or "French Indochina", we don't talk about the "Brooklyn Dodgers" or ask for prices in Francs. It's only been two months. Perhaps it's a little soon to declare the whole body of LG players incapable of adaptation...
bitznarf 04-14-07, 03:41 AM	There is yet one more entirely valid way to look at this from a character perspective. There are things I can buy/stuff I can do right now - open 'stuff' There are things I will never buy/stuff I can never do - closed 'stuff' And the 3rd catagory... Things that I might find/stuff I might be able to learn - NONC Are things that are NONC effectively closed for that character? Yes. Does the distinction need to be made between things that will never be open and those that could be? Yes. You seem to be saying that for an individual character, that distinction is not made. Thats where the disagreement comes in. A character may hear of item X and decide to go looking for it (request a special mission.) From the characters perspective, if there was no distinction made between Closed and NONC then what prevents a character from searching for say.. nightsticks. Or looking at it the other way, how could a character ever search for something like eyes of the eagle, after all they are in the same category as nightsticks and are thus not available, ie. Closed.
King Kashue 04-14-07, 03:57 AM	Are things that are NONC effectively closed for that character? Yes. Does the distinction need to be made between things that will never be open and those that could be? Yes. And isn't it amazing that everyone can already do that without an official category? Both categories are character-relative. In relation to the character, there is no NONC. Nothing is preventing people from thinking of the categories in relation to the LGCS, specifically asking "what is open/closed to everyone per the LGCS?" and "What is closed to me because I don't have access". What I don't understand is why people are insisting on the necessity of going back to what is essentially the old system when the new one not only works fine, and is in fact far more efficient and streamlined. If it's more efficient & streamlined and people can still recognize the difference between "closed to everyone" and "potentially open to my character at some point" (as they clearly can), what possible purpose does an official campaign-relative category serve when it does not work in the system? And what purpose does talking about the category as if it is official, when it's not, serve? Does it not serve it's purpose as an unofficial means of considering things in relation to the LCGS?
Iswald 04-14-07, 10:07 AM	There were four categories before the latest installment of the LGCS and there still are four categories. Some people just pretend that two of those categories no longer exist...
bitznarf 04-14-07, 01:33 PM	Let me put it to you this way then, what harm does it do? What is the problem with approaching it this way? Why are you protesting against it so strongly?
Timlagor 04-14-07, 08:08 PM	KK: there is no significant change to the ways the rules work All they've done is remove an official name and relabel two of the old ones. the relabelling seems to have been more-or-less universally adopted now (Core was shockingly overused before) but no matter how much you talk about official labels the 'Unlisted' category still exists and warrants a name: no one cares if that name is official or not. Stuff you get Documentation for that is Unlisted is still not open for anyone else at the table -that is often a significant consideration.
King Kashue 04-15-07, 01:44 AM	There were four categories before the latest installment of the LGCS and there still are four categories. Some people just pretend that two of those categories no longer exist... Yeah, some people...Like the people who wrote the LGCS... Let me put it to you this way then, what harm does it do? What is the problem with approaching it this way? Why are you protesting against it so strongly? Because it's not how the system works anymore. I have no problem with people talking about NONC in relation to the LGCS (as I've said multiple times in this thread alone), but talking about it like an official category is just false, and there's no way around that.
KarmaInferno 04-15-07, 02:21 AM	The thing is, it was a change made that didn't actually do anything. Therefore it was a useless change. Changes are generally made to improve something. Shifting semantics around while keeping essentially the same meanings behind them is an exercise in pointless confusion. The very fact that a majority of folks seem to be simply using the old terms despite the new rules set is an indication of it's failure. The 2.0 to 3.0 shift isn't relevant, because that was an entire paradigm shift. There was no referent similarity between the old system and the new in many cases. Here, as pointed out, there were four categories. Now there's still four categories. Nothing has changed, except there's new names for the categories. Semantics. It was simply a bad idea to change stuff around just for the sake of changing it. If there were some new functionality to the system included, I could understand. But there isn't any. -karma
Iswald 04-15-07, 02:59 AM	Yeah, some people...Like the people who wrote the LGCS... And? Have you considered how contemptuous this approach is? Basicly, it's saying that the players are too idiotic to notice that some feats, spells, PrCs aren't listed as open or closed. And, that we won't be looking at those abilities to improve our characters because they aren't listed. Also, there's some odd belief that everything that was listed as limited was somehow seen as an 'uber' ability that we should be going out of our way to gain. So, if we don't see it listed, we won't want it? WTF?
King Kashue 04-15-07, 03:18 AM	And? Have you considered how contemptuous this approach is? Basicly, it's saying that the players are too idiotic to notice that some feats, spells, PrCs aren't listed as open or closed. And, that we won't be looking at those abilities to improve our characters because they aren't listed. Also, there's some odd belief that everything that was listed as limited was somehow seen as an 'uber' ability that we should be going out of our way to gain. So, if we don't see it listed, we won't want it? WTF? That isn't the point at all. That you think it is shows quite a bit about how you view the campaign leadership. Where in the hell are you even getting the idea that the thought is "people won't notice and thus not want it"? You're honestly the first person I've even heard mention it...
King Kashue 04-15-07, 03:22 AM	The thing is, it was a change made that didn't actually do anything. Therefore it was a useless change. Changes are generally made to improve something. Shifting semantics around while keeping essentially the same meanings behind them is an exercise in pointless confusion. You know, if you don't actually see the changes inherent in the shift from campaign-relative to character-relative, and truly think nothing has changed, nothing I (or anyone else) can say is going to matter... The very fact that a majority of folks seem to be simply using the old terms despite the new rules set is an indication of it's failure. I know dozens of folks who get it, and I can't think of anyone who still uses "limited" or the old terms...Some use NONC, but they use it relative to the LGCS... But they must all not realize that nothing's changed...I guess...:confused:
cycloptic_squirrel 04-15-07, 04:44 AM	Mechanics wise, nothing's changed much. Attitude wise, it was a significant shift. Before, there would be clamor for the circle to instantly label any new rule item under one of the categories (even though everything not labeled was by limited by default). Many people took limited to mean "open, but you have to get access; you have a stingy triad if you can't request a special mission for it." Now everything not mentioned is up in the air and I no longer see people rampantly assuming they can get access to non-open stuff. It might not seem like a huge change, but the new system is cleaner, more elegant, and more concise. We could have worked without changing anything, but in a few years, when the system needed the change, it would have seemed much more like a paradigm shift, and been more traumatic overall. I'd rather have half a dozen small, manageable changes than one huge messy one.
KarmaInferno 04-15-07, 10:25 AM	You know, if you don't actually see the changes inherent in the shift from campaign-relative to character-relative, and truly think nothing has changed, nothing I (or anyone else) can say is going to matter... Perception vs actual change. Saying "You need to think about it differently" means little to me if mechanically, it's the same system, just with a new coat of paint. Like "previously owned" vs "used" cars. Or "sanitation engineer" vs "janitor". Different perception, same subject. I still haven't seen one example listed where the new system offers any distinct, practical advantage over the old. I've heard "Oh, it'll be better", but I haven't seen anyone say how. I know dozens of folks who get it, and I can't think of anyone who still uses "limited" or the old terms...Some use NONC, but they use it relative to the LGCS... But they must all not realize that nothing's changed...I guess...:confused: "NONC" is what folks use to mean "Limited", by far and large. Those that even have heard of the term "NONC", that is. Others have their own terms for it, but they generally mean the category that used to be 'limited' The majority of folks I know still think of access in terms of the LGCS, not their individual characters. It's still 'I can take this freely', 'I can never have this', 'I can't normally have this, unless I get special campaign documentation', and 'I have special campaign documentation to have this' for them. I'm not questioning the existence of the change. I'm questioning the need for it. Before, there would be clamor for the circle to instantly label any new rule item under one of the categories (even though everything not labeled was by limited by default). Many people took limited to mean "open, but you have to get access; you have a stingy triad if you can't request a special mission for it." Now everything not mentioned is up in the air and I no longer see people rampantly assuming they can get access to non-open stuff. I never saw folks "clamoring for the circle to label new rules". Everything was Limited by default. That wasn't hard to understand. I did see folks bugging the Circle or Triads to get access to Limited items, with the understanding that some such items would be more difficult to get than others And now, just last month I saw folks talking about bugging their triad to get NONC items put in regional adventures or special missions. Same song, different title. -karma