Post/Author/DateTime	Post
rserio 08-27-07, 11:56 PM	Just a quick question, is Tome of Battle allowed in LG? Thanks.
Madfox11 08-28-07, 03:44 AM	No, but if you read the LGCS you would no this (or at least that you cannot use it without AR access).
rserio 08-28-07, 10:15 AM	I read through the document and never saw the Tome of Battle mentioned (perhaps I missed it?), so I was unsure if this meant it was totally out or if there had been AR access granted at some point.
kenobi65 08-28-07, 10:58 AM	It is true that Tome of Battle is not included in the list on p. 26 of the LGCS. However, there's a highly important sentence near the top of that page, which a lot of people seem to miss: If a rules option is not included in this document, you must have campaign documentation Opening it for your PC. Since Tome of Battle is also not listed in the Closed list, you can assume it's in that "need documentation" group. And, as a general rule, most of the non-Core books are not allowed (or disallowed) in LG on an entire-book basis; generally speaking, access is given to particular rules items.
Iswald 08-28-07, 11:02 AM	I read through the document and never saw the Tome of Battle mentioned (perhaps I missed it?), so I was unsure if this meant it was totally out or if there had been AR access granted at some point. If you've read Appendix 4 of the LGCS, and why wouldn't anyone, you'd see that there are two types of access, open and closed. If something isn't listed, then you need campaign documentation to use it with your PC. There used to be a clear method of determining if something was allowed or not but, it was too clear and had to be removed. If there's anyone playing LG next year in December, there will probably still be people asking if something is or isn't open. Given that three of the ten most recent threads in the Living Greyhawk Rules forum ask if something is open/closed, hopefully more sensible guidelines will be used with Living Forgotten Realms.
Howie23 08-28-07, 11:26 AM	Given that three of the ten most recent threads in the Living Greyhawk Rules forum ask if something is open/closed, hopefully more sensible guidelines will be used with Living Forgotten Realms. Insanity is the process of doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results. The original idea was compact, efficient, and ineffective. :) David
Rerednaw 08-28-07, 01:15 PM	I believe that the original response was not just no but 'h*ll no.' in LG. Of course now that were playing Dying Greyhawk, I'd give it a shot. Add some ToB material into a mod and see what happens. Worst they can say is no. Cheers.
CdrcJsn 08-28-07, 02:33 PM	There used to be a clear method of determining if something was allowed or not but, it was too clear and had to be removed. If there's anyone playing LG next year in December, there will probably still be people asking if something is or isn't open. Given that three of the ten most recent threads in the Living Greyhawk Rules forum ask if something is open/closed, hopefully more sensible guidelines will be used with Living Forgotten Realms. Considering that these people are asking something that they could've found the answer for just by reading the LGCS, what makes you think having a list in the LGCS of NONC items will help any?
rserio 08-28-07, 02:54 PM	I did read it. It's not completely clear. Or at the very least unclear enough to warrant asking a quick question on a message board.
JamesMaissen 08-28-07, 07:44 PM	Considering that these people are asking something that they could've found the answer for just by reading the LGCS, what makes you think having a list in the LGCS of NONC items will help any? It will help by having an expressed list of them. It's easier to find something than to make sure it's not listed. Also if it's listed it gets notice and review. Having such a list helps oversight on two levels, both to make sure something that was considered is placed in the right category and to make sure that things do get considered in the first place. The default of 'limited' is a bad policy. It lets far too many things slip under the cracks without sufficient vetting. Towards that I mean that it gives no oversight into what gets allowed into the campaign beyond reviewing and approving the ARs granting them. Modules get rushed to print and things can fall through the cracks very easily. How many errors on ARs or in modules have you seen? I've seen plenty throughout LG.. potions of personal spells and other clearly incorrect things show up in every region from time to time. Now that's not to say 'shame on you' to module authors and reviewers, but rather to say that this is a chaotic and frenzied process. Choosing this place as where to review whether an item should be included into the campaign is asking for problems. It also makes 'limited' into 'quasi-restricted' rather than its own category. Things should be *made* limited rather than defaulted into it. If it's balanced for the campaign and not inappropriate then, baring *very* unusual circumstances, it should be open. Likewise if it's balance or appropriateness is in doubt then make it closed until its seen as otherwise. Limited should be only for items designated as special that a person would have to *randomly* find.. as one cannot really be proactive about such searches can they? -James
Howie23 08-28-07, 08:47 PM	Considering that these people are asking something that they could've found the answer for just by reading the LGCS, what makes you think having a list in the LGCS of NONC items will help any? Cedric, there are two parts to this problem. The instruction about NONC items is part of it. Which sources are used in the campaign is another. A couple of years ago, the standard was adopted that any book was fair game; it didn't have to appear on the LGCS list in order to appear on an AR. The language about this in the LGCS is clear, but only once you know what it is supposed to mean. When someone is trying to figure out which books are used in the campaign, it looks like only the listed books are used at all, rather than being the source of the Open items below. David
dkay807 08-28-07, 10:01 PM	It will help by having an expressed list of them. It's easier to find something than to make sure it's not listed. Also if it's listed it gets notice and review The issue comes down to overhead. Remember that the campaign is run by volunteers and having a list of "NONC" or "Limited" items requires that that list be maintained every time new content is released. It is far easier to simply state "The content listed here is open, the content listed over there is closed, and if it's not listed in either of these places, you need specific documentation in order to use it." This is a total dead horse that I must admit to being guilty of beating, but the complaints about the subject are beginning to baffle me.
clannagh 08-28-07, 10:26 PM	My recollection of the problem with having a "limited" category was some people took great offence about anything being "rlimited" for them and claimed that it gave other players with AR access to items they perceived as powerful an unfair advantage in the race to become the most superior PC in all of Greyhawk. The change was basically to remove the label "limited" without actually make any changes to what access the previously "limited" items got. This exercise in political correctness seems to have actually worked and shutup the complainers. I am baffled as to quite why but if it works it works.
Iswald 08-28-07, 10:33 PM	The issue comes down to overhead. Remember that the campaign is run by volunteers and having a list of "NONC" or "Limited" items requires that that list be maintained every time new content is released. It is far easier to simply state "The content listed here is open, the content listed over there is closed, and if it's not listed in either of these places, you need specific documentation in order to use it." Do you think the circle maintains a list of rules items that it has already decided should be open, restricted, npc only or limited? Or, do you think they have to re-evaluate each item every time it comes up?
Iswald 08-28-07, 10:56 PM	My recollection of the problem with having a "limited" category was some people took great offense about anything being "limited" for them and claimed that it gave other players with AR access to items they perceived as powerful an unfair advantage in the race to become the most superior PC in all of Greyhawk. I have never heard this argument before. This (http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Living_Greyhawk/message/92587) is what Britt Frey has said in one of the LG forums at Yahoo! Have you missed all the discussions where the entire point of cutting out all the references to Limited was done to curtail the very mistaken belief that Limited access was an entitlement? We don't want you thinking about that stuff, planning for it, or even noticing that it exists. You are supposed to look at the Open and Closed lists, plan your character, and then be excited if you get access to something unexpected. You are NOT supposed to look at the Closed list and then plan your character assuming everything else in the universe is Open, will be Open, or should be Open. What do you think the point of the Open list is, if not to focus and limit your attention and planning to those items? Players are supposed to pretend that certain spells, feats, etc don't exist. The mindset to create such a policy is both naive and condescending.
ShinAkuma2 08-28-07, 11:27 PM	You are supposed to look at the Open and Closed lists, plan your character, and then be excited if you get access to something unexpected. That's a cute idea, but what are the odds that a character will access something interesting, and actually be able to use it? Unless an AR contains a limited feat/prestige class for several character archetypes, you would too often get tables where no one will "be excited" over the class/feat accessed, since they usually require specific builds. Some characters simply cannot be converted from one path to another so easily. I don't know how many times I've gotten access to Drunken Master or Contemplative, for instance, with characters that could never qualify without becoming useless mish-mosh train-wreck characters.
Madfox11 08-29-07, 04:52 AM	The reason we removed the limited list was: (a) space (b) it made adding new material to the campaign more complicated (c) raised a lot of questions nonstop about things not mentioned on those both lists (there was a constant demand to keep the list updated) Funny how people forgot that before the change there were just as many questions asked about access as now ;) Pieter Sleijpen RPGA LG Circle Member The Splintered Sun s
Istaran 08-29-07, 08:27 PM	It will help by having an expressed list of them. It's easier to find something than to make sure it's not listed. Also if it's listed it gets notice and review. Having such a list helps oversight on two levels, both to make sure something that was considered is placed in the right category and to make sure that things do get considered in the first place. The default of 'limited' is a bad policy. It lets far too many things slip under the cracks without sufficient vetting. Towards that I mean that it gives no oversight into what gets allowed into the campaign beyond reviewing and approving the ARs granting them. Modules get rushed to print and things can fall through the cracks very easily. How many errors on ARs or in modules have you seen? I've seen plenty throughout LG.. potions of personal spells and other clearly incorrect things show up in every region from time to time. Now that's not to say 'shame on you' to module authors and reviewers, but rather to say that this is a chaotic and frenzied process. Choosing this place as where to review whether an item should be included into the campaign is asking for problems. It also makes 'limited' into 'quasi-restricted' rather than its own category. Things should be *made* limited rather than defaulted into it. If it's balanced for the campaign and not inappropriate then, baring *very* unusual circumstances, it should be open. Likewise if it's balance or appropriateness is in doubt then make it closed until its seen as otherwise. Limited should be only for items designated as special that a person would have to *randomly* find.. as one cannot really be proactive about such searches can they? -James So then whenever the cicle adds access to a new book they add only things that are absolutely unobjectionable to the Open list, things that are okay but special enough to deserving being explicitly limited into the Limited list (which would be very small by your idea and thus everyone would be passing out access to the same handful of things in every region by simple lack of choices) and everything that the circle is unsure about would be Closed? Or would you imagine that everything the circle is unsure about would end up being Open, letting its brokenness be demonstrated in play and then the Circle goes back and retroactively Closes things, forcing rebuilds and mass complaints in some cases (i.e. things like Divine Metamagic that literally reshape an entire character to make optimal use of it)? Limited seems like a good place for dubious content.. letting a subset of players get access to something that they likely haven't built their characters around abusing is less likely to force a retroactive closing and also limits the damage if something Limited becomes closed. Also, there's a second layer of review inherent in there.. the Circle has already gone through and seen what is definitely okay and what is definitely not okay, and the Triads/authors/etc get to look case by case at the murkier grey areas and decide without the pressure and the rush involved in vetting hundeds of rules items from several books simultaneously in time for an annual update with a huge and demanding following. Limited seems like a good place to me for things that aren't clearly okay nor clearly unbalanced/misflavored pending further review and perhaps play experience.
JamesMaissen 08-29-07, 09:08 PM	So then whenever the cicle adds access to a new book they add only things that are absolutely unobjectionable to the Open list, things that are okay but special enough to deserving being explicitly limited into the Limited list (which would be very small by your idea and thus everyone would be passing out access to the same handful of things in every region by simple lack of choices) and everything that the circle is unsure about would be Closed? Or would you imagine that everything the circle is unsure about would end up being Open, letting its brokenness be demonstrated in play and then the Circle goes back and retroactively Closes things, forcing rebuilds and mass complaints in some cases Well there are different ways of thinking here. First, default open. After an initial purview where nothing seems wrong it's made open. It proves to be broken, and it's removed. Of course if it is broken in any way shape or form having all of LG look over it will find it fairly quickly and it will be widespread enough to merit easy notice. This has happened, and people can get used to it. The frequency of course depends upon the reviewer for the most part, but new items coming out will have an air of uncertainty about them as they may fall by the roadside. Taking a new item like this would be tentative as it might prove too much.. and you're back to where you would have been if it wasn't made open. Second, default closed. Things are explored and when found to be balanced are made open, say in a periodic publishing of the LGCS with perhaps quarterly updates (with major ones being the first of the year). A few errors would occur and be moved back to closed in a dispel confusion (or in the next LGCS even) and people would adjust. It would be periodic process where something new becoming open would be seen as waiting to be proven acceptable. The third, default limited (the current system). Is not much different than default closed, except only a few people get item X when it occurs and it's review period is of dubious quality. Consider how many items were made closed after access was granted.. Bite of the Lycanthrope spells, Ray of Stupidity, etc. But those are only the 'success' stories.. as they saw sufficiently widespread access that they were observed to be broken... how many other items were granted that only a few took that are even worse? How long until it's noticed? Even then, does it merit a change? The last is a bad way of handling things imho as it doesn't actively look at items by and large. Many things easily get swept under the rug. Better to have the whole playerbase looking over items for balance than just the few that see a random item, James
Britt 08-30-07, 12:21 AM	Players are supposed to pretend that certain spells, feats, etc don't exist. The mindset to create such a policy is both naive and condescending. This is a misrepresentation of the many, many posts I made on this subject back when it was actually an issue. There are many reasons to remove the Limited list, one being the subtle psychological difference amongst players between having a list and not having a list. I have noticed a distinct difference, as I'm sure have others.
Haro 08-30-07, 02:38 AM	This is a misrepresentation of the many, many posts I made on this subject back when it was actually an issue. There are many reasons to remove the Limited list, one being the subtle psychological difference amongst players between having a list and not having a list. I have noticed a distinct difference, as I'm sure have others. QFT.
TetsujinOni 09-04-07, 10:29 AM	This is a misrepresentation of the many, many posts I made on this subject back when it was actually an issue. There are many reasons to remove the Limited list, one being the subtle psychological difference amongst players between having a list and not having a list. I have noticed a distinct difference, as I'm sure have others. QFT, and additionally: If you have a Limited list that new rule items must appear on to be allowed in an adventure, then you must release a new LGCS update with the new Limited list every time a book comes out with rules item updates which want to be rolled in, OR you must wait until the next scheduled LGCS release to add new rule items. LGCS releases get reviewed by RPGA HQ. That means someone that costs WotC money has to spend paid time to review the changes in the document. That increases the cost of the campaign. Thus, goodbye and good riddance to the explicit Limited access list. -- Just another player with a big yap
Iswald 09-07-07, 03:00 PM	This is a misrepresentation of the many, many posts I made on this subject back when it was actually an issue. There are many reasons to remove the Limited list, one being the subtle psychological difference amongst players between having a list and not having a list. I have noticed a distinct difference, as I'm sure have others. A direct quote with a link to the source is a misrepresentation? The source post has more or less the same tone and similar wording to a post you wrote for these forums.
thunderspirit 09-07-07, 04:50 PM	First, default open.<snip well-reasoned exposition> Second, default closed. <snip well-reasoned exposition> The third, default limited (the current system). <snip well-reasoned exposition> The last is a bad way of handling things imho as it doesn't actively look at items by and large. Many things easily get swept under the rug. Better to have the whole playerbase looking over items for balance than just the few that see a random item, I disagree. As a default, I think the third is the best way of handling two competing forces acting on the Circle -- the overall health of the campaign and the financial goals of the publisher. Default open has the potential for disaster on game balance -- and much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the campaign participants when the broken toy is taken away (see Divine Spell Power as just one of many examples). Default closed sells no new material -- anathema to any business -- and is a maintenance nightmare. Default limited is a fair compromise.
Wraith235 09-09-07, 12:17 AM	IMHO the question he should have asked (to avoid all the heckeling hes gotten) is this Does anyone know if anything from Tome of battle has ever been included on any AR in the past if the answer was no then he could safely assume that there has not and most likely wont ever be anything from that book if yes ... then that would have told him it was possible to find something from that book there are several other books that the same questions could be asked about ... like the Draconomican.... Unearthed Arcana ... ect ect
Britt 09-10-07, 09:20 AM	A direct quote with a link to the source is a misrepresentation? The source post has more or less the same tone and similar wording to a post you wrote for these forums. A direct quote and a link to the source where I say something philosophically different than what you indicate is a misrepresentation. 'Pretend' is a loaded term that does not capture the philosophy and psychology of the change.
CdrcJsn 09-10-07, 02:17 PM	IMHO the question he should have asked (to avoid all the heckeling hes gotten) is this Does anyone know if anything from Tome of battle has ever been included on any AR in the past if the answer was no then he could safely assume that there has not and most likely wont ever be anything from that book if yes ... then that would have told him it was possible to find something from that book there are several other books that the same questions could be asked about ... like the Draconomican.... Unearthed Arcana ... ect ect Nobody should be building a character around something he might get access to. That road just leads to disappointment. If he wants it, he should ask for a special mission. At least he'll know up front if it's available or not.
Rerednaw 09-10-07, 06:54 PM	Just a note, if you can get a chance to play the Undermountain series...while not exactly LG, you can use the Tome of Battle Book of Nine Swords in it. They adventures are only available as con specials to my knowledge. Some of the rewards (certs) are droppable on a LG character. Not as good as a complete LG legal ToB BoNS probably but at least you get to play...
paigeoliver 09-12-07, 01:59 AM	For some reason I think you are confused about something here. Just a note, if you can get a chance to play the Undermountain series...while not exactly LG, you can use the Tome of Battle Book of Nine Swords in it. They adventures are only available as con specials to my knowledge. Some of the rewards (certs) are droppable on a LG character. Not as good as a complete LG legal ToB BoNS probably but at least you get to play...
KarmaInferno 09-12-07, 09:48 AM	He's saying "It's not LG, but it's as close as you are likely to get". -karma
Timlagor 09-14-07, 04:21 PM	what do you think he was confused about paige?