Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Howie23 05-02-07, 12:42 PM	from the RHoD FAQ: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=lg/lgad/20070501a Q. There are NPCs in Red Hand of Doom that have closed prestige classes. How is this possible? A. First, Closed rules items designate that PCs can not use them, not that NPCs cannot. Second, we tried to stay as true to the original with regards to Red Hand of Doom so we did not make changes to rules items like prestige classes even if they were closed with regards to Living Greyhawk. It is sufficient here to use the second reply. Since when did Closed rules items indicate that only PCs can not use them, but that they were available for NPCs? There is a separate class of NPC only. It used to be, well, NPC Only. It's now the category of Closed items that include the dagger for author use only. David
Britt 05-02-07, 12:53 PM	I don't think you need to worry about it unless it happens in a normal mod. We can't change the stat blocks in adapted mods. Is this really an issue right now?
Howie23 05-02-07, 01:03 PM	I don't think you need to worry about it unless it happens in a normal mod. We can't change the stat blocks in adapted mods. Is this really an issue right now? I'm not concerned about the presence of the closed classes in the ADP. I am concerned about the blanket statement about what closed means. When I asked about this back in November, I was told "ADPs are different." Is it an issue right now? Yes. It is an issue right now because the statement has just been made, and if in error, it is more effective to correct it now rather than later when it steeps into all of the conversations about access, fairness, flavor, and campaign consistency, as well as into writing projects. David
Britt 05-02-07, 01:25 PM	Except who needs correcting if we're the ones that edit the mods? As long as we are consistent with our application of the rule, it's not really an issue. I really don't think you have to worry about anything here.
King Kashue 05-02-07, 01:34 PM	If it's really an issue, have Steve add the word "necessarily" in between "not" and "that" in the first line... "First, Closed rules items designate that PCs can not use them, not necessarily that NPCs cannot." Or even better, add the line "Some closed rules items remain viable for NPCs" after the first line... That is, if it's an issue...;)
Master_Bushido_Mark 05-02-07, 02:19 PM	If it's really an issue, have Steve add the word "necessarily" in between "not" and "that" in the first line... "First, Closed rules items designate that PCs can not use them, not necessarily that NPCs cannot." Or even better, add the line "Some closed rules items remain viable for NPCs" after the first line... That is, if it's an issue...;) I agree with the person's post. I'm a rules lawyer when it comes to judging, playing, and will be so if I should write in the future (which I want to). A game must have rules, and those rules must be absolute and concise, otherwise it would bake my noodle because then you are just letting your writers cheat. So, make the necessary edit in the LGCS, or add it to the FAQ until next year's LGCS to cover it for now. Mark
Britt 05-02-07, 02:25 PM	The LGCS, DCs, and similar releases are for player consumption. What is available for NPCs is an internal campaign administration issue; players don't need to worry about it. It definitely doesn't need to go in player documents. We have internal documents that cover these types of things and will continue to enforce them. Seriously, this isn't an issue.
bitznarf 05-02-07, 02:27 PM	I agree with the person's post. I'm a rules lawyer when it comes to judging, playing, and will be so if I should write in the future (which I want to). A game must have rules, and those rules must be absolute and concise, otherwise it would bake my noodle because then you are just letting your writers cheat. So, make the necessary edit in the LGCS, or add it to the FAQ until next year's LGCS to cover it for now. Mark Either way, please either acknowledge the intent to change the rule or change the FAQ so that it doesn't change the rule, if the wording that changed the rule was unintentional. :twocents:
King Kashue 05-02-07, 05:12 PM	The LGCS, DCs, and similar releases are for player consumption. What is available for NPCs is an internal campaign administration issue; players don't need to worry about it. It definitely doesn't need to go in player documents. We have internal documents that cover these types of things and will continue to enforce them. Seriously, this isn't an issue. I agree (which is why I phrased it the way I did)...:D However, consider this: The LGCS explicitly explains the status of items not explicitly opened or closed...It's in the very first sentence of the section, and theoretically, everyone must read it to get to the tables with open and closed. Yet, every three days we have a thread asking "what's the status of something if it's not listed?"... Yes, it shouldn't be an issue. Yes, no player should actually care that the definition is different. However, I can almost guarantee that it will be an issue, and an extra word or two (or rephrasing that one line) will head off a potential pantload of questions from folks... In other words, editing the line now means you don't have the question asked a dozen times in the Rules question thread ;)
UMiskatonic 05-02-07, 06:07 PM	Let it go dude. Adaptables are written by professional authors who are not part of the LG campaign staff. Therefore, we can't expect that adaptables necessarily follow the LGCS. The conversion process does as much as it can, but there might still be exceptions. I GREATLY prefer to have the exceptions, and the excellent adaptable mods that go with them, than to have neither, which is where you are taking us with your complaining. Howie23, yes you found a loophole. And no, no one else cares about it. At least not anyone that I know, and I am a player and a judge in one of the largest cities in the USA. If you have a specific problem with a specific mod, than please address your problems to campaign staff directly, without filling this board with spoilers. You'll get a better answer to your problems that way as well.
Howie23 05-02-07, 06:21 PM	Howie23, yes you found a loophole. And no, no one else cares about it. At least not anyone that I know, and I am a player and a judge in one of the largest cities in the USA. What on earth are you talking about? I posted this thread to call out a contradiction between two campaign documents. What loophole are you referring to? If you have a specific problem with a specific mod, than please address your problems to campaign staff directly, without filling this board with spoilers. You'll get a better answer to your problems that way as well. I don't know who your comment is directed to. You've replied to KK's post and then you're all over the place. There are no spoilers in this thread, nor do I see anyone complaining in it. David
Jesse Heinig 05-02-07, 06:21 PM	That would be the Howie23 who is an adventure writer and one of the best DMs in southern California, who is understandably curious about how this stance may affect the use of various other closed items on NPCs in modules for writers. Consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds, but D&D has enough hobgoblins as-is. It's not like this is a difficult edit to fix (as opposed to, say, someone finishing up the Deities 2.1 document that was supposed to come out "in a few days" months ago . . .) Let it go dude. Adaptables are written by professional authors who are not part of the LG campaign staff. Therefore, we can't expect that adaptables necessarily follow the LGCS. The conversion process does as much as it can, but there might still be exceptions. I GREATLY prefer to have the exceptions, and the excellent adaptable mods that go with them, than to have neither, which is where you are taking us with your complaining. Howie23, yes you found a loophole. And no, no one else cares about it. At least not anyone that I know, and I am a player and a judge in one of the largest cities in the USA. If you have a specific problem with a specific mod, than please address your problems to campaign staff directly, without filling this board with spoilers. You'll get a better answer to your problems that way as well.
King Kashue 05-02-07, 06:22 PM	Let it go dude. Adaptables are written by professional authors who are not part of the LG campaign staff. Therefore, we can't expect that adaptables necessarily follow the LGCS. The conversion process does as much as it can, but there might still be exceptions. I GREATLY prefer to have the exceptions, and the excellent adaptable mods that go with them, than to have neither, which is where you are taking us with your complaining. Howie23, yes you found a loophole. And no, no one else cares about it. At least not anyone that I know, and I am a player and a judge in one of the largest cities in the USA. If you have a specific problem with a specific mod, than please address your problems to campaign staff directly, without filling this board with spoilers. You'll get a better answer to your problems that way as well. Dude, he linked to the official Living Greyhawk FAQ on the adaptable, which is posted on the main Wizards website, and is written by The Circle... This isn't a matter of the "professional authors", it isn't a matter of the adaptable and the LG rules not jiving, and it isn't a spoiler...It's a question regarding an official and public Living Greyhawk rules statement... If you're gonna tell someone that their argument isn't valid, at least know what the heck it is they're actually saying...:rolleyes:
bitznarf 05-02-07, 06:28 PM	The LGCS, DCs, and similar releases are for player consumption. What is available for NPCs is an internal campaign administration issue; players don't need to worry about it. It definitely doesn't need to go in player documents. We have internal documents that cover these types of things and will continue to enforce them. Seriously, this isn't an issue. So the LGCS 'author only' notes mean nothing? Nor does the 'closed' list actually mean anything to authors? Nor the 'open' list? Just the 'internal documents'? If the answer is 'yes, that is correct' so be it, it would just be nice to know.
scon40 05-02-07, 10:44 PM	Perhaps my reading comprehension skills have gone to rot, but I've looked at the LGCS again a few moments ago and see NO contradiction between my FAQ and the LGCS text on Closed. The LGCS says: Closed: A PC may not take advantage of any rules item listed as Closed, ever. † These classes are available for author use. How does this contradict with my text in the RHoD FAQ?
King Kashue 05-02-07, 10:58 PM	Perhaps my reading comprehension skills have gone to rot, but I've looked at the LGCS again a few moments ago and see NO contradiction between my FAQ and the LGCS text on Closed. The LGCS says: Closed: A PC may not take advantage of any rules item listed as Closed, ever. † These classes are available for author use. How does this contradict with my text in the RHoD FAQ? Because the RHoD FAQ says that "Closed" doesn't close anything for NPCs, which it does. It just doesn't always close stuff. In other words, the LGCS uses the term as "closed to everyone unless specifically allowed for NPCs", whereas the RHoD FAQ says its "Closed to PCs only, not NPCs"... They're different, though in practice, the difference is only going to be significant to module authors. My (and several other folks', like Biznarf) only concern is that even if in practice it doesn't matter much, it does create different definitions, and thus someone somewhere is going to find a way to trip themselves up with it. :D
Reznor00 05-02-07, 11:22 PM	Adapted Modules aren't written by RPGA writers, DMs, and players so much as professional game designers. They don't worry about what is closed/open to the RPGA when they are creating a storyline and then the game mechanics to tell that story. I think if people are worried about facing something that is closed and not normally even allowed for RPGA author use....then don't risk playing an adaptable module. It would be silly to not allow for the RPGA to use a published WotC adventure because of one or two closed items that occasional pop up. This would be bad business for WotC (who can sell those modules to the RPGA) and bad for players looking for another module to play when they can't travel and have played all their cores and regional. Since the RPGA did not write the modules that’s being adapted a player should be prepared to possibly see something that’s closed even for normal author use in the module. If as a player you are too afraid or opposed to this then I’d suggest you just avoid adaptable modules. Heck my only complaint is that the Red Hand of Doom is likely going to retire before I have any character to high to play it, unless I find a super cool and nice group that doesn’t mind a character down a level or two from the APL. ~MB
King Kashue 05-02-07, 11:30 PM	Adapted Modules aren't written by RPGA writers, DMs, and players so much as professional game designers. They don't worry about what is closed/open to the RPGA when they are creating a storyline and then the game mechanics to tell that story. I think if people are worried about facing something that is closed and not normally even allowed for RPGA author use....then don't risk playing an adaptable module. It would be silly to not allow for the RPGA to use a published WotC adventure because of one or two closed items that occasional pop up. This would be bad business for WotC (who can sell those modules to the RPGA) and bad for players looking for another module to play when they can't travel and have played all their cores and regional. Since the RPGA did not write the modules that’s being adapted a player should be prepared to possibly see something that’s closed even for normal author use in the module. If as a player you are too afraid or opposed to this then I’d suggest you just avoid adaptable modules. Heck my only complaint is that the Red Hand of Doom is likely going to retire before I have any character to high to play it, unless I find a super cool and nice group that doesn’t mind a character down a level or two from the APL. ~MB Just a question, and I really do mean this with as little offense as possible (since your tone is quite neutral and appropriate, and I want to return in kind), but did you fully read the thread before posting? Because you've missed both the original poster's point, and you missed someone saying something very similar to what you're saying, to which three people have already given a response. To sum up for you though: -This isn't about the content of the module in any way, shape or form. -This isn't about the module writers doing something that doesn't jibe with LG rules... The issue is about an official Living Greyhawk rules statement written by the Circle, and how it might cause confusion about the Living Greyhawk rules. It honestly has nothing to do with the module except that the statement was made in the official FAQ for the module. As several folks have said, it's honestly a relatively minor issue in practice, and the people most likely concerned about it are meticulous module authors, a group which happens to include the original poster :D
scon40 05-03-07, 12:37 AM	In other words, the LGCS uses the term as "closed to everyone unless specifically allowed for NPCs", whereas the RHoD FAQ says its "Closed to PCs only, not NPCs"... Where does the LGCS say that? Please reference a specific page/line. As I posted above, Closed is defined in the LGCS as "A PC may not take advantage of any rules item listed as Closed, ever". I haven't found any other definition of it.
King Kashue 05-03-07, 12:46 AM	Where does the LGCS say that? Please reference a specific page/line. I didn't say it was the explicit definition. I said "the LGCS uses the term" that way, i.e., the functional definition. The way the appendices are organized, they close a rules item unless the "These are available for author use" marker is applied. Thus it functions as I described (closed for the campaign unless given a specific exemption). Still not a big deal, but considering it would take a few minutes to change the line to reflect the usage in the LGCS, not sure why it's a big deal not to change it either...;)
Reznor00 05-03-07, 01:35 AM	Just a question, and I really do mean this with as little offense as possible (since your tone is quite neutral and appropriate, and I want to return in kind), but did you fully read the thread before posting? Because you've missed both the original poster's point, and you missed someone saying something very similar to what you're saying, to which three people have already given a response. To sum up for you though: -This isn't about the content of the module in any way, shape or form. -This isn't about the module writers doing something that doesn't jibe with LG rules... The issue is about an official Living Greyhawk rules statement written by the Circle, and how it might cause confusion about the Living Greyhawk rules. It honestly has nothing to do with the module except that the statement was made in the official FAQ for the module. As several folks have said, it's honestly a relatively minor issue in practice, and the people most likely concerned about it are meticulous module authors, a group which happens to include the original poster :D Yup, I read all the posts. My opinion on the subject was similar to some other people's but I mentioned some things nobody else did, so did you read my post and all the other posts for that matter I ask you? *Grins*. After rereading the thread I noticed that Mark Rosewater's idea was a good one of updating that rule in a FAQ, to which someone else expanded on basically putting in the next Dispelling Confusion that adapted modules might have some closed stuff in them. Though DC is a player resource not fot DMs so that might not be a good place for it as Brit said. Basically it just comes down to adapted modules might not follow the LGCS rules for closed since they aren't created with the same requirements that RPGA modules are. I'm not worried about it either way, might be neat to see something you thought you would never ever seen in LG. ~MB
King Kashue 05-03-07, 01:42 AM	Yup, I read all the posts. My opinion on the subject was similar to some other people's but I mentioned some things nobody else did, so did you read my post and all the other posts for that matter I ask you *Grins*. Indeed I did...And you didn't actually address the Original poster's issue (i.e., the topic of the thread)... No one is suggesting that the RPGA not use adaptables due to a few closed items. No one is suggesting that they're "afraid" to play a mod with a few closed items. No one is actually suggesting it's a problem in any way. So your thoughts on those matters, while interesting, are not actually relevant or topical. The only issue that has been raised here is potential confusion between the way the open/closed system is used in the LGCS and the way Steve describes it in the RHoD FAQ...That's the only issue (and as mentioned, it's not a significant one)... After rereading the thread I noticed that Mark Rosewater's idea was a good one of updating that rule in a FAQ, to which someone else expanded on basically putting in the next Dispelling Confusion that adapted modules might have some closed stuff in them. Though DC is a player resource not fot DMs so that might not be a good place for it as Brit said. Basically it just comes down to adapted modules might not follow the LGCS rules for closed since they aren't created with the same requirements that RPGA modules are. I'm not worried about it either way, might be neat to see something you thought you would never ever seen in LG. And I think most folks knows that. And a DC mention would probably be a good idea (since it's essentially zero effort, so if it answers even one person's concerns it's a good thing)... It still wouldn't address the issue of the thread though :D
Reznor00 05-03-07, 02:00 AM	You make a decent point. The original posters point had already been answered well enough by a Circle Member Britt, so I saw no point to talk about that. However other things being mentioned is why I brought up what I did. I can see maybe where my opinion ran away from the relevance of the topic at hand. Also my business comments about what's likely good for WotC and the RPGA just sort of spewed out..l That tends to happen with things I'm passionate about. I do always keep my comments civil and neutral because it's just poor taste not to. Sorry for getting somewhat off topic I guess the excitement got the better of me :-) ~MB
King Kashue 05-03-07, 02:05 AM	You make a decent point. The original posters point had already been answered well enough by a Circle Member Britt, so I saw no point to talk about that. However other things being mentioned is why I brought up what I did. I can see maybe where my opinion ran away from the relevance of the topic at hand. Also my business comments about what's likely good for WotC and the RPGA just sort of spewed out..l That tends to happen with things I'm passionate about. I do always keep my comments civil and neutral because it's just poor taste not to. Sorry for getting somewhat off topic I guess the excitement got the better of me :-) ~MB Eh, you're absolutely right that WotC sales comes into it. Not that it's a bad thing. The RPGA and Living Greyhawk are marketing arms of WotC. They get resources and support because they deliver sales. It's mutually beneficial. Without WotC support, LG wouldn't be as big as it is.
_metz_ 05-03-07, 02:06 AM	Unless you are an author, it doesn't matter. If you are an author, follow current rules. If you are the author of an adaptable - it doesn't matter, not LGCS rules. If you are converting it, then you operate outside the system, and we are GLAD to get more games. I can see how there is some issue, but unless you are writing modules and in essence asking to include some stuff not normally allowed, then perhaps that should be the basis of the arguement. I am sure the FAQ will be amended, and I have to agree that complaining about it or making too mcu hof a fuss will mean its that much harder to convert modules and the Circle will just say "stuff it" Not having a go at anyone, But it is NOT a redefinition of Closed/Open - its a redfeinition of Closed/Open FOR ADAPTABLE MODULES.
King Kashue 05-03-07, 02:16 AM	Not having a go at anyone, But it is NOT a redefinition of Closed/Open - its a redfeinition of Closed/Open FOR ADAPTABLE MODULES. Well, it doesn't actually say anything of the sort... But I'll take your word for it...
_metz_ 05-03-07, 02:49 AM	Well lets hope that the circle will wirte the statement such that one doesn't require common sense in its interpretation. :) I hate it how the intent of rules is never thought of anymore. Only what is actually written verbatim. PLEASE ADJUST THE FAQ CIRCLE MEMBERS.
King Kashue 05-03-07, 03:04 AM	Well lets hope that the circle will wirte the statement such that one doesn't require common sense in its interpretation. :) I hate it how the intent of rules is never thought of anymore. Only what is actually written verbatim. If you actually read the section, Steve's referring to how the term works in the campaign, and then applying it to the adaptable to explain why certain things might appear to be issues with the module actually aren't in conflict with general LG rules... The statement doesn't actually work with any other intent, so despite your claims of 'superior common sense', your interpretation of the intent isn't actually compatible with the language... And as a note, what I hate is when people assume they know the intent of a particular statement and then find a way to interpret it to match their preconceptions instead of actually reading the explicit statement and then applying critical comprehension and interpreting it in context... Since we're sharing pet peeves...:rolleyes:
_metz_ 05-03-07, 03:54 AM	All I said mate, was why get so fired up over such a small thing. The only thing it affects is authors NOT GMs. NOT PLAYERS. If authors are commenting on it, then so be it. Authors have thier own restricitons that they are aware of, and if a prestige class isn't allowed, then the mod is not approved. As currently, go with the definitions in the LGCS. If you are an Author, then ask. THATS what I said. That is the common sense I am referring to. Its no need for players to get so worked up about it and stress over the definition of open vs closed vs NONC, It seems very simpel to me, yet keeps cropping up. IF IT SAYS ON THE LGCS YOU CAN HAVE IT THEN YOU CAN. IF YOU HAVE CERTED ACCESS AND ITS NOT CLOSED YOU CAN HAVE IT. its really that simple. no need for a new "definition" or nitpicking, if you don't meet either criteria - THAN NO WORRIES.
King Kashue 05-03-07, 04:14 AM	All I said mate, was why get so fired up over such a small thing.. Right... If it's really an issue, have Steve add the word "necessarily" in between "not" and "that" in the first line... That is, if it's an issue...;) Seriously, this isn't an issue. I agree (which is why I phrased it the way I did)...:D They're different, though in practice, the difference is only going to be significant to module authors. My (and several other folks', like Biznarf) only concern is that even if in practice it doesn't matter much, it does create different definitions, and thus someone somewhere is going to find a way to trip themselves up with it. :D As several folks have said, it's honestly a relatively minor issue in practice, and the people most likely concerned about it are meticulous module authors, a group which happens to include the original poster :D The only issue that has been raised here is potential confusion between the way the open/closed system is used in the LGCS and the way Steve describes it in the RHoD FAQ...That's the only issue (and as mentioned, it's not a significant one)... So, who's "all fired up"... Me? Or the guy who is writing in ALL CAPS to me about how I shouldn't be "all fired up" :rolleyes: Here's a question: Why the heck do you care whether Howie or Biznarf or I actually care about this? Does it affect you personally? Does it create a problem for you that we care? Other than adding a single topic to the main forum page, how does this affect you in any way, shape or form? The only way that I can see it affecting you is if you come read the thread and choose to get "all fired up" about the fact that we care about an issue that you've declared not worthy of caring about... In other words, we're foolish for caring about such an irrelevant issue, but you're perfectly reasonable for caring that we care? :thinks:
_metz_ 05-03-07, 04:23 AM	I was just summarising my earlier point which stated that it wasn't that big an issue, which you seemed to take offence with, that is all. I was referring to common sense in reference to the context of the question. If you look solely at the answer, then so be it. All I said was, its not taht big a worry, I'll stop posting in this thread now, sorry if you misconstrued my remarks as attacks on you specifically, I was just commenting on how the Open/Closed system is frankly quite simple, and there needn't be this much worry.
JamesMaissen 05-03-07, 10:15 AM	The LGCS, DCs, and similar releases are for player consumption. What is available for NPCs is an internal campaign administration issue; players don't need to worry about it. It definitely doesn't need to go in player documents. We have internal documents that cover these types of things and will continue to enforce them. Seriously, this isn't an issue. Umm.. trying to follow this, why does the closed list in the LGCS have NPC caveats? Isn't having such a list public simply create another line of defense for such things deemed unsuitable for the campaign from getting through? Also should one encounter such a thing in an adventure (either as judge or player), how does one handle it? -James
Howie23 05-03-07, 01:03 PM	Perhaps my reading comprehension skills have gone to rot, but I've looked at the LGCS again a few moments ago and see NO contradiction between my FAQ and the LGCS text on Closed. The LGCS says: Closed: A PC may not take advantage of any rules item listed as Closed, ever. † These classes are available for author use. How does this contradict with my text in the RHoD FAQ? Hi Steven. Thank you for responding to the topic of the thread in a fashion that encourages dialogue. I would like to take the opportunity to reinforce that this is not a complaint about the nature of the ADPs, and to extend my thanks for the additional play opportunities that they provide. I maintain that the RHoD FAQ does redefine “closed” and is contradictory to the LGCS. However, I think this also illustrates both some of the character of the new LGCS and the way that change takes place in LG. The Contradiction/Redefinition As you’ve indicated, in the LGCS, closed has an explicit definition that applies to PCs. However, closed also has an implicit definition, or functional definition, that is modified by the dagger regarding author use. The dagger creates a subcategory of closed elements that are available for use by authors (for NPCs). That implies that those closed elements without the dagger are not available for authors. This is the category that has been redefined. The RHoD FAQ says that closed items, the general case, are available for NPCs The LGCS lists closed items (not for PCs) that are also not explicitly available for authors (NPCs). That is the contradiction, and it stems from the categories of subcategory of closed. Given that many of us are creative thinkers, I will not be surprised if someone comes up with a corner case of what those closed resources that do not have a dagger apply to. There may even be an internal document that outlines that for campaign administration. However, the campaign retains the memory of the prior LGCS’ structure, and is additionally molded by the conversations and explanations that have taken place about the nature of what is closed. The closed structure, with dagger, replaces the Restricted and NPC Only categories. The names have changed, but the paradigm has remained the same, due to the implied case of the non-dagger closed items. There have been statements made about closed elements being either unbalanced or outside of the feel of the campaign. All of this provides a context that supports the implied element that is now contradicted by the RHoD FAQ. This may be somewhat clouded, for me, if no one else, because you and I had a conversation about this issue back in November, under the old restricted/NPC definitions. ADP6-02 was published, and began play, under those rules. I found the idea that ADPs are different to be sufficient, because I appreciate that this is, well, adapted from something else. The Character of the New LGCS The new LGCS achieved the goal of reduced size. It has done so largely by jettisoning explanatory text that was otherwise covered in the core rules. It also eliminated a number of house rules in favor of the core rules. I think this revision was needed and possibly overdue. It has, however, created a growing number of quiet changes. These quiet changes are rules elements that have resulted from the removal of some rules, explanations, or phrases without fanfare. Elements that have been “the LG way” are now quiet on the subject. The culture that grew up around how LG was different is still digesting that. I call it a growing number because we keep seeing them pop up. Typically, this comes about because a new player says something like, “I’ve been told that things are different about subject X in LG, but I can’t find it.” And, indeed, the rule that made subject X different in LG is no longer there. I am convinced that some of these are unintentional, or were not anticipated by all of the staff administration at all levels. The loss of caster level as a prerequisite for crafting is one of these. I am convinced because I have had conversations with multiple Triad members from different regions, in at least three different meta-regions, for whom this was a surprise, despite advance review and discussion. It is possible that the change in Closed/Daggered from the old Restricted/NPC-only model really intended a paradigm shift that I haven’t digested yet. If so, it is one of these quiet changes that is now being brought to light. The Nature of Change in LG There is a tendency for some types of change to take a certain path in LG. The players get a new LGCS, new rule, new whatever, and digests it in a particular way. As a new year begins, I suspect that administration conversations happen behind the scenes, on the Triad list, and amongst Circle only. Those conversations lead to a split between how the administration views the campaign structure and how the players view it. The new administrative view then filters into conversations, Dispel Confusions, and items like the RHoD FAQ. Circle and/or Triads have already internalized this change, but players haven’t. This type of thread and conversation is the result. Obviously, the campaign administration is involved in the campaign at a different level of participation that the vast majority of players. However, some of us, merely players, are concerned about the nature of the campaign in ways other than our characters and our experiences at the table. This topic is not an issue because it impacts my play at the table; it can not be dismissed that easily. It is a concern to those players who are concerned about the nature of the campaign, regardless of patronizing statements made elsewhere that it is not. Rather, it is an issue because it illustrates the nature of how rule changes, whether explicit, implicit, or otherwise, are communicated from one tier of the campaign to another, and how that impacts further discussion. Extending my appreciation for all that the volunteers do for this campaign at all levels, David
King Kashue 05-03-07, 01:37 PM	Hi Steven. Thank you for responding to the topic of the thread in a fashion that encourages dialogue. I would like to take the opportunity to reinforce that this is not a complaint about the nature of the ADPs, and to extend my thanks for the additional play opportunities that they provide. Extending my appreciation for all that the volunteers do for this campaign at all levels, David I'll second that, whole heartedly...
Madfox11 05-04-07, 04:43 AM	The loss of caster level as a prerequisite for crafting is one of these. I am convinced because I have had conversations with multiple Triad members from different regions, in at least three different meta-regions, for whom this was a surprise, despite advance review and discussion. Incorrect. The Circle was definitely 100% certain about it effect, and I am 95% certain the triads should have been as well. Having said that, the amount of discussion we had about magic item creation included enough E-mails to fill a book and often enough consisted in 100 E-mails on 1 day (and this NOT an exaggeration) just on that subject alone. It was incredibly easy to miss the subtleties of the item creation rules in that flood of mails, especially since there were a dozen of variants being discussed at the time. Just remember that members of the Circle regularly reads these posts and keep them in mind when discussing the campaign. As Britt pointed out though, people are seeing too much in that sentence. Getting errata up is also quiet difficult and I really doubt it is worth the efford. To the players it does not matter, and the Triads are fully aware of it. I fully understands peoples concern about it, although 30-something posts seems a bit over the top to me ;) Pieter Sleijpen RPGA Living Greyhawk Circle Member The Splintered Suns
Howie23 05-04-07, 12:50 PM	Hi Pieter. I appreciate your participation, dank u wel. The section below that is not bold is what you quoted in your response. The section that is bold is an important for the context of what you replied to. I am convinced that some of these are unintentional, or were not anticipated by all of the staff administration at all levels. The loss of caster level as a prerequisite for crafting is one of these. I am convinced because I have had conversations with multiple Triad members from different regions, in at least three different meta-regions, for whom this was a surprise, despite advance review and discussion. Parsing the above: 1) I think some changes are unintentional, or not fully recognized at all admin levels. 2) One of the changes that fits into my view of this is caster level and crafting. 3) The reason I think that specific item was unintentional is that I spoke to admins who didn't realize the implications at the time of the LGCS discussion. I am making a generalized statement that is an induction from specific cases, of which I have indicated one. I have carefully qualified my statement to avoid saying that this is true in all cases for everybody involved. Incorrect. The Circle was definitely 100% certain about it effect, and I am 95% certain the triads should have been as well. Having said that, the amount of discussion we had about magic item creation included enough E-mails to fill a book and often enough consisted in 100 E-mails on 1 day (and this NOT an exaggeration) just on that subject alone. It was incredibly easy to miss the subtleties of the item creation rules in that flood of mails, especially since there were a dozen of variants being discussed at the time. What is incorrect? You are saying this was discussed, and in great detail. You state that the details and implications were easy to miss. I'm saying that some people did, in fact, miss them. My statement, with qualifications, is that it was not fully understood at all levels. Fully understood refers to both the implication about caster level being removed and by all participants. All levels refers to both Circle and Triad. My statement is technically correct as long as one member either Circle or Triad didn't fully understand the implication. That doesn't mean that the observation is all that meaningful, however. :) My position is an inductive argument. From a set of specific cases, of which I have provided one example, I am saying there is a general case. Induction is not proof, but you have pretty much confirmed it above. However, even if the general case exists, it may not carry the same weight as the specific example; the specific example may not be representative or meaningful. I believe this is the heart of what you are taking exception to. To a reflective individual or group, it still might be useful to review communication practices. Just remember that members of the Circle regularly reads these posts and keep them in mind when discussing the campaign. I'm happy to hear that, although I don't understand what is meant by the "just remember.." My intent when I put up the original post was for Circle to read it, with the hopes that you would actively respond to it. As Britt pointed out though, people are seeing too much in that sentence. Getting errata up is also quiet difficult and I really doubt it is worth the efford. To the players it does not matter, and the Triads are fully aware of it. I fully understands peoples concern about it, although 30-something posts seems a bit over the top to me ;) It could have been 2 posts. What it would have taken was an acknowledgement of the error (you got so close there...) and an assurance that nothing has really changed. How's this: "Oops, we made an error. However, it isn't something that immediately impacts anyone. Since it is a significant effort to change the FAQ, we won't be doing so. Nothing has changed about closed items in the general campaign." David
TWG_Prometheus 05-04-07, 03:01 PM	It could have been 2 posts. What it would have taken was an acknowledgement of the error (you got so close there...) and an assurance that nothing has really changed. How's this: "Oops, we made an error. However, it isn't something that immediately impacts anyone. Since it is a significant effort to change the FAQ, we won't be doing so. Nothing has changed about closed items in the general campaign." David That's kind of what they've been saying all along in this thread. Are you dead-set on getting the 'oops' in there?
Howie23 05-04-07, 03:27 PM	That's kind of what they've been saying all along in this thread. Are you dead-set on getting the 'oops' in there? No, I'm dead set on, "we made an error," because doing so confirms that there is no change. Britt's position has been, "it doesn't concern players, is trivial, and why bother us with this." Steven's position has been "there is no contradiction." Which implies no error and thus that there IS a change. (quotes are my paraphrase, not their words) David
Mystical_Tutor 05-04-07, 06:31 PM	It is sufficient here to use the second reply. The title of this thread is "RHoD FAQ Redefines "Closed" Sigh… Since when do we have to make a comment in a FAQ of an adapted mod have the weight of the LGCS? Though I agree with the comment quoted above. It saddens me that authoritative figures in LG can say little or nothing most of the time. It appears much akin to walking through a minefield. When they step up the plate trying to help John Doe player (read: me) they risk saying something slightly out of line that the rules lawyers can use to start a discussion (read: argument). Can someone really think that the FAQ writer is speaking ex cathedral and pronouncing a change in LGCS rules? Where is our ability to see things in context and use the conceptual part of our reasoning to know what the intent of a statement is? I guess it would be ego reinforcing for some to have the Circle say they made an error but it would have absolutely no other effect. 1) The vast majority of gamers would never realize what it was all about (those that do are likely rules players masquerading as game players). 2) If you bring it to their attention they couldn’t care less (“So the circle made a mistake. I did kinda think they were human, so what? Did it change the XP or gold at the end of the mod?”). The point to which I speak is: It should be intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer what the answer in the FAQ MENT. For crying out loud, give the writers some latitude. To assert that Steven’s implication indicates a change in the LGCS is just philosophical rhetoric that ignores the plain statements of the circle members in this thread. To me it is clear that none of them think that the statement in the FAQ changes the LGCS. I think you see that too but are just tenaciously trying to get a pound of flesh out of a simple hiccup in a FAQ. OBTW, David, I greatly enjoyed your refreshingly thoughtful post (#33). It was a delight to read.
Howie23 05-04-07, 09:00 PM	OBTW, David, I greatly enjoyed your refreshingly thoughtful post (#33). It was a delight to read. Thanks. You've made some insightful comments that I need to mull over and serve as a basis for looking at my motivation on this topic. Thanks for the input. David
scon40 05-05-07, 12:01 AM	As you’ve indicated, in the LGCS, closed has an explicit definition that applies to PCs. However, closed also has an implicit definition, or functional definition, that is modified by the dagger regarding author use. The dagger creates a subcategory of closed elements that are available for use by authors (for NPCs). That implies that those closed elements without the dagger are not available for authors. This is the category that has been redefined. You are inferring that definition. It was not intentionally implied; one could argue that it was unintentionally implied. The dagger defines what is usable by authors. This does not explicitly (nor was it intended to) define items without a dagger to be not usable by authors. The LGCS is for players. I would agree that we probably shouldn't have put the dagger in that text as it leads to unintentional infererences by some readers. But Closed is meant to (and explicitly does) refer to players only. And thus is no actual contradiction between the RHoD FAQ and the LGCS as a result.
copper_wyrmling 05-05-07, 12:21 AM	You are inferring that definition. It was not intentionally implied; one could argue that it was unintentionally implied. The dagger defines what is usable by authors. This does not explicitly (nor was it intended to) define items without a dagger to be not usable by authors. The LGCS is for players. I would agree that we probably shouldn't have put the dagger in that text as it leads to unintentional infererences by some readers. But Closed is meant to (and explicitly does) refer to players only. And thus is no actual contradiction between the RHoD FAQ and the LGCS as a result. Wait a second. So, as an example, Divine Metamagic is listed as Closed and does not have a dagger next to it in the LGCS. If I receive a module to run that has an NPC who makes heavy use of Divine Metamagic, are you saying I should just keep using it as normal, because nothing in the LGCS explicitly says authors can't use that option? Same for an NPC sorcerer with Imbue Familiar With Spell Ability listed as a known spell? Same for a dragon with Wraithstrike? How about a Mordenkainen's Disjunction trap? :eek: (I'm not saying the mods are badly edited, but things do get through... dervishes with thinblades and chained enervation traps, for example...)
pedr 05-05-07, 07:20 AM	Wait a second. So, as an example, Divine Metamagic is listed as Closed and does not have a dagger next to it in the LGCS. If I receive a module to run that has an NPC who makes heavy use of Divine Metamagic, are you saying I should just keep using it as normal, because nothing in the LGCS explicitly says authors can't use that option? Same for an NPC sorcerer with Imbue Familiar With Spell Ability listed as a known spell? Same for a dragon with Wraithstrike? How about a Mordenkainen's Disjunction trap? :eek: (I'm not saying the mods are badly edited, but things do get through... dervishes with thinblades and chained enervation traps, for example...)Well, the common statement has always been: modules are released the way they were playtested, and the circle would prefer you to run them as such. If you are uncomfortable doing that, don't use whatever rules item you consider illegal. This may have been one other move from: "Restricted: These rules items don't exist in the campaign" to "Closed: No PC may ever make use of items listed as Closed in the LGCS". It gives fewer legalistics grounds for complaint if NPCs in modules use rules items listed as Closed in the LGCS and which do not have a dagger symbol by them. Yes, some DMs will choose not to make use of that rules item, but the RAW, it seems, no longer makes that an 'illegal' build (unlike the aforementioned Dervishes). The responsibility for creating fair, challenging and interesting modules, it appears, is with the authors and editors, not the DMs. In a sense I agree with this - some DMs are liable to being 'browbeaten', or for inter-personal reasons inclined to run things more softly when faced with four to six of their acquaintances and a tough, some would say overly-tough, encounter. A stricter: "run the module as-is" rule would eliminate the need to make very tough decisions in such a case. However I would only be happy with that if there was a formal mechanism for errata to be released for modules with about a 1 week turn around: that way a DM could prep a module, discover a problem, and be guaranteed to get an authoritative decision that either it was meant to be that way, or that no, the encounter ought to be changed, prior to having to run it. If, and it seems likely, that is too labour intensive for a volunteer-run campaign, we will have to leave discretion with the DM, and this might mean that rules-items which were previously 'Restricted' are still not used as it would feel to the DM as if he and the module were 'cheating.
Mattastrophic 05-05-07, 11:58 AM	If it's not an error, you know what that means, right? Mordenkainen's Disjunction is back in the campaign. So is Destruction. Heroics can be cast by NPCs to take on Robilar's Gambit. NPCs can cast Limited Wish, Wish, or Miracle and pull Closed spells... such as Polymorph... Oooh! Goodygoody! And now there's no restriction to MM1 forms! This is awesome!!! I'm sure I'll think of more. -Matt
JamesMaissen 05-05-07, 12:03 PM	You are inferring that definition. It was not intentionally implied; one could argue that it was unintentionally implied. The dagger defines what is usable by authors. This does not explicitly (nor was it intended to) define items without a dagger to be not usable by authors. The LGCS is for players. I would agree that we probably shouldn't have put the dagger in that text as it leads to unintentional infererences by some readers. But Closed is meant to (and explicitly does) refer to players only. And thus is no actual contradiction between the RHoD FAQ and the LGCS as a result. So what is the difference between those Closed with a Dagger and those Closed without a Dagger? Those closed with a Dagger can be used by authors, but if those closed without a dagger can also be used, what's the distinction? And secondly if there is a list of things that are removed from the game (like one would assume the psionic PrCs and the oriental ones) why not make it public? Wouldn't this help serve as another line of defense against them being in modules? -James
copper_wyrmling 05-05-07, 03:06 PM	Well, the common statement has always been: modules are released the way they were playtested, and the circle would prefer you to run them as such. If you are uncomfortable doing that, don't use whatever rules item you consider illegal. As I understood it, you were also advised not to use Restricted items if they were merely presented as one of the options (e.g. in the spells-memorized list, or in a spontaneous caster's known spells) as opposed to being precast. At least, I'm pretty sure that was the case when Complete Divine Spikes went away. This isn't a theoretical point: there's a current Core where the BBEG in a tough encounter makes very heavy use of Divine Metamagic. I also thought that if a module used a Restricted spell and a PC died, that was grounds for appealing the death - for example, if an NPC used Destruction and the PC failed their save, the (permanent) death could be overruled as illegal by the senior GM. It appears I was wrong. This may have been one other move from: "Restricted: These rules items don't exist in the campaign" to "Closed: No PC may ever make use of items listed as Closed in the LGCS". It gives fewer legalistics grounds for complaint if NPCs in modules use rules items listed as Closed in the LGCS and which do not have a dagger symbol by them. Yes, some DMs will choose not to make use of that rules item, but the RAW, it seems, no longer makes that an 'illegal' build (unlike the aforementioned Dervishes). The responsibility for creating fair, challenging and interesting modules, it appears, is with the authors and editors, not the DMs. I have nothing but respect for people who write and edit mods for LG (having helped a friend with statblocks for her mod, I have some idea of how horribly tedious and timeconsuming it can be), but I know that nasty stuff DOES make it through - I've heard from friends about Restricted spells being used in combats (Destruction - author + editor + GM + players didn't realize it was banned), I've seen combats that really obviously weren't playtested (CL 13 Blasphemy at APL 8, L18 sorcerer spellcasting on a creature CR'ed at 15 and put in an APL 12 module), I've seen NPCs who ignored the long-standing PHB errata (power-up suite included +8 Str from Righteous Might). However I would only be happy with that if there was a formal mechanism for errata to be released for modules with about a 1 week turn around: that way a DM could prep a module, discover a problem, and be guaranteed to get an authoritative decision that either it was meant to be that way, or that no, the encounter ought to be changed, prior to having to run it. If, and it seems likely, that is too labour intensive for a volunteer-run campaign, we will have to leave discretion with the DM, and this might mean that rules-items which were previously 'Restricted' are still not used as it would feel to the DM as if he and the module were 'cheating. Provided the GM realizes they were previously Restricted, that is... it just seems very unfair that options are removed from the campaign for players because they're considered too powerful, but PCs still have to deal with them cropping up because there's nothing to indicate they're Closed for authors and a GM runs the mod as written. If you were a cleric who used to have Divine Spell Power, and you were unable to dispel the BBEG's buff spells because he had precast them all with Divine Spell Power, wouldn't that feel a bit unfair? I agree that an errata process with a fast turnaround would solve the problem I'm concerned about, but like you, I don't think we'll see it.
scon40 05-06-07, 03:33 AM	If it's not an error, you know what that means, right? Mordenkainen's Disjunction is back in the campaign. So is Destruction. Heroics can be cast by NPCs to take on Robilar's Gambit. NPCs can cast Limited Wish, Wish, or Miracle and pull Closed spells... such as Polymorph... Oooh! Goodygoody! And now there's no restriction to MM1 forms! This is awesome!!! I'm sure I'll think of more. -Matt That's why the Triads have a separate list of items which are not usable by authors.
Simpi 05-06-07, 12:09 PM	And secondly if there is a list of things that are removed from the game (like one would assume the psionic PrCs and the oriental ones) why not make it public? Wouldn't this help serve as another line of defense against them being in modules? -James Are we triad members considered such lowly human beings that we cannot be even trusted anymore to monitor our own list of closed items during editing process? Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad
Howie23 05-06-07, 02:11 PM	You are inferring that definition. It was not intentionally implied; one could argue that it was unintentionally implied. The dagger defines what is usable by authors. This does not explicitly (nor was it intended to) define items without a dagger to be not usable by authors. The LGCS is for players. I would agree that we probably shouldn't have put the dagger in that text as it leads to unintentional infererences by some readers. But Closed is meant to (and explicitly does) refer to players only. And thus is no actual contradiction between the RHoD FAQ and the LGCS as a result. If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that the transition from restricted to closed was intended to simply be: "not available to PCs" and that any other distinction, direct via dagger, or inferred via lack of dagger, is an unintentional artifact of the transition to this LGCS. I previously outlined the rationale for why this is a change for those of us who rely upon the LGCS and the publicly available background to that document. I submit that the title of this thread is the state of what has occurred, for us if not for you. It may not be for you, as you viewed the text of the LGCS as communicting different information than did we. This is consistent with my discussion about change in LG, made in post #33. The rest of this is based upon my new understanding of Closed, based upon you telling me that it applies only to PCs. The following items are presented hypothetically for the purposes of discussion. If nothing else, consider it what the most extreme logic-hashers might attempt. You, Britt, and Pieter have said, effectively, that the internal documents serve as the gatekeeper for keeping the closed spells that are undesirable from entering the campaign. In addition to errors getting past the gatekeeper, Limited Wish and Wish in the hands of an NPC are effectively a vector for closed spells from entering the game at a table level. Heroics is the same for closed feats. Others? It is possible those spells are not on the internal lists, as the restricted list would have been the backstop in the past to prevent these from being misused. Maybe this problem goes away in year eight once the year six mods are retired. Closed resources are not available to PCs. Note that the LGCS says PCs, but the word Player seems to seeping into the conversation contextually; I suspect that this is intended to mean all player controlled entities, but that would be inferring. ;) In the past, there have been repeated discussions about how what feats animal companions and cohorts could have. Cohort creation rules specifically state that cohorts have the same restrictions as PCs. Animal companions don't have that clear statement. Thanks, David
copper_wyrmling 05-06-07, 02:34 PM	Are we triad members considered such lowly human beings that we cannot be even trusted anymore to monitor our own list of closed items during editing process? I think Triad members (and Core writers / editors) are human, which means they can miss stuff. That's all. At present, we don't have any sort of errata process (at least, not one that I'm aware of), so if the editors miss something, there's not much of a chance to fix it later when GMs running the modules notice the problem. If nobody on the table has the Closed list memorized, then people may not even notice that there is a potential issue, apart from thinking "Gee, that was a nasty spell / ability". I'm basing this on the fact that I've seen a number of posts on the Yahoo groups and this board from people who took Closed feats with their PCs, and neither they nor their GMs ever realized that there was a problem. (How many people would notice if you had a sorcerer with Shivering Touch as one of their known spells, or a druid using Companion Spellbond? I'm assuming they're on the banned list for NPCs.)
JamesMaissen 05-06-07, 09:43 PM	Are we triad members considered such lowly human beings that we cannot be even trusted anymore to monitor our own list of closed items during editing process? Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad Well I've seen Potions of personal spells from multiple regions, encountered frenzied berserkers about 2 years after they were removed from the game, and seen a mod where a Halfling was polied into a troll. These are all off the top of my head and from different regions across the country. Errors happen, rules change, and modules get rushed to premiering. Triads and authors are only human and things will fall through the cracks. Meanwhile on the other side, why keep such a document from the players? How does this hurt the game? In general, the more open things are the better for one and all, James
Mattastrophic 05-06-07, 09:57 PM	That's why the Triads have a separate list of items which are not usable by authors. And since we the players suddenly don't know what that list is, we now have to be prepared to deal with NPCs sporting Disjunction, Destruction, Polymorph, Divine Metamagic, Awaken, Permanence, Imbue Familiar With Spell Ability, Spell Matrix, Ray of Stupidity, Bite of the Werebear, Planar Binding, Wraithstrike, Robilar's Gambit, Leap Attack, Insightful Divination, Mage Slayer, Persistent Spell, Master Specialists, Abjurant Champions, Void Disciples, Masters of Many Forms, and all the other stuff that you Circle people think is too much to trust we the players with. Now that it's all effectively back in the campaign and all. Since that Closed list now effectively doesn't apply to NPCs. Your counter also doesn't cover the issue of DMs now being able to have the NPCs in the mod they're running cast Limited Wish/Wish/Miracle and being able to pull Closed spells. Or cast Heroics and pull Closed feats. Since there's really no Closed list for NPCs and all that. -Matt
Britt 05-06-07, 11:50 PM	What is so hard to understand about the concept that nothing has changed? Why is this still an argument? Nothing is at all different from how it was before.
bitznarf 05-07-07, 02:47 AM	What is so hard to understand about the concept that nothing has changed? Why is this still an argument? Nothing is at all different from how it was before. As I understand it, this is a change from 596, one that had yet to be noticed by the players. In 596 Restricted meant no one could use it. In 597 Closed means that PCs cannot use it. Personally, I think it is an issue because it feels like I (we the players) have been mislead. After all, if the 'author use only' symbols mean nothing, why are they in there? Take them out an make it clear that these list apply to PCs only. Mention in the LGCS that authors/triads have their own lists that are not available for your average player to see (another issue altogether). Take out the misleading text please. That several circle members seem to feel that this misleading information is not important doesn't sit right with me to be honest. Personally, I don't like the idea that there may be many items available to NPCs that are not available to PCs. If there are a *few* options that are available to NPCs that are not available to PCs there should be a dam good reason for each one. At least, thats my opinion on the subject. It appears that the Circle feels otherwise. :confused:
Britt 05-07-07, 03:08 AM	Yes, we feel otherwise. There are many, many rules options that are appropriate for NPCs but not for PCs. And there is nothing different about this year than last year. Nothing has changed. This is not an issue.
bitznarf 05-07-07, 03:24 AM	You're telling me that "Restricted: These are not used in the LIVING GREYHAWK campaign" (LGCS 596) means the same thing as "Closed: A PC may not take advantage of any rules item listed as Closed, ever." That sure looks like a change to me. Or are you saying that despite what the LGCS said in 596, rules options that 'are not used in the LIVING GREYHAWK campaign' could indeed be used in the campaign? On another note, would you at least do us (me) the courtesy of responding to my second paragraph? "Personally, I think it is an issue because it feels like I (we the players) have been mislead. After all, if the 'author use only' symbols mean nothing, why are they in there? Take them out an make it clear that these list apply to PCs only. Mention in the LGCS that authors/triads have their own lists that are not available for your average player to see (another issue altogether). Take out the misleading text please. That several circle members seem to feel that this misleading information is not important doesn't sit right with me to be honest."
Britt 05-07-07, 03:46 AM	I'm telling you that this isn't an issue and that nothing has changed this year, or the year before. There is nothing different. I don't see how much more bluntly I can say this. Nothing is different. This is not an issue. Really. I don't know what else you expect other than a statement straight from half the campaign administration saying that nothing has changed and that this isn't an issue. The notes are there because they were there before and they might be useful for some authors. If they don't know about the internal limitations, they might right things using all sorts of restricted rules options and then have to change it all. If they stick to what's in the LGCS, they're probably ok. Again, nothing has changed. Everything is exactly how it was before. This is not an issue.
King Kashue 05-07-07, 03:52 AM	So the NPC-only daggers are an utterly superfluous element in the access system? I'm ashamed for both of us that you would allow a logically inconsistant feature to exist in a properly rationalized system...:weep:
Britt 05-07-07, 03:55 AM	They aren't completely superfluous, as I described. They could be useful to some authors; that is their only use, though. For access, yes, they are completely superfluous, but the description of Closed pretty much tells you that.
copper_wyrmling 05-07-07, 04:03 AM	Another sort-of-related question: what can Limited Wish be used for, by NPCs? Open spells only? Spells in their spellbook (if a wizard) plus all Open spells? Just wondering...
JamesMaissen 05-07-07, 04:16 AM	That's why the Triads have a separate list of items which are not usable by authors. Is there a reason for not making this list public? What's gained by keeping it hidden? But on a practical side, if I'm running a game and the NPC has a limited wish spell memorized, what restrictions exist when he casts the spell? Don't I need to know what's on this secret list, or can then I freely ignore it? If that's the case, how are items *fully* removed from the game in LG? So for example, if I use the limited wish to duplicate a spell, can I have it duplicate polymorph? Wraithstrike? Or any other spell that unless I had read this thread or happened to know of this secret list that I would have assumed were not allowed in the campaign? Were NPCs always allowed to use 'Restricted' spells and feats? -James
bitznarf 05-07-07, 09:07 AM	I'm telling you that this isn't an issue and that nothing has changed this year, or the year before. There is nothing different. I don't see how much more bluntly I can say this. Nothing is different. This is not an issue. Really. I don't know what else you expect other than a statement straight from half the campaign administration saying that nothing has changed and that this isn't an issue. So you're telling me that in 596 "Restricted: These are not used in the LIVING GREYHAWK campaign" actually meant "PCs cannot use these, NPCs may or may not be able to" despite the explicit category of "NPC Only"?
Mattastrophic 05-07-07, 01:02 PM	I'm still waiting for an answer on this as well. Because from what you're saying, Limited Wish by NPCs can pull Closed spells. -Matt Another sort-of-related question: what can Limited Wish be used for, by NPCs? Open spells only? Spells in their spellbook (if a wizard) plus all Open spells? Just wondering...
Britt 05-07-07, 02:11 PM	No, I'm saying that if you didn't have a problem with how things were done two months ago, you shouldn't have a problem now, as everything is exactly the same. I didn't see people complaining a month or two ago about this, so since everything is the same, I fail to see why this is still going on. Everything is exactly the same. Nothing has changed. This is not an issue. I don't know why so much is being spent on this when it wasn't an issue before, we've said nothing has changed, so there shouldn't be an issue now. Can't all this time be spent on something that's actually meaningful in life? I mean, it's not even meaningful for the game. For limited wish, I'd use whatever is in the mod or what's in the LGCS. Anything else is questionable and likely an attempt to screw over players for no reason.
solbergb 05-07-07, 02:57 PM	Britt, what we are saying is we thought the rules were different two months ago than what you intended. We did "not have a problem" because we assumed that closed items without the author dagger = authors can't use these onscreen (identical to "Restricted" in the old way). The Circle may have meant something else, but that "something else" wasn't communicated. Now that the RHOD FAQ communicated it more bluntly, you are now seeing protests. LGCS596 "restricted" actually meant "a judge can't have an NPC cast this spell (or whatever) oncameral". You could awaken stuff for plot reasons, but the NPC couldn't cast "awaken" in combat. There is no circumstance where an "oncamera destruction, MDJ, etc" is good for the campaign. Offcamera, it could be a plot device that is useful. I suspect this is the "hedge" the circle wants to keep in place, but really, the policy needs to be clearer or we *will* have vindictive judges pulling stupidity from limited wish, wish and miracle, and we *will* have authors trying to slip stuff by reviewers that shouldn't be in the game and we *will* have deaths that should have been overturnable by illegal authoring and/or DMing. There are people in this campaign who treat the game as an adversarial thing, and some of them write modules, some of them judge. The restricted spell list is one of the various things players have used to defend themselves against such judges/authors, especially by ADDING things to the restricted list. If no concept like that exists anymore, it is a significant change, and yes, we have a problem with it, and yes, we need rules to curb the obvious abuses. The editing process is insufficient to catch all such things, and it is unfair to the judges to put the entire burden of "don't run it if it isn't kosher" or "show restraint" on them when they aren't allowed to even see the author guidelines to know what should or should not be in a mod. (in the last round of stuff we prepped for conventions, there were "closed" feats and spells in several modules, and there were some flatly illegal builds in the statblocks.) There's actually some fire under the smoke in this thread, and the circle responses have fanned the flames, rather than addressed the issue. The banned list shouldn't be secret, and it shouldn't be misleading. "closed without dagger" needs to be clearly defined in what an author is and is not allowed to do with those options. Definition by implication has failed. Definition by "authors will show restraint, editors will catch abuses" has also demonstratably failed. A judge needs a way to know whether or not use of such a closed item is an editing/playtesting failure, similar to an illegal dervish build, or whether it is a legit use of a closed rules element. Currently we have no such guidelines. One official (Dispel Confustion, since the next LGCS is a long way off) well written paragraph explaining what a closed without author dagger item means in terms of legitimate use for authors would suffice.
Mommy was an Orc 05-08-07, 11:19 AM	I think the thing that people are missing on both sides here(Circle being insufficiently clear for some reason, so Players getting nervous) is that a Judge is not an Author. They're a Player and they have to abide by the rules in the LGCS. Unless the Circle have specifically allowed a Closed item into play, the Judge doesn't have access to it. A Judge can't have a Wizard cast Heroics to access a NONC/Closed feat unless the mod specifically instructs the Judge to allow it. Same goes for Limited Wish for a NONC/Closed Spell. Things with Daggers are things that Authors can choose to put into a mod without having to plead for it. They're usually banned because they're thoroughly evil(Assassin as an example). Other things, they won't usually get. And there are reasons that the Circle might allow something into play that a normal Author might not have access to - such as for a Core Special. Nocturomancer might very well be Closed to everyone and on the list for Triads saying just that - it doesn't mean it can't show up in a Core Special for the Circle to test out in a limited format... If I'm hopelessly offbase here, feel free to cast Circle of Death on my post Britt :)
bitznarf 05-08-07, 11:28 AM	I think the thing that people are missing on both sides here(Circle being insufficiently clear for some reason, so Players getting nervous) is that a Judge is not an Author. They're a Player and they have to abide by the rules in the LGCS. Unless the Circle have specifically allowed a Closed item into play, the Judge doesn't have access to it. A Judge can't have a Wizard cast Heroics to access a NONC/Closed feat unless the mod specifically instructs the Judge to allow it. Same goes for Limited Wish for a NONC/Closed Spell. The Closed/Open lists apply only to PCs, not to NPCs. The Circle has been very clear on that point in this thread. Thus the NPCs that the judge is controlling are not bound in any way by those lists. At least, as far as I can tell from the wealth of information available to us...
Mommy was an Orc 05-08-07, 11:39 AM	The Closed/Open lists apply only to PCs, not to NPCs. The Circle has been very clear on that point in this thread. Thus the NPCs that the judge is controlling are not bound in any way by those lists. At least, as far as I can tell from the wealth of information available to us... The Closed/Open lists apply to players(including Judges), not authors. That's where the Circle is being insufficiently clear by using the terms PCs vs NPCs. A mod that instructs the Judge to use a Closed item is where there is the exception.
bitznarf 05-08-07, 11:56 AM	The Closed/Open lists apply to players(including Judges), not authors. That's where the Circle is being insufficiently clear by using the terms PCs vs NPCs. A mod that instructs the Judge to use a Closed item is where there is the exception. Once again, the Circle has been quite clear that these rules are for PCs, not NPCs. I'm not really sure where you are getting your 'the GM is a player' argument from. Note that the LGCS does call them GMs, not judges. The 'judge' language has been removed from the LGCS as far as I can tell. Assuming that you are correct about the 'judge is a player thing', how is a judge to know that he can use a closed item? How does he know that it was intentionally put in the mod rather than not edited out by mistake?
King Kashue 05-08-07, 03:05 PM	The Closed/Open lists apply to players(including Judges), not authors. That's where the Circle is being insufficiently clear by using the terms PCs vs NPCs. A mod that instructs the Judge to use a Closed item is where there is the exception. Once again, the Circle has been quite clear that these rules are for PCs, not NPCs. I'm not really sure where you are getting your 'the GM is a player' argument from. Indeed. The FAQ says "Q. There are NPCs in Red Hand of Doom that have closed prestige classes. How is this possible? A. First, Closed rules items designate that PCs can not use them, not that NPCs cannot." Neither the LGCS or the RHoD FAQ makes any mention of player v. author, and neither Britt nor Steve have used that distinction...Upon what are you basing your statement?
Mommy was an Orc 05-08-07, 04:01 PM	Neither the LGCS or the RHoD FAQ makes any mention of player v. author, and neither Britt nor Steve have used that distinction...Upon what are you basing your statement? The LGCS makes that distinction in the first paragraph: This document contains everything that you, as a player or DUNGEON MASTER®, need to participate in the LIVING GREYHAWK (LG) campaign. Anything that is NONC/closed to a player is NONC/closed to a DM unless the mod specifically tells you otherwise. And Britt and Steve have made a distinction here - there are situations where supposedly closed items can be open, but those situations are sufficiently rare that it won't make any difference(even I suspect to most authors) Which is to say, adaptables and core specials.
bitznarf 05-08-07, 04:08 PM	Anything that is NONC/closed to a player is NONC/closed to a DM unless the mod specifically tells you otherwise. I still don't see where you are getting this from. The part of the LGCS separates players from GMs, it doesn't lump them together. And the Open/Closed items still only apply to PCs, not to NPCs. As a GM, the Open/Closed lists *do not apply to the NPCs at all*. Britt and Steven have been quite clear on the PC/NPC distinction.
King Kashue 05-08-07, 06:04 PM	The LGCS makes that distinction in the first paragraph: Anything that is NONC/closed to a player is NONC/closed to a DM unless the mod specifically tells you otherwise. And Britt and Steve have made a distinction here - there are situations where supposedly closed items can be open, but those situations are sufficiently rare that it won't make any difference(even I suspect to most authors) Which is to say, adaptables and core specials. I still don't see where you are getting this from. The part of the LGCS separates players from GMs, it doesn't lump them together. And the Open/Closed items still only apply to PCs, not to NPCs. As a GM, the Open/Closed lists *do not apply to the NPCs at all*. Britt and Steven have been quite clear on the PC/NPC distinction. Again, Biz = correct. Mommy, you're taking a sentence from the first page to make a claim about how Appendix Four, 25 pages later, is arranged. First of all, the sentence doesn't actually support your claim (as Biz points out). Second, it contradicts the first paragraph of the actual section itself. "Appendix 4: Access: The rules options in this document are divided into two types of access. If a rules option is not included in this document, you must have campaign documentation Opening it for your PC. • Open: A PC may take advantage of Open rules items if it meets all the prerequisites. If you gain campaign documentation granting you access to a new rules option, that effectively Opens that rules option for that PC. • Closed: A PC may not take advantage of any rules item listed as Closed, ever." It most certainly addresses PC usage, as both Britt and Steve (and now Biz and I) say it does (not player vs. author, as you say). The only confusion was regarding the "author's may use" daggers, which we assumed were actually a functionally integrated part of the system, but which are evidently entirely optional and not actually indicative of the rules (i.e., something with a dagger is available to authors, but something without a dagger might also be)...
Britt 05-08-07, 06:26 PM	Britt and Steven have been quite clear on the PC/NPC distinction. Actually, I haven't. All I've said is that this isn't an issue, nothing has changed, and that players shouldn't be paying any attention to that.
Britt 05-08-07, 06:28 PM	Open/Closed is completely inapplicable to GMs. GMs run what is in the adventure. And yes, 'judge' terminology is gone.
bitznarf 05-08-07, 06:31 PM	Actually, I haven't. All I've said is that this isn't an issue, nothing has changed, and that players shouldn't be paying any attention to that. Really? The LGCS, DCs, and similar releases are for player consumption. What is available for NPCs is an internal campaign administration issue; That sure seems like you being precise about the separation. And yes, this is an issue as described by Tracy, Brad, Howie, King Kashue and I... Denial doesn't fix anything. You're telling us to pay no attention to what our GMs are doing? How does *that* make sense?
copper_wyrmling 05-08-07, 07:23 PM	Open/Closed is completely inapplicable to GMs. GMs run what is in the adventure. Britt, I think solbergb's post above expressed my concerns very well. Just as an example of what I'm worried about: Say I'm running an adventure at a games day. I've prepped the mod, but due to other time commitments, I've only gone through the spell lists in detail at APL 4-6, which was what the organizer guessed as the likely table APL. In the event, the table ends up at APL 12. When reading through the spell lists, I notice that one of the NPC clerics has Destruction memorized. Should I: (a) use Destruction like any other spell in the cleric's list, firing it if I have a tempting target in range and it seems like the best action at that point, (b) assume that it was an editing error, avoid using the spell, and email the mod author or relevant Triad / Circle member after the game to point out that Destruction has been out of the campaign for quite a long time, or (c) do something else? Say, instead, that I'm the senior GM at that games day, and as I walk past one of the tables, I hear one of the players say, "So I need a Wish, Miracle or True Resurrection? How am I supposed to get that in LG?" Going over, I find that the GM (who is relatively new to LG, albeit an experienced D&D player), has just killed a PC with Destruction. I check the mod, and yep, Destruction is listed in the cleric's spell list. Can I rule the death was illegal, based on Destruction not being allowed in the campaign? I would've done that without hesitation before reading this thread...
Mommy was an Orc 05-08-07, 07:24 PM	Again, Biz = correct. Mommy, you're taking a sentence from the first page to make a claim about how Appendix Four, 25 pages later, is arranged. Guilty as charged, but I'm not really trying to argue rules here. I'm trying to figure out why Britt just doesn't simply say something along the lines of: For limited wish, you should use whatever is in the mod or what's in the LGCS. Anything else isn't allowed instead of: For limited wish, I'd use whatever is in the mod or what's in the LGCS. Anything else is questionable and likely an attempt to screw over players for no reason. I've got the strong suspicion that by the core rules, you're allowed to use Limited Wish for anything you want and that's why the Circle isn't just saying, "No, you're not allowed to do that." But it does really change things as Tracy just pointed out - I see a closed spell with horrid consequences at a game day - do I assume it was an edit error or intentional?
bitznarf 05-08-07, 07:56 PM	Also note that this means that NPC clerics have the origional domain lists, not the changed ones PCs use. Thus any NPC cleric with Domain Spont could drop a spell on the party that is closed to the PCs, even if they did not prep it that day. And I wouldn't even call it "questionable and likely an attempt to screw over players for no reason." If the NPC has the spell, and will die if he doesn't use it, why wouldn't he use it? Edit: oddly enough, if a NPC Cleric were to use the changed domains, and a death occurred due to that, that would be grounds for an appeal.
DuctShuiTengu 05-08-07, 08:29 PM	No, I'm saying that if you didn't have a problem with how things were done two months ago, you shouldn't have a problem now, as everything is exactly the same. Alright, pretendy-fun-time here. Suppose, Britt, that you found out tomorrow that I, (or anyone else for that matter) have been lying to you about something for months, or even years. I think that, under those circumstances, you'd agree that "Well, you didn't object to being lied to before you knew about it, so you shouldn't have a problem now, as everything is exactly the same," is not an acceptable answer. Okay, done with pretendy-fun-time. Now, I realize that you, and the rest of the circle, weren't lying to the players (it never actually stated that the things that weren't marked as being available for NPCs weren't available for them). And I'll even agree that it's unlikely that you were deliberately misleading them. However, while that wasn't your intention, many of us were misled by the language used in the LGCS. Having now realized that what is intended by the LGCS, and how it is being used, is not what we believed it said, those of us who object to this are making those objections known. That this is the way it's been for two months, without us realizing, doesn't make those objections less legitimate. As for the issue of Closed/Restricted-and-not-appearing-anywhere-in-this-campaign not actually meaning that it won't be showing up, I'd probably have a lot more objections, but I got most of them out of the way when it was spells that only appear in the Forgotten Realms showing up in year 4 (and at a spell-level 2 above the APL), or specificly Restricted feats being used by NPCs in year 3, or the warforged in year 5. I complained, and was told "Oh, yeah, that list of stuff that the Circle has said will not show up in the campaign, that's complete bull." Admittedly, it wasn't quite put that way by the campaign staff, but even with them, that was the over-arching message. Maybe I'm jaded, or maybe I'm just willing to be more forgiving now that it was only being implied that these things wouldn't be used, rather than actually stated, but I can't seem to summon up the indignation to want to dredge those arguements up again.
pedr 05-08-07, 08:37 PM	<minor threadjack>Warforged in Year 5?? </threadjack>
bitznarf 05-08-07, 08:45 PM	As for the issue of Closed/Restricted-and-not-appearing-anywhere-in-this-campaign not actually meaning that it won't be showing up, I'd probably have a lot more objections, but I got most of them out of the way when it was spells that only appear in the Forgotten Realms showing up in year 4 (and at a spell-level 2 above the APL), or specificly Restricted feats being used by NPCs in year 3, or the warforged in year 5. I complained, and was told "Oh, yeah, that list of stuff that the Circle has said will not show up in the campaign, that's complete bull." Admittedly, it wasn't quite put that way by the campaign staff, but even with them, that was the over-arching message. Maybe I'm jaded, or maybe I'm just willing to be more forgiving now that it was only being implied that these things wouldn't be used, rather than actually stated, but I can't seem to summon up the indignation to want to dredge those arguements up again. Wait.. So you're telling me that in 596 "Restricted: These are not used in the LIVING GREYHAWK campaign" actually meant "PCs cannot use these, NPCs may or may not be able to" despite the explicit category of "NPC Only"? Something that Britt has yet to respond to in this thread.
solbergb 05-08-07, 09:22 PM	Open/Closed is completely inapplicable to GMs. GMs run what is in the adventure. And yes, 'judge' terminology is gone. I wouldn't have a problem with this if PC's and NPC's had a level playing field. You've just chopped that out from under us. Destruction on a cleric's spell list isn't a hypothetical. Nor is divine metamagic or divine spellpowered blasphemies. I can't understand the reasoning for this. I DID understand the reasoning for how restricted items sometimes appeared "offcamera" for plot purposes. Britt, I think you've done tremendous good things for the campaign, so please don't take this the wrong way but... I really hate also how you're communicating on this thread. You are not coming out and saying what the actual rule is. You're essentially saying "trust the authors an editors and the GM will run the mod as the authors and editors wrote it". Sorry. 4 years of LG, hundreds of APL's prepped as a judge and involvement in the editing and playtest of dozens of modules shows me that in spite of all good intentions, severe errors slip through and in fact many of them were NOT what was playtested. We need to be able to draw a line in the sand about what can turn up in a combat, and that line needs to be clear on what CAN NOT occur. What will be rejected if caught by the editor and overturned if it slips through and ends up with the appeals guy at the convention. What this causes is civil disobedience from the GM's. My NPC's ignore anything in the mod that violates the rules, be they the D&D rules or the campaign houserules. If it is impossible to run the mod under these restrictions, I refuse to run it. (generally at some APL's the offensive whatever isn't present) I fix illegal statblocks. I fill in missing stuff that the author didn't include when the PC's go off the rails. I do my best to stay to the spirit of and intent of the module, going so far as to contact authors in some cases. But we can't hold the NPC's to the rules if you won't tell us what the rules ARE. We thought the rule was "nothing is closed to a NPC unless it's on the closed list without a dagger". Everything like that on the list is hideously inappropriate for the campaign - it is either proven to be broken by player actions (wraithstrike, some leap-attack builds, the entire polymorph chain, now no longer restricted by MM forms, illusory pit, imbue with spell ability, pre-SC spikes+brambles, pre-SC quill blast) or was spotted by the circle as hideously broken outright (all the SC spells that grant casters more spells cast in a single round, the heroism feat, mage slayer tree, etc) or violates the campaign flavor in some way (samurai, Kensai, Ninja, etc) or are a problem because the campaign lacks normal remedies you'd have in a home campaign (destruction, mordenkeinen's disjunction) We as players do NOT want authors having the ability to even THINK of putting such elements into the game. We as GM's do not want to be put in the position of violating the circle injunction to "run the mod as written" when we are morally opposed to having this stuff in the campaign and in many cases fought hard to have certain things excluded. It's not OK Britt. We need to know what is not allowed. If "closed without dagger" isn't the actual list, we need the author guidelines list exposed. Without it we can't GM properly when something bad slips past the editors. I can't accept that in LG, the authors can use anything they want, no matter how unbalancing it's proved to be, no matter that LG has no remedies, no matter that it violates the flavor. I will continue to rule as if the closed-without-dagger stuff is banned until you give me a new list to work from. Just give me a new list, if the one in LGCS isn't what you had in mind. Then we will shut up, go away, and work within whatever framework for the campaign you've set up. "Wide open for authors" doesn't cut it. You will have a constant pressure to change until you expose the boundaries.
Britt 05-08-07, 09:41 PM	Ok, I think there are a few very important points that need to be explicitly stated: 1. I'm in the middle of teaching myself a semester's worth of law school in two weeks. I don't have time to analyze everything that gets posted by everyone and carefully dissect and recreate everything to be perfectly consistent. 2. There are 3 or 4 Circle members in this thread posting information, combined with the LGCS, DCs, and a RHoD FAQ. I don't know how many of you have been involved in administrative duties, but we try not to contradict each other, purposely or accidentally. That means that if multiple people are commenting on something, we have to be careful to not step on any toes or anything. It's not that we are overly sensitive or anything, but we need to be careful. So, everything I've been saying has been intentionally vague but to the point. This isn't an issue. Nothing has changed. I haven't said exactly why or given a long list of explicit rules, but you should trust me when I say something isn't an issue. 3. As a GM, why do you have to have bright-line rules? Why can't you just do what you think is fair and within the rules? If you aren't sure what you can do, do what is fair and definitely within the rules. If you don't know if it's within the rules, you probably shouldn't do it. If you don't think it's fair (obviously so, like it is probably an error), don't do it. You are not mindless automatons; we changed the language from judge to GM for a reason. We trust you to exercise some judgment when running games. 4. No, players do not need to know all the rules for administration or writing, no matter how much you may want to know. Look at how much discussion and argument goes on with just the player rules. Do you have any clue how much would go on if we had to share all our administrative and authoring rules as well? Combined with NDA issues, and it's not really a possibility, or a desire. You have no need to know what is legal for authors or admins to be able to run or play a game. Someone said something about needing to be prepared to fight against someone with destruction memorized. That is total baloney, sorry. There are so many options out there for NPCs that there is no way you could possibly prepare for every combination out there. You are not supposed to know everything you might fight. You are supposed to know what you have access to and play your character based on what happens in a story. Players think too much that adventures need to conform to their expectations of what is legal, rather than focusing on playing their characters and whether the game is fun and fair. If it's fun and fair, you shouldn't care if it conformed to the rules for authors. Madhouse breaks almost every convention of authoring, and people liked it because it was fun and fair. I had to bend a lot of authoring rules to get there, but it worked. Don't worry about the rules for authors unless you are an author. 5. This is a game. We all, players and admins, put a lot of time and effort into this, but it's still just a game. Remember that when you are looking at rules, running games, playing games, and communicating. This is not the U.S. Code or something that has to be airtight to avoid due process violations or something. This is a game, pursued for recreation. The rules and the admins are here to facilitate that. 6. If I tell you something is not an issue, trust me. This is not an issue. To make it even more clear for you, how often did you see Closed items on NPCs two months ago? Sure, one or two may have slipped through every once in a while, but you didn't really see it. If I tell you everything is exactly how it was two months ago, and you didn't see it two months ago, why can't you believe me when I say that this is not an issue? Really, this isn't an issue. You shouldn't be worrying about this. Go play your characters and have fun. IF you see something that is a problem, ask me then. Don't ask me what to do if you're running a table of 4 and a meteor falls from the sky and kills one of the players. Ask me that when it happens, not before. Until it happens, it's not worth wasting time on.
bitznarf 05-08-07, 09:47 PM	You keep mentioning 2 months here. I think all of us have accepted that fact that nothing has changed in the last 2 months. It's the apparent change from 596 to 597 that I am objecting to. Unless, once again.. So you're telling me that in 596 "Restricted: These are not used in the LIVING GREYHAWK campaign" actually meant "PCs cannot use these, NPCs may or may not be able to" despite the explicit category of "NPC Only"? Lets see if the 3rd times the charm.
Britt 05-08-07, 09:50 PM	I say two months ago because that was before the FAQ was posted. Pick a year ago if you want, though I think editing was less precise then than now. Read what I wrote and you will find your answers.
bitznarf 05-08-07, 09:54 PM	I take it a simple 'yes' or 'no' can't be posted? Or perhaps a 'Yes, the LGCS in 596 was not followed by all parties involved'. Or some other straight forward, un-evasive answer.
bitznarf 05-08-07, 10:30 PM	IF you see something that is a problem, ask me then. Don't ask me what to do if you're running a table of 4 and a meteor falls from the sky and kills one of the players. Ask me that when it happens, not before. Until it happens, it's not worth wasting time on. What ever happened to 'an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure'. Does this change the "...Any such return to life must be resolved during the adventure in which the death occurred; else the PC is permanently dead;..." rule from the LGCS page 13? If a NPC pulls a Closed spell with limited wish, and it causes a death, what then? Can a Circle ruling change a PCs death after the fact? As far as I am aware a Triad ruling can't.
Britt 05-08-07, 10:36 PM	Trite sayings are not always true or applicable, no matter how often people repeat them. If there really isn't a problem, an ounce of prevention is a waste of time. If we went around discussing and planning for meteor strikes at 4-player tables, it would not be time well spent. That is what is going on here.
bitznarf 05-08-07, 10:39 PM	Can the Circle change a death after the fact then, despite what the LGCS says about deaths at the table?
Britt 05-08-07, 10:42 PM	The Circle can do almost anything (other than clarify Core rules issues ;)) if it needs to be done in the interests of fairness; however, overriding a death or something like that would require extremely extenuating circumstances.
bitznarf 05-08-07, 10:45 PM	There is actually one issue that I think needs to be dealt with now, all posturing, evasiveness, and doom saying aside (I still agree with Brad by the way): domain lists. Which ones do NPC clerics use? The ones in the LGCS that are used by the players, or the ones in the RAW? Surely sharing this information with us can be done.
Britt 05-08-07, 10:49 PM	The general rule is that they follow the same rules as PCs.
bitznarf 05-09-07, 10:12 AM	I thought of something that might help allay some of the concerns that some of us have regarding this issue. In particular, the ones about 'is this supposed to be in here, or was it just missed in editing?' Would it be a problem to add some sort of caveat to the appendix whenever a NPC uses a rules option that is Closed to PCs? This would do 2 things: it would ensure that the item was not merely missed in editing, and would make sure that GMs who are not aware that Closed doesn't apply to PCs run the mod the way it was written (in that respect). Does this make any sense to anyone else?
Howie23 05-09-07, 10:47 AM	I thought of something that might help allay some of the concerns that some of us have regarding this issue. In particular, the ones about 'is this supposed to be in here, or was it just missed in editing?' Would it be a problem to add some sort of caveat to the appendix whenever a NPC uses a rules option that is Closed to PCs? This would do 2 things: it would ensure that the item was not merely missed in editing, and would make sure that GMs who are not aware that Closed doesn't apply to PCs run the mod the way it was written (in that respect). Does this make any sense to anyone else? Dale, I've been thinking something similar, and I think your idea makes some sense as welll. If I'm understanding you, it sounds like you are suggesting that the appendix includes a positive confirmation that a closed item is being used. What I've been thinking about is the idea that non-core items appear in the appendix as new rules items. The rationale behind that is to provide the rules for the item to the DM. However, there is also a somewhat vague connection of it also providing the ability/justification to use the rules item. If it is absent, and an NPC attempted to pull a closed spell with limited wish, etc. (DM grabs his favorite splatbook), I'm thinking that might set up grounds for an appeal. It is certainly a boundry in some vague sense. Anyone have further thoughts on it? If this holds up as a boundry/barrior, it doesn't limit abuse of the closed PHB spells, but it goes a long way; it sort of fits in with Tracy's question early in the limited wish branch of the thread about what limited wish spells are usable. David
solbergb 05-09-07, 12:05 PM	4. No, players do not need to know all the rules for administration or writing, no matter how much you may want to know. Look at how much discussion and argument goes on with just the player rules. Do you have any clue how much would go on if we had to share all our administrative and authoring rules as well? Combined with NDA issues, and it's not really a possibility, or a desire. You have no need to know what is legal for authors or admins to be able to run or play a game. . I don't need to know what is legal as a GM. (although when I was a mod author twice I never got to see the guidelines or rules - I guess the editors enforced them) I need to know what is NOT allowed as a GM. That's all. The suggestion another poster had where closed-non-dagger items need an appendix entry saying "we intended to do this, this is an exception to the general rule" would be sufficient. There is a tension in this campaign between "run the mod as written" and "fix obvious mistakes and run it as intended'. I am very firmly in the latter camp, but near as I can tell a large percentage (25-40%, varies by convention/region) are in the "I have to run it as the module says, even if it violates obvious core rules" such as iterative attacks on a natural weapon without any feats/abilities that override the default rule. The restricted rule protected players from author mistakes in the hands of "run it as written" judges. There is also the matter of stuff becoming "closed" for playbalance reasons after a mod is released. Right now the Circle has kind of handwaved what to do about this, but we'll have mods with divine metamagic and divine spellpower for another 18 months or so, longer if some stuff in the pipeline still has it. We had a long tail on "wraithstrike" too, long enough that some responsible authors/regions issued eratta. Yeah, it's just a game, but an unfair TPK caused by a banned rule option (for players, but still in hands of NPC's) is the sort of thing that causes people to give up on the campaign. There needs to be a mechanism to say "nope, no matter what, this thing needs to not be in the campaign" and this should be communicated to everyone, not just the top administrative staff.
solbergb 05-09-07, 12:15 PM	3. As a GM, why do you have to have bright-line rules? Why can't you just do what you think is fair and within the rules? If you aren't sure what you can do, do what is fair and definitely within the rules. If you don't know if it's within the rules, you probably shouldn't do it. If you don't think it's fair (obviously so, like it is probably an error), don't do it. You are not mindless automatons; we changed the language from judge to GM for a reason. We trust you to exercise some judgment when running games. Firstly - I approve of this trend and appreciate the thought behind it. But you are trying to shift 6 years of us being told by the circle every time we talk about fixing even obvious errors in modules that we should run it as written, and use a "don't ask/don't tell" policy if we ignore that instruction and run it by the rules. It will take a while for the campaign to shift in line with the attitudes you express. I have been flat out told by the circle not to make any changes, until I gave some examples. Repeatedly. Mostly I just ran my tables, made my changes and stopped asking for permission. It was easier than rehashing the same arguments and examples. It seems the attitude of the circle has changed. That is a good thing. But it doesn't address those judges who aren't like me, who aren't comfortable going outside of the "box" expressed by the module. I don't think it violates the general rule here "run the mod in a fair and fun way" to have a list of what shouldn't be in a mod without explicit exceptions indicated in the mod. It lets the GM's be the "final editor" so to speak, to know the intent not just what is written. If an author was unaware of the stuff that needs special permission, such a list catches the error even if nobody else does (this is especially likely in interatctives, minimissions, intro mods, often written on short timeframes with minimal oversight and in the latter case by inexperienced authors.