Post/Author/DateTime	Post
delroland 11-08-05, 06:47 PM	This issue has been submitted through the proper channels already, but I thought I would toss the idea around here and see what people's opinions were. I intend this as a discussion and mild debate. If a GM makes a mistake in running a mod, and a PC dies directly as a result of the mistake, is the GM allowed to fix the mistake? What is the timeframe that he may fix the mistake? Must he do it at the table? Before the next mod the character plays in? What if the GM doesn't realize his mistake until after the table has disbanded? I believe the GM can fix his mistake, and should do it at the earliest opportunity. However, my Triad member feels that it had to have been done at the table. He quotes the rule from LGCS saying that character death must be resolved at the table as his support. I feel he is taking this rule out of context, in that the rule was intended to prevent characters from being resurrected months or years after their deaths. Also, several times in the LGCS and the RPGA General Rules, it is stated that a Senior GM can overturn the ruling of a Session GM in order to correct errors on the Session GM's part. I asked WotC Customer Service (through the "Contact the RPGA" link on the RPGA website) if only the Senior GM could fix a mistake; they informed me that a Session GM could fix the mistake as well, and only needed to reissue the AR's and inform the Senior GM what happened. My Triad member feels that this ruling is not applicable in the Living Greyhawk campaign, because WotC Customer Service can't make official rulings on the LG campaign. What are your opinions on this subject? Am I right in this matter? Or is the Triad member? Was I wrong to contact WotC when my Triad member and I disagreed on the rules? Does a Triad member have the authority to make a ruling of this nature? Again, this issue has been sent through the appropriate channels already, so anything said here will most likely have no effect on the outcome of the ruling. I just want to hear what people have to say.
Samwise 11-08-05, 08:57 PM	If a GM makes a mistake in running a mod, and a PC dies directly as a result of the mistake, is the GM allowed to fix the mistake? Yes, but only in the allowed time. That being, What is the timeframe that he may fix the mistake? Must he do it at the table? Before the next mod the character plays in? What if the GM doesn't realize his mistake until after the table has disbanded? It must be corrected at the table, before the session ends. Once the adventure is completed, the AR's issued, filled out, and signed, and the round officially over, only errors in math on an AR may be corrected. Any events and consequences of the adventure are set, and may not be changed. What are your opinions on this subject? Am I right in this matter? Or is the Triad member? The Triad member is correct. The rule from the LGCS is not intended to prevent characters from being resurrected months or years after their deaths, but to prevent any campaign official from overturning deaths of their friends whenever they feel like. While a Senior GM can indeed overrule a Session GM, it must still be done during the session. If you feel the Session GM has ruled incorrectly you may seek the Senior GM, and ask him to overrule a specific decision. This should only be in the context of a very obvious mistake with a rule, and not a subjective decision like choice of a target for an attack. Was I wrong to contact WotC when my Triad member and I disagreed on the rules? Yes. WotC Customer Service is not who you are supposed to appeal to if you disagree with a Triad member on the rules. You are supposed to contact the Circle member for your meta-region. And then other people within the RPGA. Also it should be noted that even if you disagree on an actual game rule, WotC Customer Service does not overrule the LGCS, which states very clearly what the campaign rules are, and when a change or comment on them becomes official. Does a Triad member have the authority to make a ruling of this nature? Triad members do not have the authority to make rulings on game rules. They do have the responsibility to explain the campaign rules, which is what your Triad member did in this case. He made no interpretations or decisions. He just informed you of what the rules are, and how they affect your character.
delroland 11-08-05, 10:22 PM	The rule from the LGCS is not intended to prevent characters from being resurrected months or years after their deaths, but to prevent any campaign official from overturning deaths of their friends whenever they feel like.I disagree with you here. This rule is a carryover from Living City, where high level characters tried to resurrect lower level characters of friends who had died in previous adventures. That was the primary purpose of introducing the rule in LC, and why I believe it has carried over to LG. Also, if you read the rule in the LGCS, IMMEDIATELY afterwards it makes mention of the ability of the Senior GM to still repeal the decision, and places no limitation on time frame as to when this must be done. Furthermore, in the RPGA General Rules, it instructs the player to file an appeal at the earliest opportune time, and not "at the table before the session is over".While a Senior GM can indeed overrule a Session GM, it must still be done during the session. If you feel the Session GM has ruled incorrectly you may seek the Senior GM, and ask him to overrule a specific decision. This should only be in the context of a very obvious mistake with a rule, and not a subjective decision like choice of a target for an attack.Like the GM attacking the party with more monsters than the module called for? Would that qualify? And again, I must mention that there is NO specified time limitation indicated ANYWHERE in the LGCS or RPGA General Rules as to when an appeal must be filed. Furthermore, the "death resolution" rule goes on to further explain itself as requiring the matter of whether the character is brought back from the dead or not to be settled at the table. If the issue is whether or not the character died in the first place, what then? It seems to me that in this case, the rule does not apply, in which case one needs to abide by the RPGA General Rules (as indicated in the LGCS).Triad members do not have the authority to make rulings on game rules. They do have the responsibility to explain the campaign rules, which is what your Triad member did in this case. He made no interpretations or decisions. He just informed you of what the rules are, and how they affect your character.It seems like an interpretation to me; if it weren't, there would be no room for disagreement in the first place. And for the record, I was the Session GM, not the player.
Samwise 11-08-05, 11:43 PM	I disagree with you here. This rule is a carryover from Living City, where high level characters tried to resurrect lower level characters of friends who had died in previous adventures. That was the primary purpose of introducing the rule in LC, and why I believe it has carried over to LG. Also, if you read the rule in the LGCS, IMMEDIATELY afterwards it makes mention of the ability of the Senior GM to still repeal the decision, and places no limitation on time frame as to when this must be done. Furthermore, in the RPGA General Rules, it instructs the player to file an appeal at the earliest opportune time, and not "at the table before the session is over". You can disagree all you want, but seeing as how I was there when the rule was discussed and implemented, I can pretty much rely on my personal experience to know why it was decided on. And no, the General Rules do not instruct the player to file an appeal at the earliest opportune time. They merely state that a player is free to do so. Nothing in that grants any exemption or overrules anything else regarding resolutions. since death must be resolved at the table, obviously any such appeal must be made within that time frame as well. Like the GM attacking the party with more monsters than the module called for? Would that qualify? . . . And for the record, I was the Session GM, not the player. Well, for the record, I was Session GM at Winter Fantasy two years ago. And as it happens, I made did in fact make a mistake of putting down the monsters for one APL higher than the table was playing. Fortunately, we caught it before it became relevant (spells casts or damage taken) as someone asked half-jokingly if I was sure it should be so many. And it was only half-joking, although done politely, because I'd already made a mistake earlier in the module that would indeed have killed a character, but which I was able to have "overturned" before continuing to the next encounter. It wasn't that big a deal, aside from the personal embarassment of making such a big mistake with the game rules. So what exactly did you need anyone else for? If you know you made a mistake, then you correct it before continuing. I've done that several times, though never with anything that severe. And again, I must mention that there is NO specified time limitation indicated ANYWHERE in the LGCS or RPGA General Rules as to when an appeal must be filed. Furthermore, the "death resolution" rule goes on to further explain itself as requiring the matter of whether the character is brought back from the dead or not to be settled at the table. If the issue is whether or not the character died in the first place, what then? It seems to me that in this case, the rule does not apply, in which case one needs to abide by the RPGA General Rules (as indicated in the LGCS).It seems like an interpretation to me; if it weren't, there would be no room for disagreement in the first place. And you would be wrong. Being lazy, I didn't dig out my LGCS before. But since you are repeating this, I had to. Character Death And Back Again, on page 36 of the LGCS 4.2 is quite clear. The most relevant passage is as follows: "At multi-session events, the Senior GM may want to establish a GM in charge of character death appeals. Ideally, this GM is a ranked Grand Master or higher by the RPGA and is not running an adventure during any slot that he or she is designated as Appeals GM. If an alternate is not assigned this role, the Senior GM for the event is the Appeals GM. When a player believes that his or her character’s death was due to a DM’s mistaken call, he or she may ask for a second opinion from the Appeals GM. The player and the session DM are each five, uninterrupted minutes to explain their point of view. Thereafter, the Appeals GM makes a decision. The Appeals GM’s ruling is final, and you must abide by that decision." Nothing in that suggests any waiving of the time limit (that the death must be at the session) imposed in the previous part of the paragraph. Indeed, the fact that is is part of the very same paragraph should stand as the most direct proof that no such exemption is granted or implied. Instead it is the specific exemption for the question you have, where the character death is caused by an overt error rather than simple bad luck. As for the RPGA General Rules, the section there is also rather clear. Appeals are to an Appeals GM or a Senior GM only. Even beyond the table limitation, that puts an absolute limit of appeals on the duration of a multi-session event, as once the event is over those positions no longer exist, and there is no one to appeal to. So your suggestion of some unlimited time for appeals is very definitely incorrect, as is your suggestion of an ever increasing hierarchy of appeals. (Which in fact means you have not submitted it through the proper channels already since there are none.) The rule is very clear, and very simple. No interpretation is involved or is required. Just don't try and add anything to it and there won't be any problem. All of this has been discussed many times before, both in closed (Triad and Circle only) discussions and open (the RPGA Drafts lists) discussions, and the intent and status of the rule made quite clear. If you don't want to accept it there is little that I or anyone else will be able to do to convince you otherwise. So you will have to decide whether you intend to abide by the rules of the campaign, as told to you by a member of your regional Triad or not.
delroland 11-09-05, 06:45 AM	Getting a little preachy, aren't we? I wanted opinions, and you provide accusations and a "I know the rules better than you" attitude. Interesting. And tell me, how does... prevent[ing] any campaign official from overturning deaths of their friends whenever they feel likehave any relevance to this situation? If that was the intention of the rule, as you have assured it is, how does this apply to the situation? No one is overturning the death of a friend, so this rule is being taken out of context. And the Triads are not infallible. Though I find that most Triad members take it as a personal affront when anyone disagrees with them, as though their "authority" would be diminished if somehow they were wrong. Also:A player may not appeal to [the] Senior GM or the Appeals GM before his or her session GM renders an initial decision.This rule trumps your entire argument IMO, because if the player must wait until after the decision to appeal the issue of character death, and that death happens at the end of the scenario, then it is impossible for the player to appeal before the end of the table. Or is the intention of the LGCS to screw over players with a Catch-22? One could also make the argument that no table results are final until the event has been reported to the RPGA, which would make your assertion that there is no Senior GM after the tables have been run incorrect. If that is the case, then the Senior GM could overturn a session GM ruling at any time up to that point, as he still has the title until then. Now, since I expect you to immediately disregard all I have to say, I will conclude this one-sided discussion with an observation: when I filed the question with WotC, I got a response in two days. My Triad still hasn't gotten back to me on this issue, except to say that "their ruling is final" (so sayeth the Triad). Now, if the Triads are too busy to handle rules disputes in a mature and appropriate fashion, then maybe WotC Customer Service SHOULD be the ones to handle rules questions of this nature, as it is quite apparent to me, at least in the case of my Triad, that Triad members are too busy with and too attached to their respective regions to be able to act in an impartial and timely manner. Since they (and you, apparently) take it so personally, perhaps that responsibility should be taken out of their hands. Besides, name one other company where unpaid volunteers outrank paid employees when it comes to policy enforcement and determination. Triad members are the business equivalent of interns. They should not worry their little heads with the big picture, but rather just stick to their jobs: writing adventures and story lines for their little part of the LG world. Obviously that alone is almost too much work for them.
Sieylianna 11-09-05, 07:25 AM	The GM must correct the mistake at the table. I have seen triads reverse table results weeks or months later, but it doesn't appear that your triad is responsive to this suggestion. Since you haven't provided any details on what happened, I can't judge whether the issue is something which is reasonable to expect to have brought up at the table, so I don't know whether I'd even support a change. You can contact your Circle rep, but you're pretty much SOL. WotC customer service people do not make official rulings and have no official capacity in the living greyhawk campaign, so their comments are meaningless. Ed
delroland 11-09-05, 07:40 AM	The situation: I was GM, I ran the final encounter at the next higher APL accidentally, and a character died as a direct result. I did not realize my mistake until after I had gotten home from the game store that we ran the game day out of, which had rushed us out as our table was running a little overtime and the store was closed. When I realized my mistake, I immediately posted a message on the Game Day's private message board for the player to contact me so that I could amend the death and correct his AR. This all happened within one hour of the table being concluded. Obviously, the player had no chance to realize I had made a mistake until we were done, as he is not allowed to see the module before the table is concluded and therefore had no means of knowing that he had a valid reason to appeal until it was "too late" (at least, too late according to my Triad member and Samwise). Then after my posting, the Triad member got on the board saying, "You can't do that, blah, blah, blah." The discussion between he and I after that is irrelevant to your question, but I can elaborate if need be. Essentially it boiled down to he and I disagreeing, and him threatening to sanction me if I took any action to correct my mistake, which immediately prompted me to go above his head, as I do not respond kindly to threats.
scon40 11-09-05, 12:29 PM	I don't know the specifics of your case, but it seems to me that your Triad member was not threatening you. He was letting you know that if you change a death after a table is over, which is a violation of the rules of LG, you would be penalized for it since he/she had just informed you of the rules on the matter. Once a table ends at a game day and no one has protested the death, the PC death is final. No appeals after the fact and no corrections of mistakes. That's the rule.
Samwise 11-09-05, 01:32 PM	Getting a little preachy, aren't we? I wanted opinions, and you provide accusations and a "I know the rules better than you" attitude. Interesting. You wanted opinions and I provided one. It wasn't the one you wanted so now you are getting mad at me just like you are mad at your Triad for correcting you. And tell me, how doeshave any relevance to this situation? If that was the intention of the rule, as you have assured it is, how does this apply to the situation? No one is overturning the death of a friend, so this rule is being taken out of context. No, the rule is not being taken out of context. That is the intent behind the rule, not the rule itself. Nothing about that rule, as written, is being taken out of context. Character deaths must be resolved at the table - period. Nothing more, nothing less, no exemptions. And you've now also had that from a Circle member. And the Triads are not infallible. Though I find that most Triad members take it as a personal affront when anyone disagrees with them, as though their "authority" would be diminished if somehow they were wrong. Is this about the Triad or about the rule? Again, you have heard from a Circle member concerning the other rules regarding the campaign rules concerning that. Also:This rule trumps your entire argument IMO, because if the player must wait until after the decision to appeal the issue of character death, and that death happens at the end of the scenario, then it is impossible for the player to appeal before the end of the table. Or is the intention of the LGCS to screw over players with a Catch-22? The player must wait until after the decision of the DM on the particular rule. After that, the player is free to request the table be held, then get up and go find the Appeals GM and inform him of the rules dispute. Especially if his character is dead, there is very little to prevent him from doing, and as he can take no character action, there is no disruption in him so doing. Even if this occurs during the last encounter and the table is proceeding to filling our ARs, all he has to do is not fill in his AR while going off to make his appeal. The Session GM can not sign off on his AR until he has filled it out, and thus the session has not yet officially ended. So there is no attempt to 'screw' anyone. One could also make the argument that no table results are final until the event has been reported to the RPGA, which would make your assertion that there is no Senior GM after the tables have been run incorrect. If that is the case, then the Senior GM could overturn a session GM ruling at any time up to that point, as he still has the title until then. One could make that argument all one wants, but one would still have to deliberately ignore the rule that deaths must be appealed at the table to do so. Now, since I expect you to immediately disregard all I have to say, I will conclude this one-sided discussion with an observation: when I filed the question with WotC, I got a response in two days. My Triad still hasn't gotten back to me on this issue, except to say that "their ruling is final" (so sayeth the Triad). Now, if the Triads are too busy to handle rules disputes in a mature and appropriate fashion, then maybe WotC Customer Service SHOULD be the ones to handle rules questions of this nature, as it is quite apparent to me, at least in the case of my Triad, that Triad members are too busy with and too attached to their respective regions to be able to act in an impartial and timely manner. Since they (and you, apparently) take it so personally, perhaps that responsibility should be taken out of their hands. I haven't disregarded anything you have said. I have simply replied to it, with the facts. Your Triad has apparently done the same, but you continue to disregard everything they have said. (That you are ignoring everything I have to say is the reason this 'discussion' is one-sided.) They handled your dispute in a mature and appropriate fashion. And a very restrained fashion. I would already have brought sanctions against you for trying to make an issue of it like this. Besides, name one other company where unpaid volunteers outrank paid employees when it comes to policy enforcement and determination. Triad members are the business equivalent of interns. They should not worry their little heads with the big picture, but rather just stick to their jobs: writing adventures and story lines for their little part of the LG world. Obviously that alone is almost too much work for them. You obviously have no idea about what Triad members are supposed to do. And your lack of knowledge is leading you to be exceptionally and unneccessarily rude over a simple rules issue. If you can not accept the rules of the campaign, and the decisions of the campaign staff, then you would be better off finding another campaign to play. You will obviously never be happy with Living Greyhawk.
delroland 11-09-05, 02:39 PM	You obviously have no idea about what Triad members are supposed to do. And your lack of knowledge is leading you to be exceptionally and unneccessarily rude over a simple rules issue. If you can not accept the rules of the campaign, and the decisions of the campaign staff, then you would be better off finding another campaign to play. You will obviously never be happy with Living Greyhawk. I am being exceptionally rude on this subject because the people in charge apparently believe that bureaucratic BS is more important than having fun. The RPGA specifically provides rules and regulations to give GM's the tools to deal with issues like this one. But you and my Triad believe that the LG campaign is somehow above those rules, and you use ONE RULE, taken out of context, to justify your stance, when I provide quote after quote from both the LGCS and the RPGA General Rules. NOWHERE in either rulebook does it say that appeals must be done at the table, and in several places it tells the player that if he wants to file an appeal, it must happen 1) AFTER THE INCIDENT and 2) AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNE TIME. It says that RIGHT IN THE RULES. And yet, you disregard that, hiding behind a misrepresented rule because that is the way you have done it in the past. Well, I would rather see the RPGA try and correct its mistakes instead of "writing" imaginary justifications, like a table appeal time limit, in order to justify that stance. If you read the entry on character death, immediately after saying that deaths need to be resolved at the table, it talks about what needs to happen as far as WHETHER the PC comes back to life. Then it begins a whole new track talking about appeals, WITH NO MENTION OF A TIME LIMIT. Your ASSUMPTION that this must happen at the table is just that. And what if the Senior GM is not available for the player to talk to? From the LGCS, "During the Game" -> "Do not go out of your way to ... kill characters. ... BE FAIR." -> "The GOAL is to resolve problems at the session to keep conflicts from carrying over beyond the convention or game day" Is it fair for the character to die because of a mistake? And as far as resolving problems at the session goes, "goal" infers what SHOULD happen, not what MUST happen. From the LGCS, "What you can an cannot do as a DM" -> "REMEMBER YOU ARE THERE TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE IS HAVING FUN. LET PLAYERS PLAY THEIR CHARACTERS AS THEY SEE FIT AND BE THE HEROES. WORK WITH THEM TOWARD A FUN AND MEMORABLE GAME." Why is it you forget that so easily? How is it fun and memorable for the player to know his character died as a result of a mistake, but because of a rules caveat, he can't do anything about it, because he didn't find out it was a mistake until it was "too late"? Here is a final example of what your interpretation allows: A GM intentionally kills off a character by doubling a monster's hit points and having it attack just that one character. However, since the player is not allowed to read the module until the session is over, he can not make an appeal, because the death had to be resolved at the session. If this were to happen, and was proven, the GM would be sanctioned (most likely suspended), and the character would be corrected. So why is it that when the death is due to DM mistake instead of intent, the same thing does not happen? I would be totally okay with a Warning if it meant that the player in question had his death reversed. But I feel that, because of personal dislike of myself on the part of my Triad, they are making this ruling more to "put me in my place" than to impartially deal with this matter in the way it should. But again, I know what your response will be: "You are wrong, because character death must be resolved at the table." Quoting the same rule, with no support, does nothing to address what I have had to say. And yet that has been your response to every point and DIRECT QUOTE FROM THE RULES that I have made. THAT is why this discussion is one-sided. And even if I am wrong in my interpretation, the rules as you believe them to be are violating the spirit of the RPGA in this instance, by not providing a fair and fun environment. And that is the fundamental problem with this entire situation. But apparently maintaining a false sense of "authority" is more important than doing the right thing. Bureaucracy 1 - Fun 0
Some_call_me_Tim 11-09-05, 03:00 PM	Once a table ends at a game day and no one has protested the death, the PC death is final. No appeals after the fact and no corrections of mistakes. That's the rule. I understand that as you and Simwise have stated how the LGCS rules currently work, however I have a couple of questions so I hope you bear with me. I can understand wanting to make it 'final' at some definite point but I question the logic of "no corrections of mistakes." If the original session judge discovers he has made an error why the blanket prohibition against fixing it? I can see not wanting to allow people to appeal to every member of their triad and circle trying to find someone sympathetic but, if the original session judge is convinced they did something wrong (or perhaps an errata or FAQ clarified the question) it would seem reasonable to allow some way to fix it if the problem is discovered in a reasonable time frame (and before another game is played).
rascal 11-09-05, 03:57 PM	First of all, I just want to say that the circle and triad members do an excellent job at running this whole thing. There appears to be a lot of work and sleepless nights that go into everything that is LG and I, for one, am grateful for it. That being said, I agree with Tim. If a GM makes a mistake resulting in a character’s death, there has to be a way to fix it outside the “done at the table” rule. Let’s look at this from the player’s perspective. They just had a character die (not due to a mistake of their own) and didn’t realize it was wrong. If these are people who never GM, they could even read the module and still not realize it. So, the GM sees his mistake and tells the player ASAP. The player says, “Thanks, so my character is alive then?!” To which the GM responds “Well, no, we had to stay at the table………..” Now, we just had “Worldwide D&D Day” and some of it included introducing new people to LG as well as the other offerings. For the sake of new players out there, or even experienced players who are not in tune with the details of the rules, there has to be a way for the GM/triad/circle/Heironeous etc. to fix something like this because players may not be able to. (Remember, all you need is dice, paper, pencil and imagination)
King Kashue 11-09-05, 05:32 PM	Delroland, you have a Circle member in this thread saying that it was handled correctly by the triad and further saying that Samwise is correct in his interpretation; why are you still ranting about this? (and it has crossed the line into ranting, at least from my point of view)... The rule is "Protest must be raised at the table"...That rule has been restated by a Circle member in this thread...That rule was not followed... The Triads are not interns, they and the Circle are volunteers who are attempting to make the playing field equal for everyone...If that means that everyone once and a while someone is screwed because of a rule, that's life...No rule is perfect, but in this case, the belief is that not having the rule would create more unfair situations than having the rule... As for your specific issue, you could have easily corrected your mistake by contacting the player directly...While against the rules, you had an option to deal with the issue without involving anyone else...That you did no do so is your error, not the fault of those who are enforcing the rules as written... And before you say I'm just toeing the line, this is coming from someone who had a character die because of a GM mistake, had the GM, and a Triad member agree a mistake was made, but also agreed that since it wasn't appealed at the table, reversal was not possible...
King Kashue 11-09-05, 05:40 PM	Let’s look at this from the player’s perspective. They just had a character die (not due to a mistake of their own) and didn’t realize it was wrong. If these are people who never GM, they could even read the module and still not realize it. So, the GM sees his mistake and tells the player ASAP. The player says, “Thanks, so my character is alive then?!” To which the GM responds “Well, no, we had to stay at the table………..” There is a way, just as I described...It's against the rules, but Delroland could have contacted the player, fixed it, and no one but he and the player would have known about the error and the reversal...It's against the rules, but it happens a decent amount when the GM catches his own errors in a timely manner (It is within the realm of possibility, though not certain, that I have corrected an error in this fashion)... However, Delroland brought other people into it, specifically a Triad member, who MUST uphold the rules...One of the primary duties of the Circle and the Triad is to provide as even a playing field as they can. To that end, they create and enforce rules that, as I stated, sometimes screw people, but more often serve to create a balanced playing experience for everyone... How would you feel if the friends of those in authority often got their deaths reversed but your's stood? That threatens the overall gaming experience more than the occasional error against a player...At least when you get screwed it's based on a written, explicit rule, and everyone else is equally likely to get screwed or benefit as you; it's not an arbitrary thing based on who someone is friends with...
rascal 11-09-05, 06:28 PM	I agree Kashue - that is the way I probably would have handled it. Well spoken.
Samwise 11-09-05, 09:39 PM	I am being exceptionally rude on this subject because the people in charge apparently believe that bureaucratic BS is more important than having fun. There is no excuse for such rudeness.
Samwise 11-09-05, 09:50 PM	Indeed, very well said King Kashue. And very well phrased as well. ;)
delroland 11-09-05, 11:11 PM	So in other words, breaking the rules is perfectly acceptable, as long as no one else knows about it. The Triad member suggested the same thing, coincidentally. But why should I have to break the rules in order to maintain fair play? If that is the necessary course of action, is not the problem with the rules themselves? The primary purpose of the RPGA is TO HAVE FUN. If the rules work against that, you change the rules or make an exception. And congratulations again Samwise on a pathetic attempt to trivialize the points I made. Really, bravo! And for the record, I didn't "bring" the Triad into it; they stuck their noses in the situation to jovially chime in on how wrong I was and that if I did anything, I would be sanctioned. All correspondance between me and the player was done on a private message board, which the Triad member, in his infinite wisdom, decided to jump in and throw his weight around.
delroland 11-09-05, 11:21 PM	How would you feel if the friends of those in authority often got their deaths reversed but your's stood? That threatens the overall gaming experience more than the occasional error against a player...At least when you get screwed it's based on a written, explicit rule, and everyone else is equally likely to get screwed or benefit as you; it's not an arbitrary thing based on who someone is friends with...So if the rule is wrong, we should keep it wrong, so as to not risk facing the ramifications of previous mistakes? That, my good King, is a terrible line of reasoning, on the same line (though definitely nowhere near the same scope) as not allowing a minority to vote or disallowing malpractice lawsuits. As far as you accusation of ranting goes, I must agree to an extent; there is no love lost between myself and those in charge of the LG campaign. However, LG is not the sole ownership of the Triads and Circle. If players and GM's have disagreements with how things are run, they should be allowed to bring those points up with the confidence that concerns will be addressed and not pushed to the wayside in an inappropriate attempt to maintain the status quo. And last time I checked, getting mad at and arguing with a Circle or Triad member is not a CoC violation, so I have done nothing wrong, though several people would have you believe otherwise.
Samwise 11-09-05, 11:47 PM	You trivialized your own points by being so rude. If your points were valid, you could make them in polite manner. That you could not shows that you consider them secondary to making personal attacks on the campaign staff.
delroland 11-09-05, 11:52 PM	Seriously, do they train you to duck issues in Circle school? Because you did it again.
Samwise 11-10-05, 12:23 AM	However, LG is not the sole ownership of the Triads and Circle. That is correct, it isn't. It is the sole ownership of WotC. Apparently you are confusing the RPGA of 10 years ago with the RPGA of today. If players and GM's have disagreements with how things are run, they should be allowed to bring those points up with the confidence that concerns will be addressed and not pushed to the wayside in an inappropriate attempt to maintain the status quo. There is. It is called the LG Drafts Discussions list, where players give input when the LGCS and other rules documents are revised. While not every suggestion is accepted, the number that are is a very clear indication that their concerns are addressed. [QUTOE]And last time I checked, getting mad at and arguing with a Circle or Triad member is not a CoC violation, so I have done nothing wrong, though several people would have you believe otherwise.[/QUOTE] Arguing isn't a violation. Misrepresenting the rules is a violation. If you do that in your arguing, then yes, you are in fact violating the RPGA rules. And that you have made it clear that you do in fact know what the rule is and what it means, then your assertions that it could or should or might mean something are misrepresentations. If you want to discuss changing the rules then discuss changing the rules. That is quite different from getting mad and arguing about them, especially if you bring personal issues with the campaign staff into it. Seriously, do they train you to duck issues in Circle school? Because you did it again. I'm not a Circle member. I was a Triad member, and they told us to be polite, and they told us to be polite, even when being insulted. But they didn't train us to duck issues. Quite the opposite. We had to do things even if we didn't like them or agree with them. Like telling people when they couldn't break the rules, even if we didn't like the particular rule in question ourselves. I keep doing it because I like the campaign so much. However this comment again shows that I am not ducking the issue, but addressing it too directly. You don't like the campaign staff. You've made that abundantly clear. (If you mean the rule itself, I already addressed that. You ignored everything I said as I didn't agree with you. I agree with the rule and support it completely. I think changing it would be a terrible mistake. I disagree with your complaints about the rule completely, and do no think they are sufficient reason for changing the rule. If it came up on the Drafts Discussions list, I would strongly oppose any change to the rule. I can not address it more directly or completely than that.)
delroland 11-10-05, 12:36 AM	Again, you have heard from a Circle member concerning the other rules regarding the campaign rules concerning that.This is from one of your older posts. This statement is false. No Circle member has contacted me; I inferred you were referring to yourself when you made the above statement. Furthermore, according to the LGCS, the campaign contact for this sort of thing is RPGA HQ, and not the Circle. In fact, the Circle is not mentioned once in any portion of the Appeals and Penalty guidelines; therefore, it seems that even their ruling on this matter is not adequate, especially since they are not an impartial third party in this matter.
Samwise 11-10-05, 01:11 AM	This is from one of your older posts. This statement is false. No Circle member has contacted me; I inferred you were referring to yourself when you made the above statement. Furthermore, according to the LGCS, the campaign contact for this sort of thing is RPGA HQ, and not the Circle. In fact, the Circle is not mentioned once in any portion of the Appeals and Penalty guidelines; therefore, it seems that even their ruling on this matter is not adequate, especially since they are not an impartial third party in this matter. A Circle member has contacted you. Look at the 8th message in this thread. The Circle member for the Sheldomar region, Steve Conforti, replied to specific issues you raised. You don't have to infer anything, you just have to read the responses to your own thread. And no, once again you are wrong about the rules. From page 53 of the LGCS: The DM is the final authority. Players can appeal a DM's rulings to the Senior GM or designated Appeals GM if they are unhappy with a ruling. Lacking a Senior or Appeals GM, the table DM’s decision is final. Think hard when making decisions. They could have far reaching effects on players and the campaign. That's it. It stops at the Senior or Appeals GM. There is nothing above that. And you also continue to be wrong about what the Triad member did. He did not get involved in the appeal process. He simply informed you that changing the AR as you wanted to do would constitute a rules violation. I direct you to the following on page 64 of the LGCS: triad: Each region in the Living Greyhawk campaign is overseen by three individuals collectively known as the triad. These hard-working volunteers are the ones in charge of adventure production, meta-orgs, interactives, special missions and many of the exciting developments that occur in your region. They are the campaigns representation at the local level and, when it comes to Living Greyhawk and rules, should be accorded all due respect. Your triad reports to the circle member for their metaregion.(See Chapter 9 for more details on what metaregion you are in.) As for Steve Conforti's reply, he merely confirmed what your Triad told you about the rules. I direct you to this on page 63 of the LGCS: circle, the: Each metaregion in the Living Greyhawk campaign is overseen by a circle member. These officials are collective known as the circle. The circle represents the top of the hierarchy in the campaign, and all triad members report to one of the fi ve members. The circle is responsible for setting all the rules in the campaign, creating all campaign official documents (such as the one you are reading right now), core plotlines, triad recruitment and management, approval and sanctioning of all Living Greyhawk adventures, conflict and appeal resolution, and many other tasks that keep us very busy. The circle represents the campaign on a global scale, and when it comes to Living Greyhawk and rules, should be accorded all due respect. The circle reports to RPGA Content Developer Stephen Radney- MacFarland at Wizards of the Coast. That pretty much covers that.
solbergb 11-10-05, 03:37 AM	. Once a table ends at a game day and no one has protested the death, the PC death is final. No appeals after the fact and no corrections of mistakes. That's the rule. Just as an odd aside, this can work in your favor the other way. There were a number of tables run at a convention I was at which had deaths mitigated by a "Last Breath" favor in a mod that premiered at the convention. Near as I can tell, at many tables neither the players nor the judges really knew how the spell worked, and at many tables this favor was invoked without level loss. (I think many of us had it mixed up with the Revivify spell - I was at the other end of a 14 hour airplane trip and did not have my books handy, beyond photocopies of stuff my characters already had, so when it was described, I had a memory of a spell that worked like that, and was puzzled that it wasn't banned, but didn't question it). In any event, I had a character killed later in the interactive due to a flat rules error (using multiple natural attacks inside a grapple by a creature without rake) but I didn't appeal it (slowing down and disrupting the table) because I had this favor which would reduce the consequences. The DM was mortified later when we talked about it, and one player tried to get my favor back after the table was over, without success. At that time I didn't care, I knew the consequences of not appealing it immediately, and I'd had a good time at the table anyway. By the second day the word got around and the spell was run correctly, but nobody tried to go figure out who got a free "get out of death free" card on the prior day. The AR's were signed, with no "death" box checked and the favors were crossed off. In my case, I'd played another adventure with the char before I got the word. So...two cancelling mistakes, net result was in fact as it should have been. Now..I know how Last Breath works....
King Kashue 11-10-05, 04:29 AM	So if the rule is wrong, we should keep it wrong, so as to not risk facing the ramifications of previous mistakes? That, my good King, is a terrible line of reasoning, on the same line (though definitely nowhere near the same scope) as not allowing a minority to vote or disallowing malpractice lawsuits. First of all, who said the rule was "wrong"? I surely didn't. As for reasoning, you likely don't want to get into dialectic criticisms, seeing as even the short statement I just quoted has at least three significant logical fallicies (strawman, assuming the premise, and false analogy)... As I stated, the belief is that the rule prevents more undesirable situations than it creates, and as such is a good rule. The people who believe that are also the ones who write the rules...You may disagree with that, but that is a separate issue and does not mean that the rule is "wrong" (since your opinion is by no means infalliable, and is certainly not authoritative)... As for avoiding those undesirable situations that do crop up, yes quite frankly, violating the rules is an effective way to deal with it. However, despite your claims to the contrary, you did indeed bring the Triad member into it...Instead of contacting the player (either by email, or a general post on the board of "hey email me, I want to discuss something") you put the issue in a public enough venue that the triad member had to comment...Instead of keeping the details between you and the player, you put them in front of the Triad member (who was obviously a member of the board, otherwise he couldn't have read it). The triad member in that situation is required to warn you in order to be doing his job properly, he doesn't have the option to let it slide because if he did, he would be negligent... To make a comparison, there are many minor ordinances that the police don't make a huge effort to enforce, however, if you're violating the law while standing in front of them, there isn't much they can do but enforce it...
Wavester 11-10-05, 09:21 AM	Well since I am the one that wrote the rule I am going to chime in (that and I am bored at work and this is at least somewhat amusing on a rainy day). All deaths and rules appeals are handled at the table. Why ? Because that is the one time that all parties are present and all needed information is present and fresh in everybodies mind. It is the best time by far to make any needed corrections. The RPGA General Rules go over all the things you need to know about appeals and appeals GMs in that process. This rule has been in place for YEARS now and do a search on this board for how many rants about it being a horrible rule (not gonna find em chief unless ya go way back and maybe one). Is it also a perfect rule ? No of course not. No rule is. Does it handle the vast majority of problems without hassles ? Yup. Before this rule after game appeals and how they were handled were a very subjective thing prone to many cases of favortism and bullying. So in this case maybe your DM did make a mistake. None of us knows for sure. Why because we were not there. You guys were and did not catch it at the time. That sucks if true but again the game is over. It is over. Simple.
rutrow424 11-10-05, 11:46 AM	I'll follow Dave's lead and give my (certainly less important) 2 cps. I don't fully agree with the rule in question, but completely understand why it is in place. That is why the general refrain I hear/state when a PC dies is (humor intended, though it is true): "Is that the right APL?" or "Are you sure that is APL X?" Most DMs are accomodating in that they will double check or even show the APL X heading where the opponents are detailed in the mod. That can then be followed by the usual: "How did that get past the Triad?", "They are just trying to kill PCs," or "Did they playtest this at all?" retorts. Finally, there's the resigned to fate "Well, we warned you not to charge it" or "That's why you don't wander off alone" consolation from the rest of the party. As it is, the policeman analogy someone mentioned above is generally very appropriate.
delroland 11-10-05, 11:58 AM	Well since I am the one that wrote the rule I am going to chime in (that and I am bored at work and this is at least somewhat amusing on a rainy day). All deaths and rules appeals are handled at the table. Why ? Because that is the one time that all parties are present and all needed information is present and fresh in everybodies mind. It is the best time by far to make any needed corrections. The RPGA General Rules go over all the things you need to know about appeals and appeals GMs in that process. This rule has been in place for YEARS now and do a search on this board for how many rants about it being a horrible rule (not gonna find em chief unless ya go way back and maybe one). Is it also a perfect rule ? No of course not. No rule is. Does it handle the vast majority of problems without hassles ? Yup. Before this rule after game appeals and how they were handled were a very subjective thing prone to many cases of favortism and bullying. So in this case maybe your DM did make a mistake. None of us knows for sure. Why because we were not there. You guys were and did not catch it at the time. That sucks if true but again the game is over. It is over. Simple. I was the DM. I made a mistake. I know for sure, and I assure you that you can take my word for that. What a lot of people are assuming is that the rules of the RPGA are set in stone, and they should not be. The rules of the RPGA are not a methodology of punishing those who do wrong. They are GUIDELINES to fair play, and when guidelines are not guiding in the proper direction, you change them, make exceptions, or add caveats. You do not turn a blind eye to imperfections in the rule, else you risk having problems continue to build up until the rule breaks. I feel that point has been reached. Also, I am not the only person who feels this way, as evidenced by rascal's and Some_Call_Me_Tim's points. The rule as it is currently believed to be is being used as a blanket statement to prevent mistakes from being fixed. How can we knowingly allow these mistakes to stand when we have the ability to fix them? I feel that this rule is being used as an excuse to maintain the status quo, simply because no one likes rocking the boat. But silence on this issue is not going to make the problem go away. And again, why should I have to break the rules to do what is fair? No one has answered that question. If the rule needs to be broken from time to time, then it is a poorly written rule. Analogy: The law on jaywalking is pretty straightforward: if you cross the street on foot, you are breaking the law and can be cited by an officer. However, this rule has an exception built into it: crosswalks. Without this exception, it would be legally impossible to get anywhere on foot. Just as it is legally impossible in LG (according to current interpretation) to fix a mistake involving the death of a character after the table is over. Problems in LG get fixed all the time. Triads rewrite rules for custom magic items, adventure AR's are changed, and whenever something like this happens, changes are enforced. Yet when the problem involves character death, now we can't do anything to fix it? That makes no sense whatsoever. Assuming that the death rule is not being taken out of context (which I don't agree with; we have had two people tell us the origins and purpose of this rule, and neither purpose has anything to do with the situation I have brought up), why are people so vehemently opposed to introducing an exception to allow for DM's to fix their own mistakes, as would normally be allowed in any other current campaign? Even if taken on a case-for-case basis to prevent abuse of the exception, this would give DM's the tools they need to handle this rare situation in a fair and timely manner. I also think it is unfair to punish players and GM's so as to theoretically prevent people from cheating, especially when the solution suggested to this problem by those in charge is to cheat. If I have to cheat to do the right thing, what is to prevent others from cheating to do the wrong thing? If people can so easily get around this rule and cheat anyways, what is the point of the rule? As far as King Kashue's assession of logical fallacies goes, I disagree. 1) It has been suggested by you that I break the rules in secret to fix a problem; therefore, in this instance the rule is wrong; otherwise there would be no right reason to break the rule. Therefore, no straw argument or false premise. 2) The idea that changing a wrong rule can't be done because of the ramifications of changing the rule can have difficult consequences to deal with is exactly the point you made, and I provided two real-life examples that use the same logic to justify wrong rules. I also admitted that the examples were of a much greater scale than our current situation, but they serve as a demonstration of your faulty logic taken to an extreme. Therefore, no false analogy. Also, arguing logical fallacies generally does not work on message board discussions. I would appreciate it if you would address my point, rather than solely try and punch holes through it. Arguing semantics gets us nowhere. Several people have admitted that the character death is a problem. These same people have also said that under the current rules, the problem can not be fixed, and that this is unfortunate. Therefore, they believe the problem should be fixed, but cannot. If the problem should be fixed, then we should fix the problem. If the rules get in the way of fixing the problem, then we should fix the rules. It should be as simple as that. If LG can't evolve, then it is doomed to the same agonizing and slow death we saw at the end of LC.
delroland 11-10-05, 12:03 PM	As it is, the policeman analogy someone mentioned above is generally very appropriate. But then we have to deal with the issue of a rule that can't be enforced being no rule at all. If the Circle and the Triads turn a blind eye to some violations but harp on others, then they are treating people unfairly. Obviously they think the "cheating" is justified, as they have suggested it themselves. But we shouldn't have to skulk around in the dark in order to do what is right.
Samwise 11-10-05, 12:53 PM	What a lot of people are assuming is that the rules of the RPGA are set in stone, and they should not be. The rules of the RPGA are not a methodology of punishing those who do wrong. No, what you are assuming is that the rules are not firm, and they can be referred to merely an ad hoc basis whenever ones feels like doing so. And they are in fact a method for punishing people who do wrong. Why? Because if you don't write the rules down you will have people who will go on endlessly with "Well it doesn't I can't!" There may be nothing short of changing the actual rules of the game system that you can do to stop the Rules Weasels from rampaging about with absurd character builds because of that, but there is something that can and has been done to prevent people from abusing the organization as a whole by having actual rules. So no, you can't play a module multiple times. Why? Because there is a rule that says so. And yes, if you become physically belligerent during a game they can throw you out of the play area for an entire convention. Why? Because there is a rule that says so. The only assumptions being made about the rules are being made by you. And those assumptions are consistently wrong. On your theory, we can all do whatever we like, play modules multiple times, read them before we play them, make up characters with any number of points for characteristics, give them whatever equipment and magical items we feel like, and anything else, as long as whoever does it can justify it in the name of having fun. If that is how you want to play then do so in a home game. Don't say the RPGA rules are no good because they don't allow them. And again, why should I have to break the rules to do what is fair? The rules are fair. What you want to do is make them unfair by breaking them at your convenience. Analogy: The law on jaywalking is pretty straightforward: if you cross the street on foot, you are breaking the law and can be cited by an officer. However, this rule has an exception built into it: crosswalks. Without this exception, it would be legally impossible to get anywhere on foot. Pedestrians have the right of way at crosswalks. They do not have the right of way anywhere else. There is no exception granted for crosswalks, there is merely a delineation of who has precedence at what locations and under what circumstances. The law is pretty straightforward. (Well, fairly straightforward. They still have their own article and cover seven sections in the NYS statutes.) What is not straightforward is your explanation or attempt at an analogy. Assuming that the death rule is not being taken out of context (which I don't agree with; we have had two people tell us the origins and purpose of this rule, and neither purpose has anything to do with the situation I have brought up) We've had two people make it clear that the origins and purpose of the rule don't have to apply to the specific situation you brought up. If LG can't evolve, then it is doomed to the same agonizing and slow death we saw at the end of LC. LG has evolved. It has evolved every year of the campaign. And it has specifically evolved to eliminate the problems that plagued LC. Perfectly? No. Better? Yes.
kenobi65 11-10-05, 02:03 PM	Before this rule after game appeals and how they were handled were a very subjective thing prone to many cases of favortism and bullying. I think this is an important point. Delroland, let's say, for the sake of argument, that the GM *was* able to do what you propose...to go back for some length of time after the session and change the results of the mod. Since the players would *know* this, it could open the GMs up to being harassed by players. Let's say that a PC died at your table, and the player was quite upset, but that there wasn't any rules mistakes. However, the player may believe that, somehow, you dealt with him unfairly. What's to prevent him (and his friends) from calling you and harassing you to change your ruling? Such behavior is against the RPGA rules, but it could well still happen, and might end up discouraging people from being GMs (about the last thing we need).
Wavester 11-10-05, 02:26 PM	and it has happened and heck still happens. I used to get emails from people all the time when I was on the Circle wanting me to overrule their triad or bring their buddy back to life because a DM added 4 to a dice roll instead of 2. Some of these would go on for weeks and weeks and even get Wotc folk involved when they would start spamming any email they could find. Players go home and read the mod after they are done playing micro-analyzing it looking for any little DM mistake so they can fire off appeals and get their death over-turned. I get that at shows still in fact. Bob gets done with a table and talks to his buddy Bill who sat at another table and finds out their DM ran the fight a little different and now they want their AR, Certs, etc. changed because they got screwed. 100% equality is a nice goal to shoot for but it is just not attainable. Fact is this way is simple and easy. It catches the vast majority of problems and fixes them right on the spot.
delroland 11-10-05, 10:40 PM	This is not a dispute between player and GM. I am the GM. I am trying to right a mistake I made, because the player had no way of knowing that a mistake was made until after the table was over. So essentially his right as a player to dispute the ruling has been forcibly taken away from him by the belligerence of a Triad member and those who feel that the rules are above the rights of the player to be treated fairly.
delroland 11-10-05, 10:45 PM	On your theory, we can all do whatever we like, play modules multiple times, read them before we play them, make up characters with any number of points for characteristics, give them whatever equipment and magical items we feel like, and anything else, as long as whoever does it can justify it in the name of having fun. If that is how you want to play then do so in a home game. Don't say the RPGA rules are no good because they don't allow them.Oh yeah, that is exactly what I said. /rolleyesThe rules are fair. What you want to do is make them unfair by breaking them at your convenience.What I want is to change or clarify the "fair" rules to fix the unfair treatment of a player.We've had two people make it clear that the origins and purpose of the rule don't have to apply to the specific situation you brought up.If the purpose of the rule doesn't apply to a situation, then it isn't doing what it was intended to do, and therefore is being taken out of context.LG has evolved. It has evolved every year of the campaign. And it has specifically evolved to eliminate the problems that plagued LC. Perfectly? No. Better? Yes.Impossible to revise and improve upon? Apparently so.
delroland 11-10-05, 10:56 PM	and it has happened and heck still happens. I used to get emails from people all the time when I was on the Circle wanting me to overrule their triad or bring their buddy back to life because a DM added 4 to a dice roll instead of 2. Some of these would go on for weeks and weeks and even get Wotc folk involved when they would start spamming any email they could find. Players go home and read the mod after they are done playing micro-analyzing it looking for any little DM mistake so they can fire off appeals and get their death over-turned. I get that at shows still in fact. Bob gets done with a table and talks to his buddy Bill who sat at another table and finds out their DM ran the fight a little different and now they want their AR, Certs, etc. changed because they got screwed. 100% equality is a nice goal to shoot for but it is just not attainable. Fact is this way is simple and easy. It catches the vast majority of problems and fixes them right on the spot.This is not a case of the player trying to overturn a character death in a desperate attempt to keep the character alive. This is a case of GM mistake ADMITTED by the GM (me) and an attempt to fix the problem in a small timeframe, i.e. before the character was played in another module. This would have involved changing JUST ONE AR and should not have involved the Triad or the Circle, because now it is just wasting people's time, either way it is ruled, and if it is ruled in the player's favor, now multiple AR's will need to be corrected. The RPGA does not have time to deal with every single player protest, which is why Senior GM's and session GM's are given such broad powers involved with adjudication and assigning penalties. But this rule limits the power of a GM to run his table in the proper manner and brings more protests to the ears of Triads and Circle members. Validate that I and other GM's have the power we need to deal with these issues so that they don't have to be brought to the attention of RPGA HQ. That is all I ask.
kenobi65 11-10-05, 11:05 PM	This is not a case of the player trying to overturn a character death in a desperate attempt to keep the character alive. Neither I, nor Dave C., ever said that it was. What we said was that changing the rule as you propose would have the side-effect of giving abusive players an avenue to harass GMs when they disagree with an at-table decision, in the hopes that, if they are pesty enough, they can bully a GM into reversing a decision later, which, as Dave said, *does* happen, unfortunately. The sad truth is that RPGA rules are particularly restrictive in an effort to crack down on the relatively few players who try to abuse the system. Sometimes, those rules wind up making honest, legitimate problems like yours fundamentally unfixable.
delroland 11-10-05, 11:15 PM	Neither I, nor Dave C., ever said that it was. What we said was that changing the rule as you propose would have the side-effect of giving abusive players an avenue to harass GMs when they disagree with an at-table decision, in the hopes that, if they are pesty enough, they can bully a GM into reversing a decision later, which, as Dave said, *does* happen, unfortunately. The sad truth is that RPGA rules are particularly restrictive in an effort to crack down on the relatively few players who try to abuse the system. Sometimes, those rules wind up making honest, legitimate problems like yours fundamentally unfixable. I think you give RPGA GM's too little credit. If a player got all up in my face about a ruling, I would deal with it quickly and effectively, and that player would not be long for the RPGA. Trust me, I am not a soft GM, as I have killed plenty of characters in my career as an LG GM. Bad rolls and consistently high CR's can very easily do that, and I do not shed a tear over such deaths. But if a death is not a result of the rules, but rather of human error on the part of the GM, then there needs to be a way to fix it, especially when all parties agree to the veracity of the mistake. Players have too much to worry about with the brutal monsters they face every module to have to worry about GM error. Also, in a home game (as in LG modules run in a Home event), players can already bully their GM's into reversing decisions without the Triads finding out, breaking the rule in the exact manner that the rule is supposed to prevent, so the rule's only function then becomes to make honest, legitimate problems unfixable when presented in honest, legitimate fashion. One unenforceable rule is not going to prevent those who want to cheat from doing just that. The solution is to provide the tools for GM's to deal with these situations and provide them with the support and training they need to effectively operate as proxies of the RPGA. Instead, we are told that "All GM rulings are final" except when it involves fixing character death due to GM error. Use Occam's Razor. Eliminating the death caveat and stressing that "Cheating Will Not Be Tolerated" are much more simple and efficient than trying to write a clause to prevent every form of cheating. Cheaters will cheat, and there is little the RPGA staff can do about it unless they intend to ban Home play and Game Days altogether. Cheating is breaking the rules for personal gain. What I am attempting to do is not cheating, because I gain nothing for it. So why prevent what I am trying to do if it is not cheating? And the purpose of the rules are to provide a level playing field. How is that field upset by overturning one death that should not have happened? The saddest thing about the "sad truth" is that we can do something about it, and yet no one wants to.
chrisinpm 11-10-05, 11:53 PM	Just a thought on this. I won't comment on the rule either way, since I'm sort of in an awkward position to do so. I'll just make a couple of statements instead. First, the initial poster has some good points. I would think that, rather than venting on this board, which seems only to be getting you more aggravated, why not instead distill those points into an email or communication, and send it to your Triad, your Circle member, and/or Stephen Radney-McFarland? For anyone who's saying "Why? That won't do anything" I'll tell you that the Circle is WAY more responsive to player and Triad sentiment than they've been in the previous years of this campaign. And if you say no without even trying, IMHO you lose your right to complain about it. :) And for anyone who claims I'm toeing the party line because I'm a Triad, I'm leaving in 51 days (not that I'm counting) and have nothing to gain or lose by simply being honest. :D Second, I have been victimized by the rule myself, and the Circle member denied me the request for an appeal. So even Triads get burned by it sometimes. Again, I won't comment on the rule itself, but I will say that (barring players that take it upon themselves to cheat despite what they've been told - and that's an observation *not* an insinuation or accusation) the rule has been evenly applied to all parties in my experience. Christian Alipounarian Keoland Triad - Plots and Scenarios Who will give you my opinion of that rule on 1/1/06 ;)
vvincent 11-14-05, 04:49 PM	It seems to me that you asked for a ruling, were given one by your Triad, which has been subsequently confirmed and elaborated upon by David Christ, and have continued to disagree with it. It is a rule of Living campaigns that death must be adjudicated at the table. The way to fix the 'human error' aspect of this is to stop the game at the time of the death if there are any questions or irregularities. You're correct that players can bully GMs all they want. Personally, if I were that GM - I'd quit play with that group of players. But that's me. The fact remains that just because players can circumvent the rule doesn't mean the rule is pointless. It only means that those who do so are unethical and should not be a part of your game session. The gaming community needs to police it's own a little better. If you know people that bully their judges or whine and moan, call them out on it and/or quit playing with them. Either they'll figure it out on their own or they'll go play another game. However, that is digressing off the topic. The Triad's have the job of enforcing the campaign rules in their region. You have posted your disagreement with this particular campaign rule - and that's fine. We'll all entitled to an opinion. However, there comes a point where you either have to agree to abide by the rules - or risk becoming the type of player I aluded to above. The rule is that all deaths are adjudicated at the table and once the table is over, the death is final. The way to avoid this in the future is to prevent your table from disbanding until all parties are 100% certain that the death was legal. Finally, you do yourself a disservice if you seek to undermind your Triad's decision by posting here publically. You've received a response on the topic from your Triad. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the decision, you are bound to abide by it. Of course, nothing prevents you from just giving a virtual middle finger and ignoring it - but things like that have a tendency of getting around. You asked a question. You have your answer. Have a coke and a smile, and a nice day. And thank your Triad for donating their free time to make sure you have a campaign and a region in which to game. Vernon L. Vincent I think you give RPGA GM's too little credit. If a player got all up in my face about a ruling, I would deal with it quickly and effectively, and that player would not be long for the RPGA. Trust me, I am not a soft GM, as I have killed plenty of characters in my career as an LG GM. Bad rolls and consistently high CR's can very easily do that, and I do not shed a tear over such deaths. But if a death is not a result of the rules, but rather of human error on the part of the GM, then there needs to be a way to fix it, especially when all parties agree to the veracity of the mistake. Players have too much to worry about with the brutal monsters they face every module to have to worry about GM error. Also, in a home game (as in LG modules run in a Home event), players can already bully their GM's into reversing decisions without the Triads finding out, breaking the rule in the exact manner that the rule is supposed to prevent, so the rule's only function then becomes to make honest, legitimate problems unfixable when presented in honest, legitimate fashion. One unenforceable rule is not going to prevent those who want to cheat from doing just that. The solution is to provide the tools for GM's to deal with these situations and provide them with the support and training they need to effectively operate as proxies of the RPGA. Instead, we are told that "All GM rulings are final" except when it involves fixing character death due to GM error. Use Occam's Razor. Eliminating the death caveat and stressing that "Cheating Will Not Be Tolerated" are much more simple and efficient than trying to write a clause to prevent every form of cheating. Cheaters will cheat, and there is little the RPGA staff can do about it unless they intend to ban Home play and Game Days altogether. Cheating is breaking the rules for personal gain. What I am attempting to do is not cheating, because I gain nothing for it. So why prevent what I am trying to do if it is not cheating? And the purpose of the rules are to provide a level playing field. How is that field upset by overturning one death that should not have happened? The saddest thing about the "sad truth" is that we can do something about it, and yet no one wants to.
delroland 11-14-05, 05:09 PM	Finally, you do yourself a disservice if you seek to undermind your Triad's decision by posting here publically. You've received a response on the topic from your Triad. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the decision, you are bound to abide by it. Of course, nothing prevents you from just giving a virtual middle finger and ignoring it - but things like that have a tendency of getting around. I don't think I am doing anyone a disservice by forcing debate on this issue. As evidenced by others' posts on this thread, other people agree with me that the current implementation of the rules has created a problem. I have brought this problem to the attention of my Triad, but because they are unwilling to discuss this issue, I will pursue any and all avenues available to settle this issue. Furthermore, you state that those who would break the rules to fix this issue would be unethical, and yet this course of action has been directly suggested by my Triad member and a Circle member. Does this make them unethical? I don't think so; rather, I think this was an attempt to resolve this issue without having to deal with the possibility of a problem in the rules or the repercussions of having to fix this rule. But since I am unwilling to act in an unethical manner, I protest this issue in any ethical way that I can. If you disagree with me, fine. But don't try to assert that the act of disputing the rules is in itself inherently wrong. The RPGA is not a totalitarian state where we punish those that disagree with the party line (so to speak), and only through discussion and debate can we make the RPGA better. Rather, if you have a problem with my argument, address the argument itself. No one has yet demonstrated to me that wrongfully killing a character was the right thing to do. Therefore, they must agree that it was a mistake. Mistakes are meant to be fixed. So if the only obstacle in the way of correcting the mistake is a poorly-written rule, then we should remove that obstacle by adding more explicit language to the rule, thus allowing it to still serve its original function without creating the problems that it now does. How is that so hard? And what damage could that do to the RPGA to warrant not taking that course of action? Any change to be made to the RPGA must first be measured by weighing the advantages and disadvantages. In this case, the advantage is preventing character death from GM mistake (or malice). The cost is that some people who have had this happen to them will be upset, which I believe they have every right to be. But since the damage has already been done, and nothing can be done to fix it, this would change nothing for those players or characters. In other words, the only disadvantage of changing the rule is that those who are already angry will have justification in their anger. That is the price you pay when you let a problem persist without fixing it. Eventually you have to face the monster you created.
CdrcJsn 11-14-05, 06:21 PM	I don't like the rule personally, but I understand why it's here and I can live with it. It only really punishes people under the following conditions: 1) The judge was unprepared and ran an encounter wrong or didn't know the correct rules. 2) The judge refuses to double check to make sure he didn't make any mistakes. 3) The players are not experienced enough to question how an encounter was run ("3 trolls? Aren't they CR5? Doesn't that make this an EL8 encounter at APL4?" or "Hey, that scroll of fireball did 10d6, aren't they normally at minimum caster level"), and/or didn't know the rules about appealing to a Senior GM. For everyone else, the rule will work just fine. For those few tables that fall under the above category...well, they learn about the rule soon after and can prevent a repeat. As for unprepared judges...their names are usually known enough in the area that most people will tend to avoid playing with them if it's a big enough problem. Cedric Atizado
delroland 11-14-05, 06:52 PM	I don't like the rule personally, but I understand why it's here and I can live with it. It only really punishes people under the following conditions: 1) The judge was unprepared and ran an encounter wrong or didn't know the correct rules. 2) The judge refuses to double check to make sure he didn't make any mistakes. 3) The players are not experienced enough to question how an encounter was run ("3 trolls? Aren't they CR5? Doesn't that make this an EL8 encounter at APL4?" or "Hey, that scroll of fireball did 10d6, aren't they normally at minimum caster level"), and/or didn't know the rules about appealing to a Senior GM. For everyone else, the rule will work just fine. For those few tables that fall under the above category...well, they learn about the rule soon after and can prevent a repeat. As for unprepared judges...their names are usually known enough in the area that most people will tend to avoid playing with them if it's a big enough problem. Cedric Atizado Why live with these problems if we don't have to? Adding one or two lines to the LGCS would allow the rule to work as intended and provide the tools to fix problems 1 and 3. And problem 2 as it stands would immediately warrant an appeal to the Senior GM, so there are rules already around to deal with it. DM's make mistakes, because they are human, so why not have rules to allow for the fixing of mistakes? I do not recommend abolishing the rule as it stands, but rather to add a caveat that lets us effectively deal with the above situations without compromising the original intention of the rule. Again, I must ask: what is the problem with that?
smerwin29 11-14-05, 07:44 PM	I do not recommend abolishing the rule as it stands, but rather to add a caveat that lets us effectively deal with the above situations without compromising the original intention of the rule. Again, I must ask: what is the problem with that? Although this is going to sound sarcastic, here's a suggestion. We can put Delroland in charge of handling player appeals. Then he can deal with (literally) hundreds of emails, phone calls, and death threats from the LG player base when they want their death overturned because the GM misread the mod, when the GM had a grudge against their character so targeted only them, when the judge was using "loaded dice," when another player at the table wasn't good and caused another character to die, etc. (All of these, and so many more, were actual complaints I had as a Triad member before the rule was enacted.) The problem with leaving gray area in a rule is it will be up to someone to adjudicated what deaths should be overturned and what deaths shouldn't. And that's just opening up a horrible can of worms. I think most of the people who have posted can sympathise with your plight. You screwed up and a character died because of it. You want to fix it. If this was a little OP campaign with limited play opportunities and a couple hundred active players, I would be leading the charge to get this rule changed. When you are dealing with a world-wide campaign with tens or hundreds of thousands of players, you need a way to handle things quickly and without dragging it out. And hopefully it'll teach both judges and players to be a little more careful next time. Respectfully submitted, Shawn (who lost a character to a judge who misread the module, ran an encounter incorrectly, AND messed up the mechanics of a spell. The judge emailed me after the convention and volunteered to try to get the death overturned, but I just lived with the consequences--and this was before the rule was in effect)
CdrcJsn 11-14-05, 08:13 PM	I do not recommend abolishing the rule as it stands, but rather to add a caveat that lets us effectively deal with the above situations without compromising the original intention of the rule. Again, I must ask: what is the problem with that? Nothing wrong with trying to fix it. More than a few dislike the rule as written. The intent of the "resolved at table" ruling is twofold: 1) To prevent subjective interpretation and favoritism in the campaign 2) To cut down on appeals to Triads and Circle members who already have a lot of work to do (being on a triad is at least another 20+ hours a week on top of whatever real world responsibilities they already have). If you can figure out how to work things out so that it meets the above criteria, then I'm sure you'll get a lot of people to agree with you and back any proposal you wish to make the next time the LGCS is updated (in a few months now). For now, for tables that have had a death occur, this ruling has no impact for 99% of them. Cedric Atizado PS BTW, the death at table ruling has personally affected me as well. A judge ran a module for me with little prep and killed my character. A few weeks later, I ran the same module and saw several things that the judge overlooked (i.e. the mod says specifically it will deal subdual damage to grey elves, etc). I just chalked it up to experience and got on with my life (and death).
delroland 11-15-05, 03:15 AM	Although this is going to sound sarcastic, here's a suggestion. We can put Delroland in charge of handling player appeals. Then he can deal with (literally) hundreds of emails, phone calls, and death threats from the LG player base when they want their death overturned because the GM misread the mod, when the GM had a grudge against their character so targeted only them, when the judge was using "loaded dice," when another player at the table wasn't good and caused another character to die, etc. (All of these, and so many more, were actual complaints I had as a Triad member before the rule was enacted.) I would be totally cool with that. The key thing to remember is that the GM is always right, so your average player appeal isn't going to happen. But when the GM is making the appeal or admits mistake, then "you need a way to handle things quickly and without dragging it out", like giving GM's the ability to overturn their own decisions when a mistake is made without having to bug Triad or Circle members. Sure, this allows for GM favortism, but the rules as written can't prevent favortism anyways, especially in Game Days and Home Games. In LC, there was a "rules guy". The job was a thankless one, but it served a vital role. By having a volunteer who can make definitive rules calls, we can resolve such situations without involving the Triads or the Circle. Such a position would ultimately be answerable to the Circle, so if he were varying drastically from canon, he could be reigned in or even replaced. The whole premise of the current rules though is that a "rules guy" is unnecessary, as the session and Senior GM's fill that role with the authority to make rules calls as they see fit. And yet we compromise that ability by giving them limited powers and forcing people to bug the very busy Triads and Circle. So if the Triads and Circle don't want to be bogged down by rules disputes, either assign a "rules guy" or give GM's the full spectrum of authority to be able to handle it on their own. To address Cedric's two points: 1) You can't prevent cheating and favortism. If people want to cheat, they will find a way. So any rules in place forcing people to jump through hoops to "prevent cheating" don't actually do anything except frustrate those people who don't cheat and are forced to jump through those hoops. Also, since a GM's ruling is final (per the LGCS), there already exists subjective interpretation in the campaign. The rules don't cover everything, and one shouldn't expect them to. But when you place a qualified person in charge of running an LG scenario, you should place the trust in them that they will run the game in the spirit of the LG campaign to the best of their ability. 2) Letting session GM's and Senior GM's handle the character death situation would be identical to the way they handle any other similar situation as per the current RPGA General Rules. Why should character death be any different? By giving the session and Senior GM's definitive authority in such a situation, you take the majority of the workload off the hands of the Triad and Circle. Plus I feel that creating a rule under the assumption that RPGA GM's will play favorites is unfair to the GM's. We love the campaign as much as anyone else, and the vast majority of us find cheating and favortism to be despicable. Or are the campaign staff trying to tell us that we can't be trusted?
Wavester 11-15-05, 09:48 AM	Guys lets just ignore this thread and move on. The OP has shown that he is not going to listen to what any of us post regardless of who is posting it. He will just keep bouncing from person to person until he either gets the answer he wants or just keep railing at one person until they throw their hands in the air and just give up. The proper procedures have been explained. Why they are in the place have been explained. Nothing more to do here.
delroland 11-15-05, 03:33 PM	Guys lets just ignore this thread and move on. The OP has shown that he is not going to listen to what any of us post regardless of who is posting it. He will just keep bouncing from person to person until he either gets the answer he wants or just keep railing at one person until they throw their hands in the air and just give up. The proper procedures have been explained. Why they are in the place have been explained. Nothing more to do here. On the contrary, I have listened to what others have had to say, and addressed their statements in turn, as well as provide logical support to my beliefs. This being a discussion and all, that is what people tend to do. And no one is forcing you to post here. I railed at Samwise because he came in unwilling to discuss the possibility that the rules as they stand might be improved upon, even to disagree with that point. Instead, he used faulty logic and the quoting of the same rule over and over again to try to get me to "shut up", because I was wrong no matter what I had to say in his eyes. Several people have come on this thread to express dislike with the current interpretation of the rule, so this seems to me to be a relevant discussion. None of you can provide the answer I want; that can only come directly from those in charge. But that doesn't mean we can't discuss the issue. And if someone provides a counterargument to what I have had to say, I will address it, as I have been doing.
kenobi65 11-15-05, 03:51 PM	None of you can provide the answer I want; that can only come directly from those in charge. Did you miss the fact that, in addition to Wavester (a former Circle member, who wrote the rule in question) a current Circle of Six member *did* respond to you in this thread? http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7709966&postcount=8
King Kashue 11-15-05, 03:56 PM	None of you can provide the answer I want; that can only come directly from those in charge. Actually, two of "those in charge" have posted in this thread...A current circle member, as well as the RPGA Senior DM (who is a former Circle member as well)... :rolleyes: In fact, you just told the RPGA Senior DM he was wrong... ;) EDIT: I see someone beat me to the punch in posting this :D
delroland 11-15-05, 05:51 PM	I don't know the specifics of your case, but it seems to me that your Triad member was not threatening you. He was letting you know that if you change a death after a table is over, which is a violation of the rules of LG, you would be penalized for it since he/she had just informed you of the rules on the matter. Once a table ends at a game day and no one has protested the death, the PC death is final. No appeals after the fact and no corrections of mistakes. That's the rule. This is what the circle member had to say, and so I have accepted that this is the way the rule is being enforced in the campaign. This still doesn't change my mind that the rule as it is being enforced is doing more harm than good, and that a simple change to the rule would allow it serve its fuction without doing that harm. It also does not change my belief that this rule countermands the authority a GM is supposed to have according to the rules put forth in the RPGA General Rules. I believe the General Rules are more important than the LGCS, and that there needs to be a VERY good reason for there to be a campaign rule that limits the General Rules. I also feel that the reasons being provided for this rule are insufficient to warrant the existence of this rule, for multiple reasons, such as the fact that it assumes GM's cheat, and the fact that the exact action it is supposed to prevent is not being prevented, as suggested by Kashue's and my Triad member's suggestion that I fix the mistake "in secret", i.e. to break the rules in order to do the right thing. If I can break the rules so easily, what prevents others from doing the same for more nefarious reasons? If the folks in charge are suggesting an unethical action to right a wrong, just how ethically sound is that rule in the first place? And why is it so hard to fix the rule so that future wrongs can be righted without so much hubbub or skullduggery? So far, the strongest arguments for the rule have been twofold: 1) That is the way it has been done. 2) If we fix the rule now, what about all the others that have been wronged in the past? My counterarguments, which have yet to be addressed: 1) The RPGA needs to be flexible enough so that if a rule is doing something not intended by its original purpose, that rule needs to be fixed, especially when not fixing the rule can lead to a less fun experience for the players. The primary purpose of the RPGA is to have fun; all other rules must work towards that end. Preventing cheating is important, but when the rules written to do so countermand that primary purpose, even in limited situations, then the rules need to be changed. 2) Two wrongs do not make a right. Continuing to make the same mistake because one fears the repercussions of admitting and fixing that mistake is not an appropriate action to take. If you find a wrong, you fix it, to the best of your ability; to do otherwise only compounds the problem and allows it to swell out of control until it blows up in your face. Better to set the bone now, no matter how much it hurts, than to have to amputate the limb when infection sets in. If you have a counterpoint to make, do it. If you disagree with me, fine. But if you can't provide an argument refuting what I have to say without repeating that which I have already addressed, do not expect me to drop this matter. I will continue to fight this issue until either there are no avenues left open for me to pursue or someone demonstrates definitively to me that the fix I propose would do more harm than good. Before that time, if you do not wish to further debate this issue, then walk away. But don't tell others to "ignore the thread" just because I disagree with you; the other posters are quite intelligent enough to stop arguing when they feel the need and don't need you to tell them that. Besides, I don't think the original author of the rule is capable of an objective opinion on this matter; my entire argument is that the rule is written poorly, which I am sure Wavester is taking as a personal affront to his competence. I think he has made a mistake, but mistakes happen, and they do not make one incompetent. But ignoring the mistake in an attempt to either maintain the status quo or to save face is inappropriate and wrong. There is a term when the status quo becomes more important than serving the good of the members, and that is called bureaucracy. Don't make me call Robert DeNiro to fix the plumbing. :P
King Kashue 11-15-05, 06:29 PM	There is a term when the status quo becomes more important than serving the good of the members, and that is called bureaucracy. Actually, no that's not what that term means...Buraucracy is defined as government by specialized officers... And once again, you're assuming the premise...You are building your arguments upon the belief that you have clearly demonstrated the rule does more harm than good, yet you have not actually demonstrated such... In fact, not only have you failed to prove that, but most people in this thread (including two of "those in charge" ) disagree with you... Do you believe your situation so unique and your line of thinking so innovative that neither were considered when the rule was drafted...As has been stated, both were considered, but the conclusion was that the rule did more to protect judges and the "level playing field" than it harmed the game by penalizing players... As for your initial post, it was a question of the correct interpretation: What are your opinions on this subject? Am I right in this matter? Or is the Triad member? Was I wrong to contact WotC when my Triad member and I disagreed on the rules? Does a Triad member have the authority to make a ruling of this nature? You got an answer from both unofficial and official people...It's not the fault of those people that you didn't get the answer you wanted...
delroland 11-15-05, 06:57 PM	And once again, you're assuming the premise...You are building your arguments upon the belief that you have clearly demonstrated the rule does more harm than good, yet you have not actually demonstrated such... Then demonstrate to me that the rule does more good than harm, or more importantly, that it does more good than it would by adding the caveat I suggest. Mine is not a false premise if it can't be demonstrated as false. I have provided a specific example of harm, and have yet to see any good that the rule provides; therefore more harm than good. To show that good comes of the rule, one must assume that RPGA GM's cheat and that the rule prevents them from cheating. I believe that RPGA GM's for the vast majority do not cheat and that the rule doesn't prevent those who want to cheat from cheating anyways, and it alienates those like myself who dislike or disagree with the rule, even if many of those people simply accept it as "the way things are". Or do you think our dwindling membership numbers are because the players that quit weren't good enough? Rather than trying to find logical fallicies in my argument, it would be more productive to address the issues I have explicitly stated, namely that we can and should change the rule to fix the few problems the rule causes, and that doing so will not harm the original purpose or effectiveness of the rule. That is my argument, and all I ask is an address to those issues. You got an answer from both unofficial and official people...It's not the fault of those people that you didn't get the answer you wanted... Actually, several people agreed that all or part of my argument was valid, so I don't understand the point you are trying to make with this statement.
delroland 11-15-05, 07:09 PM	Buraucracy is defined as government by specialized officers...Bureaucracy, n.: 3. An administrative system in which the need or inclination to follow rigid or complex procedures impedes effective action. Your definition is correct, but not the definition I was referring to when I used the word. Just wanted to clear up any confusion.
CdrcJsn 11-15-05, 07:45 PM	Then demonstrate to me that the rule does more good than harm, or more importantly, that it does more good than it would by adding the caveat I suggest. Which caveat was that exactly? The exact wording of any modification to the existing rule should be thought out, otherwise this will drop more work on the administration's laps if they're included in the appeal. If a correction for past mistakes is made, a duration must be determined (or are we going to allow for the correction of mistakes from Fright in Tristor?). If a duration must be instituted, then what would be a fair cutoff? Will it be fair to those before the cutoff date? Also, what about past mistakes that were in the PC's favor? Do we go back and take away items that were mistakenly awarded to PCs? Why not? Is this fair to those that got those items or won an encounter without judge errors? OR We go with the rule as written and make sure that players and any LG judge is aware of the ruling in the LGCS (which is actually a requirement if I'm not mistaken) and make sure that if a death occurs, the judge should double check that no mistakes were made. Also, the strongest argument for the rule isn't what you said (something about people unwiling to change a rule because that's how it's always been - which I don't think anyone was actually arguing for), but rather that it cuts down on the workload of Triads, Circle reps, and con organizers and doesn't affect 99.99% of the gaming experience of most LGers. Again, the only time the rule screws people over is if people are ignorant of the rule or the judge doesn't double check everything when a death occurs. The former can be easily remedied (and most con organizers now announce it prior to an event, along with the identity of the senior GM). The latter is something that competent judges have to work on. Cedric Atizado
delroland 11-15-05, 08:35 PM	Which caveat was that exactly? Something along the lines of allowing GM's to fix mistakes that they have made involving character death within a reasonable timeframe. If you want a suggestion of exact wording, I would recommend: "In the case of character death as a result of GM error, if the appeal period has ended (i.e. the event is over), only the session GM or Senior GM may overturn the death, and such a ruling must be made..." I would suggest one of the two timeframes: "... before the table information is submitted to the RPGA." OR "... before the character is played in another module, or in the case of a character that could not come back from the dead, at the earliest opportune time, as adjudicated by the Senior GM. In all cases, such matters must be resolved in no more than two weeks' time, or the ruling is final." Also: "Session GM's and Senior GM's are in no way obligated to investigate the matter after the initial appeal period has passed. Rather, this is meant as a tool provided to GM's so they can correct their own mistakes leading to wrongful character death." The two weeks thing is more of a what-I-think-is-common-sense idea, as, if the GM doesn't realize he made a mistake in that timeframe, odds are he never will. In fact, three days would be enough time, but this gives the GM plenty of leeway, especially if he gets a chance to run the mod again and see the mistake he did at the previous Game Day (or Con, or Home Game, whatever). Also, adding the note that GM's are not required to use the caveat gives them the ammunition to avoid the player bullying that the original rule is trying to prevent. Though it is more important to me that SOMETHING is done, and not so much how. I would, for the sake of reducing the paperwork, disallow fixing previous mistakes, as it is more important to prevent current and future harm than to deal with old wounds that have already healed. Plus it would be impossible to adjudicate every instance of disputed character death within the last five years. But again, I must stress my opinion that we need to fix problems with the system as soon as possible, or it will just be that much more monstrous when we eventually are forced to address it.
kenobi65 11-15-05, 09:30 PM	Also, adding the note that GM's are not required to use the caveat gives them the ammunition to avoid the player bullying that the original rule is trying to prevent. It gives them "ammunition," perhaps, but I don't believe it would do much to prevent said bullying or harrassment, since the players still know that it's within the Judge's power to change the decision for those two weeks (or whatever). At any rate, if you *really* want to see if you can get this rule changed (and you clearly do), what you really should do is participate in the discussion period for the next revision of the LGCS. That is really the appropriate place for trying to effect a change in the campaign's rules. (For a little more detail, read the third question in this Dispel Confusion article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=lg/lgif/20051025a)). All you're doing here, by continuing to argue your case, is inflame emotions.
Samwise 11-15-05, 09:48 PM	Something along the lines of allowing GM's to fix mistakes that they have made involving character death within a reasonable timeframe. If you want a suggestion of exact wording, I would recommend: "In the case of character death as a result of GM error, if the appeal period has ended (i.e. the event is over), only the session GM or Senior GM may overturn the death, and such a ruling must be made..." I would suggest one of the two timeframes: "... before the table information is submitted to the RPGA." OR So instead you create a whole new class of complaints based both on people who submit such information immediately, and people who submit it whenever they might happen to get to it that year. The latter particularly will arouse a great deal of resentment: "How come his character gets to come back because his event organizer was a lazy git who couldn't be bothered to report the event for three month, but I get punished because my event organizer reported it immediately?!?!?" "... before the character is played in another module, or in the case of a character that could not come back from the dead, at the earliest opportune time, as adjudicated by the Senior GM. In all cases, such matters must be resolved in no more than two weeks' time, or the ruling is final." Ah, so this would just mess up people who play at conventions and need to get to the next table immediately before they can manage a "proper" appeal. Also: "Session GM's and Senior GM's are in no way obligated to investigate the matter after the initial appeal period has passed. Rather, this is meant as a tool provided to GM's so they can correct their own mistakes leading to wrongful character death." You really can't be serious about this. Would this be just like a senior GM refusing to investigate your appeal in this matter? So you want us to make a hash of the rule just so you can complain about the new version that your wrote in another month. That seems . . . useful. The two weeks thing is more of a what-I-think-is-common-sense idea, as, if the GM doesn't realize he made a mistake in that timeframe, odds are he never will. In fact, three days would be enough time, but this gives the GM plenty of leeway, especially if he gets a chance to run the mod again and see the mistake he did at the previous Game Day (or Con, or Home Game, whatever). Also, adding the note that GM's are not required to use the caveat gives them the ammunition to avoid the player bullying that the original rule is trying to prevent. Why would it avoid the bullying? It hasn't stopped you from being openly and admittedly rude. Why would you expect it to do anything but encourage players in even worse harassment? Though it is more important to me that SOMETHING is done, and not so much how. So it doesn't have to be better, and in fact can be worse. BUT SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!
delroland 11-15-05, 10:08 PM	So instead you create a whole new class of complaints based both on people who submit such information immediately, and people who submit it whenever they might happen to get to it that year. The latter particularly will arouse a great deal of resentment: "How come his character gets to come back because his event organizer was a lazy git who couldn't be bothered to report the event for three month, but I get punished because my event organizer reported it immediately?!?!?" Wow, you're back! And if you read the RPGA General Rules, the results for an event must be submitted within no more than eight days, else the results may be invalidated. Ah, so this would just mess up people who play at conventions and need to get to the next table immediately before they can manage a "proper" appeal.Okay, so we change it to allow for dealing with the issue within the timeframe of the event, plus a grace period. Plus, this is not a new way to allow players to appeal their situation, and so they would already be screwed if they went to another table as the rules are currently written. You really can't be serious about this. Would this be just like a senior GM refusing to investigate your appeal in this matter? So you want us to make a hash of the rule just so you can complain about the new version that your wrote in another month. That seems . . . useful.My Senior GM was on my side until we were explicitly told by the Triad member that we couldn't do anything to fix the issue. He doesn't want to rock the boat, which is fine. He has enough work as it is organizing our weekly Game Day. Why would it avoid the bullying? It hasn't stopped you from being openly and admittedly rude. Why would you expect it to do anything but encourage players in even worse harassment?Two refutations here: 1) the rules don't prevent bullies currently, even though that is what they are supposed to do, and 2) it provides rules support to the assessment that the GM ruling is final, but without obligating the GM to change that ruling on the behalf of the player. In other words, it encourages the honor system, which apparently you think we are too incompetent to handle, or that we would use it as an excuse for a rampant wave of cheating. So it doesn't have to be better, and in fact can be worse. BUT SOMETHING MUST BE DONE! Pretty hard to make something worse when it is already broken. Are you done? Or do you want to start another rant-off? Because I would be happy to oblige, but I don't think the other posters would appreciate it.
Samwise 11-15-05, 11:28 PM	Pretty hard to make something worse when it is already broken. Well, not it isn't. You can have a broken mouse and try to "fix it" by putting ripping it out so hard you yank your whole computer case off the desk and smash it on the floor. And again, you keep making the assumption that this rule is broken because it has inconvenienced you. As for ranting, you don't need to use me as an excuse for that, you can rant at anybody here freely.
delroland 11-15-05, 11:55 PM	Well, not it isn't. You can have a broken mouse and try to "fix it" by putting ripping it out so hard you yank your whole computer case off the desk and smash it on the floor. And again, you keep making the assumption that this rule is broken because it has inconvenienced you. As for ranting, you don't need to use me as an excuse for that, you can rant at anybody here freely. The rule hasn't inconvenienced me. It has inconvenienced a new player to the RPGA. I make the assumption that the rule is broken because it is causing an unintended side effect that screws over players in what would ordinarily be a non-issue for a home campaign or any other RPGA campaign. What makes LG so special that it needs special obscure rules to screw over players? Oh, and thanks for your permission. I will commence with the ranting. [:rant:]Why is it that when I dissect Samwise's argument, rather than defend himself, he makes one terrible analogy and an assumption about my assumptions? Is he so afraid of "losing" that he can't address the topic at hand? Maybe I should start making fun of his typos...[/:rant:]
Samwise 11-16-05, 12:09 AM	The rule hasn't inconvenienced me. It has inconvenienced a new player to the RPGA. I make the assumption that the rule is broken because it is causing an unintended side effect that screws over players in what would ordinarily be a non-issue for a home campaign or any other RPGA campaign. What makes LG so special that it needs special obscure rules to screw over players? Well no, the rules didn't screw him over, you screwed him over. You made the mistake running the module. Now you want to blame the RPGA for a mistake you made. So this rule is inconveniencing you in covering for yourself. So far not one word has appeared from that player if he is totally outraged by the situation or anything. Oh, and thanks for your permission. I will commence with the ranting. [:rant:]Why is it that when I dissect Samwise's argument, rather than defend himself, he makes one terrible analogy and an assumption about my assumptions? Is he so afraid of "losing" that he can't address the topic at hand? Maybe I should start making fun of his typos...[/:rant:] I've addressed the topic repeatedly, as have others. You've just refused to accept or even acknowledge anything that doesn't agree with you completely. I can't help it if you won't listen. As for making fun of typos, that will just demonstrate that you know your points aren't valid and that you have to resort to such weak ad hominems to try and make them appear legitimate. Again, feel free to discredit yourself in that manner all you like.
King Kashue 11-16-05, 12:56 AM	Then demonstrate to me that the rule does more good than harm, or more importantly, that it does more good than it would by adding the caveat I suggest. Mine is not a false premise if it can't be demonstrated as false. I have provided a specific example of harm, and have yet to see any good that the rule provides; therefore more harm than good. And this is why everyone should have to take a critical thinking course... 1. The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. You claimed the rule does more harm than good, it is upon you to demonstrate such. If I claim "a the center of the world are a million purple fairy butterflies that make the earth turn", I need to prove it...The fact that no one can disprove it doesn't mean it's true... 2. I didn't say it was a false premise (though I do believe it is), I said you were assuming the premise. Those are two different fallacies. Assuming the premise means that you are assuming as established that which is still being debated (see issue #1). To show that good comes of the rule, one must assume that RPGA GM's cheat and that the rule prevents them from cheating. No, that is not required. The rule primarily does two things that are goods for the RPGA as a whole. 1. Curbs favoritism. It prevents friends of a player from overruling the table DM long after the fact. Creating a level playing field is a definite good. And even if favoritism may not be prevalent (and I don't think it is), the "spectre" of favoritism is something to think about. A rule like prevents any appearance of sanctioned impropriety... 2. Protects and insulates judges. If players know that the judge can change a decision days later, it provides them the opportunity to attempt to pressure the judge to change his mind. This rule creates a system whereby the judge is protected from such pressure, but if s/he catches a mistake, they can correct it privately. Rather than trying to find logical fallicies in my argument, it would be more productive to address the issues I have explicitly stated, namely that we can and should change the rule to fix the few problems the rule causes, and that doing so will not harm the original purpose or effectiveness of the rule. That is my argument, and all I ask is an address to those issues. Well, when your arguments are fallicious, it invalidates your conclusions (once again, critical thinking 101)...As for the issues, you have cited a single type of situation in which harm is occuring...Those who created the rule, acknowledge that it is a harm, but believe the rule is preventing more harm than it is allowing. That you disagree with them, doesn't make them wrong. The rule exists, and it exists because several people went through a process of thinking on the subject and considering possible ramifications. Are you expecting them to change simply because you insist they should? Again I ask, do you think your suggestion is so innovative they didn't already consider it during the drafting process? As for your specific example, it is not born out of the rule itself, and changing the rule is not the only way to prevent it...You had a player death because of a judge error...The judge being better prepared will prevent some of those situations, and the judge double checking things as ARs are being filled out will prevent more... Further, there is the option of just correcting it privately...Which somehow you believe reveals some fatal flaw in the rule, but is in reality a pragmatic acknowlegdement that no rule is perfect...
delroland 11-16-05, 01:29 AM	And this is why everyone should have to take a critical thinking course... 1. The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. You claimed the rule does more harm than good, it is upon you to demonstrate such. If I claim "a the center of the world are a million purple fairy butterflies that make the earth turn", I need to prove it...The fact that no one can disprove it doesn't mean it's true... 2. I didn't say it was a false premise (though I do believe it is), I said you were assuming the premise. Those are two different fallacies. Assuming the premise means that you are assuming as established that which is still being debated (see issue #1). ... Well, when your arguments are fallicious, it invalidates your conclusions (once again, critical thinking 101)...As for the issues, you have cited a single type of situation in which harm is occuring...Those who created the rule, acknowledge that it is a harm, but believe the rule is preventing more harm than it is allowing. That you disagree with them, doesn't make them wrong. The rule exists, and it exists because several people went through a process of thinking on the subject and considering possible ramifications. Are you expecting them to change simply because you insist they should? Again I ask, do you think your suggestion is so innovative they didn't already consider it during the drafting process? ... Further, there is the option of just correcting it privately...Which somehow you believe reveals some fatal flaw in the rule, but is in reality a pragmatic acknowlegdement that no rule is perfect... I have provided support for my premise. "Assuming a premise" is not a logical fallacy, "assuming a FALSE premise" is. Therefore, since you are not saying my premise is false, even though you don't agree with it, you cannot say that I am assuming a false premise, and therefore there is no logical fallacy. I have taken critical thinking. As far as correcting the issue privately goes, I think it is very hypocritical for my Triad member to jump down my throat and scold me for disagreeing with the current interpretation of the rules on one hand, and then suggest I break the rules anyways on the other, as long as he doesn't hear about it. I am no hypocrite, and I shouldn't be forced to break the rules in order to take the solution presented to me in order to fix this problem. This is an ethical dilemna that you gloss over as though it was a non-issue, and yet this entire discussion is about ethics. When the rule was first penned, it had not been playtested yet. It was an assumption that GM's needed protecting (which I don't think they do) and an assumption that someone, somewhere might cheat sometime. The rule was never meant to prevent wrongful character death from being unfixeable. And yet that is the problem that we are faced with now. So now that the rule has been playtested, why not fix it? My opinion? You cannot justify punishing everyone, even slightly, in an attempt to prevent all cheating by not even a handful of players. It doesn't work and only serves to aggravate legitimate players and diminishing membership numbers. This is not due solely to this one rule, but rather a mentality that preventing cheating is the #1 priority of the campaign, and it shouldn't be. The #1 priority should be fun, plain and simple. Trust does wonders, and yet I feel the Circle and Triad are unwilling to place that trust in the GM's and players that make this campaign. This rule is just one example.
King Kashue 11-16-05, 01:53 AM	I have provided support for my premise. "Assuming a premise" is not a logical fallacy, "assuming a FALSE premise" is. Therefore, since you are not saying my premise is false, even though you don't agree with it, you cannot say that I am assuming a false premise, and therefore there is no logical fallacy. I have taken critical thinking. You should have studied more...It's a fallacy and it's been a fallacy since the advent of logic in the west...Aristotle identifies it as such in Prior Analytics...Wikipedia actually has a good run down of the history of the fallacy, search for the greek phrase "en archei aiteisthai" (to beg in the beginning)... Your syllogism is thus: Premise 1...If a rule does more harm than good, it should be changed Premise 2...The rule does more harm than good Conclusion...Therefore the rule should be changed A therefore B. A. Therefore, B... But you haven't proven A, you're assuming A as a premise. You're committing "petitio principii", aka, you're assuming the premise... Your logic is sloppy, your argument is poorly constructed, and even reconstructing it properly, I still find it unconvincing... And I'm done with this...
delroland 11-16-05, 02:18 AM	You should have studied more...It's a fallacy and it's been a fallacy since the advent of logic in the west...Aristotle identifies it as such in Prior Analytics...Wikipedia actually has a good run down of the history of the fallacy, search for the greek phrase "en archei aiteisthai" (to beg in the beginning)... Your syllogism is thus: Premise 1...If a rule does more harm than good, it should be changed Premise 2...The rule does more harm than good Conclusion...Therefore the rule should be changed A therefore B. A. Therefore, B... But you haven't proven A, you're assuming A as a premise. You're committing "petitio principii", aka, you're assuming the premise... Your logic is sloppy, your argument is poorly constructed, and even reconstructing it properly, I still find it unconvincing... And I'm done with this... My mistake, I was looking at the wrong fallacy. But you OVER-simplify, in that my argument was: If a rule does more harm than good, it should be changed. The rule does more harm than good, because X, and X, and X, and as evidenced by X. Therefore, the rule should be changed. I have provided supports to my second premise, but you are ignoring them. Or are you telling me that we should keep rules that do more harm than good? It is impossible to PROVE the second premise, because it is a matter of opinion. If you disagree and refuse to consider my support for the premise, then you are avoiding the discussion. Why? Is my opinion that offensive to you? Do you believe I am some sort of threat to the RPGA? If not, then why do you refuse to enter into the discussion rather than lurk at the edges and snipe at it? And you do realize that it is considered poor form in forum debates to quote logical fallacies, and is generally considered a form of trolling. Just FYI.
King Kashue 11-16-05, 04:14 AM	Yep that's me...complete troll... Good night...
ezreal2001 11-16-05, 05:18 AM	my argument was: If a rule does more harm than good, it should be changed. The rule does more harm than good, because X, and X, and X, and as evidenced by X. Therefore, the rule should be changed. I have provided supports to my second premise, but you are ignoring them. Or are you telling me that we should keep rules that do more harm than good? It is impossible to PROVE the second premise, because it is a matter of opinion. . You've stated that you and the player you champion have been put out by this rule - no ones arguing that - but is the implementation of this rule actually doing more harm than good - you know "Big Picture" and all that. How many people are actually put out by the current rule as opposed to the previous situation? E
delroland 11-16-05, 10:28 AM	Your logic is sloppy, your argument is poorly constructed, and even reconstructing it properly, I still find it unconvincing... And I'm done with this... Now that I have had a chance to sleep on it, I realize that your assessment of a "begging the question" fallacy is incorrect. For me to be "begging the question", it would have to be the "p implies q" premise that is false, and I believe I can say that almost everyone agrees that if a rule does more harm than good, it should be changed. Since this premise can be assumed to be correct, there is no "begging the question" fallacy. And the reason it is considered bad form to point out logical fallicies is that it gives the impression that one is trying to prove he is smarter than the OP, thus "proving" the OP's assertion to be wrong, without actually addressing the argument. Good point ezreal; I have to go to work, but I will address your point when I get back home. In the meantime, I would suggest reading the actual rule change I provided and giving input. Keep in mind that it is a rough draft that I came up with on the fly, but otherwise go at it.
scon40 11-16-05, 04:48 PM	You do realize that you are asking us to change a rule that works perfectly most of the time to address the few exceptional cases. And that your argument is that we should trust you, the DM, to handle us allowing a loophole in the rule when the reason the problem occurred in the first place is because we trust you, the DM, to be sure to prepare for the adventure carefully and to check at the end of the adventure that you haven't made a mistake while running it. In my opinion, the solution is for DMs to be more careful, not for the rules to change to address these few and far between cases.
solbergb 11-16-05, 06:17 PM	Why live with these problems if we don't have to? Did you note in Cedric's message that two of the three causes were "unprepared judges". I've noted something else in RPGA play. All kinds of things players complain about when they get a "bad table tends to have a root cause of "unprepared judges", not just this kind of death. I find that an unprepared judge who accidently kills somebody due to his lack of preparation tends to actually prep the mod next time. And every time after that. Sometimes you need strong medicine to get people to do the right thing. One reason I am a prep fiend is because I don't want to do that to somebody, and because I know it is highly unlikely I'll notice in time if I made that kind of error. A rule that tends to weed out poorly prepared judges as a side effect is probably an ok rule. I think this is an unintended consequence, not part of the plan of having the rule, but the overall effect is probably good for the game. Lesson for next time. Prep the damn mod. Don't agree to run it without enough time (for whatever style you have) to do it right. I've never had to say flat "no" but I have had to say "Yes, but only if you tell me the APL first and get me the mod in XXX amount of time before the game starts." once or twice. Normally I'm at the top of the list pestering the con organizer to get me whatever he's got - even draft copies or whatever, weeks before the game. It is a ton easier to adjust your notes from a draft to the final copy than to see the text for the first time 10 minutes before you have to run.
King Kashue 11-16-05, 08:35 PM	Now that I have had a chance to sleep on it, I realize that your assessment of a "begging the question" fallacy is incorrect. For me to be "begging the question", it would have to be the "p implies q" premise that is false, and I believe I can say that almost everyone agrees that if a rule does more harm than good, it should be changed. Since this premise can be assumed to be correct, there is no "begging the question" fallacy. And the reason it is considered bad form to point out logical fallicies is that it gives the impression that one is trying to prove he is smarter than the OP, thus "proving" the OP's assertion to be wrong, without actually addressing the argument. Twas not I who first brought up the quality of reason, you did...I was merely willing to engage you on this topic... And the "if a rule does more harm than good..." is not the premise you assumed (I misstated, my error), it was your other premise, that this particular rule does...That has not been clearly established, it is in fact the question at hand, and you treating it as established is the fallacy... And I addressed the argument (as have several others). The fact that I and others are not swayed by your position does not mean we have not considered your argument fully...It just means we didn't find it convincing...
delroland 11-16-05, 09:28 PM	You do realize that you are asking us to change a rule that works perfectly most of the time to address the few exceptional cases. And that your argument is that we should trust you, the DM, to handle us allowing a loophole in the rule when the reason the problem occurred in the first place is because we trust you, the DM, to be sure to prepare for the adventure carefully and to check at the end of the adventure that you haven't made a mistake while running it. In my opinion, the solution is for DMs to be more careful, not for the rules to change to address these few and far between cases. That is exactly the change I am asking for, because I feel that those exceptional cases can be addressed without compromising the strength of the original rule. And as far as the issue of trust goes, people make mistakes, and that does not mean they violated your trust. Denying them the ability to fix the mistake, however, can lead to no good. They (and I) will have already learned their mistake; not allowing the character death to be fixed does nothing further but to frustrate the player, in this instance. The specific wording I provided for a change was hastily drawn up as an example of what could be added to the rule to address those exceptional cases, but was in no way meant to be "the way it had to be done". But I think it is a step in the right direction, and I encourage people to edit or clarify or completely change the wording I used if they feel they can word it better. But I feel it is worth it to at least attempt to fix the rules so as to eliminate as many problems as possible, even if those problems are rare in occurence, especially when it does us no harm to address those problems. Now, to address ezreal's point, I think the rule as it stands does serve a purpose, though I disagree as to the degree of that effectiveness. But right now at least three people have been put out by the rules as they stand. If we can eliminate future occurances of that without adversely affecting anyone who was not already put out by the rules as they are, then we are doing good without harming the "Big Picture" in even the slightest, which IMO makes it worth it.
delroland 11-16-05, 09:34 PM	Did you note in Cedric's message that two of the three causes were "unprepared judges". I've noted something else in RPGA play. All kinds of things players complain about when they get a "bad table tends to have a root cause of "unprepared judges", not just this kind of death. I find that an unprepared judge who accidently kills somebody due to his lack of preparation tends to actually prep the mod next time. And every time after that. Sometimes you need strong medicine to get people to do the right thing. One reason I am a prep fiend is because I don't want to do that to somebody, and because I know it is highly unlikely I'll notice in time if I made that kind of error. A rule that tends to weed out poorly prepared judges as a side effect is probably an ok rule. I think this is an unintended consequence, not part of the plan of having the rule, but the overall effect is probably good for the game. Lesson for next time. Prep the damn mod. Don't agree to run it without enough time (for whatever style you have) to do it right. I've never had to say flat "no" but I have had to say "Yes, but only if you tell me the APL first and get me the mod in XXX amount of time before the game starts." once or twice. Normally I'm at the top of the list pestering the con organizer to get me whatever he's got - even draft copies or whatever, weeks before the game. It is a ton easier to adjust your notes from a draft to the final copy than to see the text for the first time 10 minutes before you have to run. Then punish the judge, don't punish the player. As I have said before, I would accept a permanent Warning on my record if it meant that the character death could be reversed.
Samwise 11-17-05, 12:08 AM	That is exactly the change I am asking for, because I feel that those exceptional cases can be addressed without compromising the strength of the original rule. And as far as the issue of trust goes, people make mistakes, and that does not mean they violated your trust. Denying them the ability to fix the mistake, however, can lead to no good. They (and I) will have already learned their mistake; not allowing the character death to be fixed does nothing further but to frustrate the player, in this instance. Except learning a mistake isn't learning from a mistake, and with this change there is no incentive to do so. There will be no reason for any DM to actually prepare an adventure if he can just shrug it off, give free auto-true resurrections and perfect scores to the players, and just walk away from the whole thing. It would actually encourage some people to cause deliberate issues in order to get a free pass on an adventure. Nor will it encourage players to learn to find and appreciate good DMs, as the "penalty" for picking or getting stuck with a lousy one is said free pass through the adventure. What a great way to raise the quality of the campaign!
JohnduBois 11-17-05, 01:10 AM	There will be no reason for any DM to actually prepare an adventure if he can just shrug it off, give free auto-true resurrections and perfect scores to the players, and just walk away from the whole thing. Umm... doesn't this situation already exist for home games? I mean, what stops a DM from just ordering a mod and handing out AR's to six friends without actually making them face the challenges? I mean, at some point, the system just has to trust that people are going to do things correctly. Which, incidentally, is why I think the rule is fine as it is. If people do things correctly, then no problem exists. If things are done incorrectly... well, then the DM has to live with the guilt that they weren't prepared enough or didn't know the rules well enough and make sure it doesn't happen again. And if anyone tries to throw this back in my face, I learned ALL the mounted combat rules and their references pages by heart just so I could DM ONE module and make sure I did it correctly to ensure that the players were allowed to compete in completely fair combat. It took about six hours to make sure I knew everything, and being thanked by a player following the mod for knowing the rules well enough to run the game efficiently was worth every minute of preparation I spent.
Samwise 11-17-05, 01:36 AM	Yes and no. Yes, people can do pretty much whatever they want at home games with no oversight. The controlling factor shows up when they actually go outside and game at legitimate venues and conventions. If the sole ability of the players is in filling our ARs from their buddies, they will get trashed at regular events, and nothing will save them. If that's how they want to play, let them. So no, even though it does exist, it takes nothing away from the rest of the campaign, and just buffs some of the ordering numbers. And as I said, that will encourage people to neither care nor bother with proper preparation. So they don't get thanked? At least they don't get harassed either, and it gives them a way to save their friends in public venues by feigning a minor incompetence. It is much better to be prepared, as you were, and not have to rely on changing the rules to cover for you.
delroland 11-17-05, 02:00 AM	Yes, people can do pretty much whatever they want at home games with no oversight. The controlling factor shows up when they actually go outside and game at legitimate venues and conventions. If the sole ability of the players is in filling our ARs from their buddies, they will get trashed at regular events, and nothing will save them. If that's how they want to play, let them. So no, even though it does exist, it takes nothing away from the rest of the campaign, and just buffs some of the ordering numbers. And as I said, that will encourage people to neither care nor bother with proper preparation. So they don't get thanked? At least they don't get harassed either, and it gives them a way to save their friends in public venues by feigning a minor incompetence. It is much better to be prepared, as you were, and not have to rely on changing the rules to cover for you. So you think cheating takes nothing away from the rest of the campaign and that GM's can't ever make mistakes, because if they do, they either don't care about the campaign or are blatant cheaters. This about sums up my response. (http://youlose.ytmnd.com/)
Samwise 11-17-05, 02:08 AM	Maybe you should read what I wrote instead of what you want to make up for me. I said neither of those. I did however say you were wrong, and you continue to be.
delroland 11-17-05, 02:14 AM	I mean, at some point, the system just has to trust that people are going to do things correctly. Which, incidentally, is why I think the rule is fine as it is. And why I think that changing the rule to allow for fixing GM mistakes will not harm the rule, because GM's can be trusted to keep the spirit of the rules even if they are given tools that could theoretically be used to cheat. Yes, GM's should know better. Yes, I should have read the module better. Yes, I should have taken the time to make absolutely sure that the death was legit before the mod was done. But circumstances are not always perfect. The Senior GM was unavailable for an appeal, we were in a hurry to finish, and the player, being new, was not aware of his right to appeal. Again, I feel this comes down to the player being punished for something he had no control of, and I don't think that is fair. I also think that fixing this and future mistakes will not unjustly change the rules to the point where the playing field will become unlevel.
delroland 11-17-05, 02:18 AM	So no, even though [a DM just ordering a mod and handing out AR's to six friends without actually making them face the challenges] does exist, it takes nothing away from the rest of the campaign, and just buffs some of the ordering numbers. Or were you referring to some obscure quote someplace else in this thread? Because it sure seemed to me that you were responding to JohnduBois' post by addressing that very point.
delroland 11-17-05, 02:29 AM	And as I said, that will encourage people to neither care nor bother with proper preparation ... and it gives them a way to save their friends in public venues by feigning a minor incompetence. I suppose you didn't say that either.
solbergb 11-17-05, 01:34 PM	Yes, GM's should know better. Yes, I should have read the module better. Yes, I should have taken the time to make absolutely sure that the death was legit before the mod was done. But circumstances are not always perfect. The Senior GM was unavailable for an appeal, we were in a hurry to finish, and the player, being new, was not aware of his right to appeal. Ok. How many people were at the table. There was you, there was the player whose character died. There were at least 3 other players. Four of you know the rules, know the rights to appeal and know the consequences of being "in a hurry to finish." for accuracy. You did not look out for the newbie. His character died. The rules did not penalize the new player. He was let down by his table - his fellow players and by the judge. The reason this is pretty uncommon is that most folks do know the rules and are extra careful with the newbies to make sure they don't suffer just cause they're new. Things slow down around a character death, people take the time to make sure they got it right - or if they don't, it is usually because the player of the dead character says "it's ok, just move on". LG works because each player and each judge takes responsibility for his own actions. It is 95% on the honor system, with 5% of controls in place to reduce the tempation for those with a less strict sense of fair play and to give recourse when cheating is discovered. Mistakes happen. Bad things happen. Generally these drive us to do a better job in the future, or to be more zealous about exercising our rights if we're on the wrong end of it, rather than making the error. Making mistakes, accepting consequences and doing better next time is a pretty adult way to behave. It is also a behavior pattern that tends to reduce future mistakes, and that also has zero paperwork for campaign management. I'd rather be in a system where the rules are rigid but applied evenly and changed only with due review and discussion, than one where if you complain loud enough, the rules change for individuals. The former system is pretty much how most legal systems are supposed to work. The latter is how patronage/old-boy network/graft type systems tend to work (which it is depends on the weight of personal relationships vs quid pro quo). Exception handling without falling into the trap of the latter leads to really elaborate systems (eg, jury trials and all the restrictions and rules around them). In the context of a system that has to work for a population similar to a small city, done entirely with volunteer labor, I'd say it is easier and safer to just apply the rules evenly, not make exceptions and trust the individuals to do right the vast majority of the time.
solbergb 11-17-05, 01:55 PM	Some recent con experiences along these lines. These are examples of how it should work, and usually does work. At my table, a newbie with a ton of cash and no equipment died for lack of armor. There was a debate over whether he'd be better off staying dead, as he was only level 2, but the cash on the char sheet, plus the fact that it was a new player tipped the cards. I checked all the cash in the mod up to that point, it paid for most of the raise. The party chipped in for the rest, but insisted that the player buy some armor (we roleplayed it as they bought the armor first, then raised him in the armor :)). The mod ended at this point, even though there was one encounter, because they could not have succeeded in the time limits while fussing with the raise, nor could they have managed the final fight without him. Result? All players satisfied, even though they got 13gp for the adventure and not full xp. The newbie made the mistake, the party sacrificed to fix it. A table I played at was told by the judge that there was at least one encounter we might not be able to handle (4 person table, most powerful character played by a 6 year old). We went in knowing it could go badly, but wanted to give it a shot. Sure enough, we got to the problem encounter and actually managed it ok, but were 100% flat out of resources at the end of it. We were also running short on time, largely because we were having a good time at the table and having fun with the roleplay parts of the mod. The Judge called the mod as time ran out, and we walked away with less xp and gold, but we all enjoyed the mod. Had we time for the final fight, it is likely I would have had to use a word of recall favor to exit the mod (the existance of this favor is one reason we were willing to try it). This worked because the judge looked at our party, set our expectations correctly, and because the three of us "protected" the character of the 6 year old and allowed for its sometimes irrational actions. We as players made the "mistake" of playing, the judge made the "mistake" of letting us proceed at our own pace rather than forcing the mod to conclusion, but we all had a better time than the alternatives (not playing at all, skipping the fun roleplay, losing the final fight) Another 4 person table became a 3 person table after the first fight. The player asked not to be raised, but told us to use all the equipment on his corpse (speak with dead was used). We completed the module anyway, and had a few minutes to talk over the death. In the process we realized an error had been made that would have left him at -7hp instead of -12, and further conversation about how we managed the rest of that fight indicated he would not have died. One of us burned some wand charges to reflect the cost of saving him, and to cover his consumables that we'd used later. He got his character back (he had to reassemble his torn up MIL), but he only got xp/gold for the first fight, since he didn't really participate later. Throughout this experience everyone was very much a good sport - the dead guy, the rest of us gamely trying to finish with only 3 characters, the DM for reviewing the death both when it happened and after the game, and again the rest of us adjusting for what "would have happened" had he not died but for some reason walked away from the adventure. In this one the DM made the error, the players didn't notice but it was caught before a character vanished from the campaign, if not in time to let the player contribute in the rest of the mod. Not the best situation, but better than if the DM had been less concerned about the death. One last one - we had a horrific fight with con-draining grapplemonsters. Upon review of the rules halfway through the fight after some size changes, we discovered that the improved grab they had wouldn't work on creatures the size of the PC's (before the size changes). We finished the fight as-is rather than try to undo so many actions, but the DM ruled that the con damage didn't carry over into the next encounter, since it could only be inflicted when we were grappled. We would have taken more straight damage without the grappling but not as much as we lost via con drain, plus we had plenty of healing. So we figured it was a fair resolution. Of course our next fight was with stuff that drained con or did fort saves, so we were all grateful that the judge admitted his mistake and came out with a decent resolution.
delroland 11-17-05, 03:06 PM	The former system is pretty much how most legal systems are supposed to work. The latter is how patronage/old-boy network/graft type systems tend to work (which it is depends on the weight of personal relationships vs quid pro quo). Exception handling without falling into the trap of the latter leads to really elaborate systems (eg, jury trials and all the restrictions and rules around them). In the context of a system that has to work for a population similar to a small city, done entirely with volunteer labor, I'd say it is easier and safer to just apply the rules evenly, not make exceptions and trust the individuals to do right the vast majority of the time.You're right, it is easier and safer to leave the rules as is, but in the case of the RPGA, the rules must pursue the "greatest happiness" path, as their sole purpose is to create a fair and fun experience. I don't think changing the rule as I have suggested will take away from that fair and fun experience, and yet will improve that experience for a small group of players. Therefore, we should be obligated to take those steps. If you could make the argument that my proposed changes would cause undue harm or displeasure to some of the players, then there would be grounds to do nothing and let the rules stand as is. But frankly, no one has made that argument really except Samwise, and I am sure you all know what I think of his opinion.
smerwin29 11-17-05, 03:33 PM	Here's the gist of the issue: one person thinks that making an exception to the rule would not cause undue stress on the hierarchy of the campaign. Several others, including past and present members of both the Circle and the Triads--people who have had to deal with exactly these issues in the past--are saying that it would. People can say that the rules are made to make the game fun and fair, and maybe that is the case, but what is fun and fair can be debated until the end of time. The rule as it currently stands--that PC deaths must be handled at the table--is the best rule for the Living Greyhawk campaign as a whole. As soon as you put a "but" or an "except" at the end of that rule, the rule becomes practically useless, no matter how carefully you word it. Yes, the rule as it is will sometimes mean that players have no way to undo the damage done by unprepared, hostile, or incompetent judges. A Circle member has said the rule is not going to change. Players will learn quickly that they need to watch out for untrustworthy judges. The rigidity of the rule is exactly what the campaign needs. Some people will be unable or unwilling to see that--and maybe Living Greyhawk is not for them. I'm glad this issue was discussed again, because it helped me see that the Circle was right in enacting it in the first place. Shawn
delroland 11-17-05, 03:48 PM	Here's the gist of the issue: one person thinks that making an exception to the rule would not cause undue stress on the hierarchy of the campaign. Several others, including past and present members of both the Circle and the Triads--people who have had to deal with exactly these issues in the past--are saying that it would. People can say that the rules are made to make the game fun and fair, and maybe that is the case, but what is fun and fair can be debated until the end of time. The rule as it currently stands--that PC deaths must be handled at the table--is the best rule for the Living Greyhawk campaign as a whole. As soon as you put a "but" or an "except" at the end of that rule, the rule becomes practically useless, no matter how carefully you word it. Yes, the rule as it is will sometimes mean that players have no way to undo the damage done by unprepared, hostile, or incompetent judges. A Circle member has said the rule is not going to change. Players will learn quickly that they need to watch out for untrustworthy judges. The rigidity of the rule is exactly what the campaign needs. Some people will be unable or unwilling to see that--and maybe Living Greyhawk is not for them. I'm glad this issue was discussed again, because it helped me see that the Circle was right in enacting it in the first place. Shawn Well, that is your opinion, but since you did not really provide any support for your opinion except to say that I am wrong and you are right, the only response I can provide is to say that I disagree with you. Being in charge of a campaign has certain responsibilities, and those responsibilities require a lot of work and devotion. So saying that these rules will increase the Circle workload is not a valid reason to simply do nothing; if the Circle is unwilling to work to improve the campaign, then they should not be doing it in the first place. (This is not an accusation in any way; I think they are constantly working hard to improve the LG experience, regardless of how I feel about the character death rule.) Also, GM's do not have to be "unprepared, hostile, or incompetent" to make mistakes. This is the first time I have killed a character because of a rules mistake I made in the nine years that I have been an RPGA GM. That does not make me incompetent, or imply that players shouldn't play at my tables anymore. And yet you imply that any RPGA GM that makes a mistake should not be trusted by players ever again, and that, in my opinion, pretty much invalidates everything you had to say.
Samwise 11-17-05, 03:49 PM	Or were you referring to some obscure quote someplace else in this thread? Because it sure seemed to me that you were responding to JohnduBois' post by addressing that very point. *SIGH* Yes I said that. But since you seem to want to ignore the context completely, I will ask you directly: How exactly does a group of people who never play at venues or conventions engaging in gratuitous, excessive, blatant, and any other adjectives you like, cheating, affect the campaign as a whole? The answer is - it doesn't. Nobody knows about it. Nobody encounters the characters created by cheating. They never play premieres or affect the story line. And if they ever stick their heads out of their little private cheat-fests, they are exposed and suffer the consequences. So they have absolutely no effect on the campaign. They are utterly irrelevant aside from some theoretical number padding on adventure orders. And gee, isn't that significant! As for my other comment regarding DM errors and encouraging them, again you completely ignore the specific statement I made, and the context. DMs do make errors. I've made plenty. I've never looked to the rules to excuse them, or demanded the rules be changed to make it easier for me to avoid the consequences of them. Instead I've always been open to players telling me about a rule I've forgotten, misremembered, or simply not known. But I've got this "weird" attitude - I'd rather everyone know I was wrong about a rule then screw over a player because I am still thinking in 2nd ed terms. Further, your request specifically focuses on covering for such DM mistakes, enabling them rather than forcing them to be responsible for them. You are the one who made it clear you don't want DMs to have to be responsible for their poor preparation or rules knowledge. That you fail to recognize that it is just such an attitude that encourages cheating is a failure on your part. Way too many people see it as I do for me to be concerned that I might be overreacting or off in my analysis. And indeed, multiple people have made the argument that changing the rules as you suggest would make the experience worse for way more people. You just keep ignoring them, either not even reading what they write, or refusing to acknowledge what they've written. You've had your answers and your discussion. And people don't agree with you.
Samwise 11-17-05, 03:57 PM	Being in charge of a campaign has certain responsibilities, and those responsibilities require a lot of work and devotion. So saying that these rules will increase the Circle workload is not a valid reason to simply do nothing; if the Circle is unwilling to work to improve the campaign, then they should not be doing it in the first place. (This is not an accusation in any way; I think they are constantly working hard to improve the LG experience, regardless of how I feel about the character death rule.) But you wouldn't know just how much work it takes, or how much changing that rule would add. Indeed, you have done nothing but spew venom at the people who have been in charge of this campaign, at least until this sudden, mysterious change of heart. Well it won't work. People can read your other posts, unless you've redacted them so you don't have to be responsible for your words. But you made it clear that you have no clue or appreciation for the work involved and done by people for the campaign. Also, GM's do not have to be "unprepared, hostile, or incompetent" to make mistakes. This is the first time I have killed a character because of a rules mistake I made in the nine years that I have been an RPGA GM. That does not make me incompetent, or imply that players shouldn't play at my tables anymore. And yet you imply that any RPGA GM that makes a mistake should not be trusted by players ever again, and that, in my opinion, pretty much invalidates everything you had to say. No, but a DM does have to be responsible for his actions. And one who doesn't want to be responsible should indeed never be trusted by players again.
delroland 11-17-05, 04:20 PM	*SIGH* Yes I said that. But since you seem to want to ignore the context completely, I will ask you directly: How exactly does a group of people who never play at venues or conventions engaging in gratuitous, excessive, blatant, and any other adjectives you like, cheating, affect the campaign as a whole? The answer is - it doesn't. Nobody knows about it. Nobody encounters the characters created by cheating. They never play premieres or affect the story line. And if they ever stick their heads out of their little private cheat-fests, they are exposed and suffer the consequences. So they have absolutely no effect on the campaign. They are utterly irrelevant aside from some theoretical number padding on adventure orders. And gee, isn't that significant! So why write a specific rule in the first place to prevent that form of cheating? What purpose does it serve that the current "No Cheating Allowed" policy does not already address? As for my other comment regarding DM errors and encouraging them, again you completely ignore the specific statement I made, and the context. DMs do make errors. I've made plenty. I've never looked to the rules to excuse them, or demanded the rules be changed to make it easier for me to avoid the consequences of them. Instead I've always been open to players telling me about a rule I've forgotten, misremembered, or simply not known. But I've got this "weird" attitude - I'd rather everyone know I was wrong about a rule then screw over a player because I am still thinking in 2nd ed terms. Isn't that exactly what I am trying to do? Further, your request specifically focuses on covering for such DM mistakes, enabling them rather than forcing them to be responsible for them. You are the one who made it clear you don't want DMs to have to be responsible for their poor preparation or rules knowledge. That you fail to recognize that it is just such an attitude that encourages cheating is a failure on your part. Way too many people see it as I do for me to be concerned that I might be overreacting or off in my analysis. I made it clear that it should not be impossible for GM's who make honest mistakes to correct their mistakes, simply because they didn't "catch it in time". This artificially placed time limit is inappropriate and is a violation of the RPGA General Rules. Also, since the majority is saying something, then they must be right! So let's not waste any time concerning ourselves with any problems in our opinions! Or at least, that is what you seem to think. Fairness involves protecting the minority from the majority, and yet you suggest the exact opposite, that the ease of the majority outweighs the needs of the minority. And indeed, multiple people have made the argument that changing the rules as you suggest would make the experience worse for way more people. You just keep ignoring them, either not even reading what they write, or refusing to acknowledge what they've written. Who am I ignoring, exactly? What point have I not addressed? Just because I dispute a counterpoint someone offers does not mean that I am not acknowledging them, and I take the time to address all counterpoints. Alas, most posts, like yours, simply say that I am wrong without addressing the points I have made. Arguing that the rules work fine just as they are, or telling me that this matter has already been discussed, without providing counterpoint to what I have had to say does not somehow prove me wrong. You've had your answers and your discussion. And people don't agree with you. Again, who are these people you speak of? So far, I count you, and a few others who would rather just tell me I am wrong and be done with it, rather than discuss this issue and risk being proven wrong. I believe that I am right, but that does not prove I am right. This is why I provide as much support to my beliefs as possible. And if someone disagrees with what I have to say, I will address their disagreement and try to demonstrate why I believe their counterpoint is incorrect. That is how discussions work. But one person asserting that I am wrong, and that the issue is "dealt with" will not make the issue go away. Neither will trying to punch holes in the discussion by "demonstrating" logical fallacies when there are valid points to be addressed. And the Circle members that have posted here have only stated what the rules as written are, which I have accepted, even though I still disagree with them, and that what I propose would be a tremendous workload to implement. I understand this, but I think it is worth it. Anything the RPGA can do to improve the gameplay of even just one member, if it does not adversely affect the other members, is worth it, in my opinion.
delroland 11-17-05, 04:22 PM	But you wouldn't know just how much work it takes, or how much changing that rule would add. Indeed, you have done nothing but spew venom at the people who have been in charge of this campaign, at least until this sudden, mysterious change of heart. Well it won't work. People can read your other posts, unless you've redacted them so you don't have to be responsible for your words. But you made it clear that you have no clue or appreciation for the work involved and done by people for the campaign. Oh, I save all my best venom for you, sweetcakes.
King Kashue 11-17-05, 05:16 PM	Completely atopical, and simply because it is a pet peeve of mine, you've got Ockham's razor stated incorrectly... It's not "the simplest answer is almost always the best answer", which is indeed what most people believe it to be... It's "do not add more complexity than is necessary", in Latin (though not actually in Ockham's writings, but later writers citing him) Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem... The important bit is that given two equivalent theories, the one that is simpler is preferable...Not just that simpler is better (the theories have to do the job equally well)
delroland 11-17-05, 05:32 PM	The important bit is that given two equivalent theories, the one that is simpler is preferable...Not just that simpler is better (the theories have to do the job equally well) Preferrable and better are synonyms I believe. On topic, I am referring to the statement, "Cheating will not be tolerated." Saying simply that serves the same purpose as saying, "Cheating will not be tolerated. Don't do this. Don't do that. This is not allowed. ..." Simpler, and does the job equally well. Therefore preferrable, therefore better.
delroland 11-17-05, 05:48 PM	Let me clear one thing for the posters here. The disparaging remarks I made toward the Circle at the start of my thread were directed at Samwise, because I was under the false assumption, based on interpretation of his language, that he was a Circle member. When I found that he was not, I changed my language toward the Circle, and that is the "change of heart" that Samwise is referring to. I am quite relieved that we do not have snip Circle member, believe me. And every time a Circle member has posted here, they have been polite and brief, and I do appreciate the hard work they put into the campaign. So I invite you to take Samwise's suggestion that you read my previous posts, but keep in mind that many of my replies to his statements were colored by the fact that I do not like him play nice!
King Kashue 11-17-05, 09:23 PM	Preferrable and better are synonyms I believe. On topic, I am referring to the statement, "Cheating will not be tolerated." Saying simply that serves the same purpose as saying, "Cheating will not be tolerated. Don't do this. Don't do that. This is not allowed. ..." Simpler, and does the job equally well. Therefore preferrable, therefore better. Let me restate (with a slightly different type, since the way I wrote it wasn't clear)...The important bit is Given two equivalent theories, the simpler one is better... Where your (and most people's) definition of Ockham's Razor has an issue, is that it omits the "equivalent" bit...It's not a statement that simplicity is inherently good, but that you shouldn't add any more complexity than is necessary... If the more complex theory works better, than it is better...If the simpler theory works just as good, then the simpler one is preferable...
Samwise 11-17-05, 11:12 PM	So why write a specific rule in the first place to prevent that form of cheating? What purpose does it serve that the current "No Cheating Allowed" policy does not already address? You are failing to note that two different goals are being pursued. First, to have a campaign with rules. Second, to make that campaign as accessible as possible to people, even if they can't make it to big conventions all the time. The first requires strong, definite rules, with no leeway or exceptions. The second requires trusting people to play according to those rules even if you have no reasonable chance of supervising them. Isn't that exactly what I am trying to do? No, it isn't. I made it clear that it should not be impossible for GM's who make honest mistakes to correct their mistakes, simply because they didn't "catch it in time". This artificially placed time limit is inappropriate and is a violation of the RPGA General Rules. You made it clear you feel it should not be impossible. Others have made it clear that they feel it must be impossible. And they have made it clear that this time limit is appropriate, and in no way a violation of the RPGA General Rules. (The question of it being "artificially" placed makes no sense at all. How can any such rule be "natural"?) Also, since the majority is saying something, then they must be right! So let's not waste any time concerning ourselves with any problems in our opinions! Or at least, that is what you seem to think. Fairness involves protecting the minority from the majority, and yet you suggest the exact opposite, that the ease of the majority outweighs the needs of the minority. Gee, nice turnaround. Before you were insisting that the majority of people want this change, and that only a minority group of administrators were denying them. Who am I ignoring, exactly? What point have I not addressed? Too many to list. Go back and read all the posts and note what you never directly replied to. Again, who are these people you speak of? So far, I count you, and a few others who would rather just tell me I am wrong and be done with it, rather than discuss this issue and risk being proven wrong. Well there you go. I guess these people I speak of are just a minority who need to be protected from your majority who demand a change. And people did explain why you were wrong. You refused to discuss their points, ignoring them, dropping into name calling, or shouting that they were oppressing you for disagreeing with you. The only one not actually discussing the issue is you. I believe that I am right, but that does not prove I am right. This is why I provide as much support to my beliefs as possible. And if someone disagrees with what I have to say, I will address their disagreement and try to demonstrate why I believe their counterpoint is incorrect. That is how discussions work. Then do so. So far you haven't. But one person asserting that I am wrong, and that the issue is "dealt with" will not make the issue go away. Neither will trying to punch holes in the discussion by "demonstrating" logical fallacies when there are valid points to be addressed. Then why did you try using those weak analogies at the beginning? An attempt to "demonstrate" irrelevant equivalencies instead of dealing with the valid points. And the Circle members that have posted here have only stated what the rules as written are, which I have accepted, even though I still disagree with them, and that what I propose would be a tremendous workload to implement. I understand this, but I think it is worth it. Anything the RPGA can do to improve the gameplay of even just one member, if it does not adversely affect the other members, is worth it, in my opinion. And you keep refusing to acknowledge that it would adversely affect the other members. That's what you've been told by regular players, Triad members, and Circle members. You just refuse to believe them, accusing them of laziness, malfeasance, or worse. As for your lack of basic civility towards me, I don't really care. If someone like you doesn't like me I consider that a clear sign that I am doing and saying the right things.
JamesMaissen 11-18-05, 03:03 AM	First let me say that I feel sorry for you. It is always hard when someone else has to suffer for a mistake that you make. If it's any consolation you probably feel worse about it than the new player in question. However, you serve no purpose in directing your anger towards the campaign, this rule in it, nor the people that choose to take thier time to respond to you. You would be better served both by making sure that should someone's character die at a table that you run that you take the time to make sure the death was valid and that when introducing newbies to the game that they are aware that they may question things should something like this occur to their character. That way you can be relatively assured that around you it will not occur again through your own fault. Altering this rule to extend, to some arbitrary length, a review period for deaths does not seem a viable solution. Whatever the length would be someone would not do so within that time, such as the case you find yourself in (for example). You have lessons to learn here as does everyone at the table you were at. Take them and grow from them. It could have been easily avoided had you taken such time to review, or if the player in question had inquired about it. Personally I think the rule is fine as long as the GM involved is making a good faith effort to properly judge. The only case that gives me pause is an extreme aberant one in which the judge purposefully is vindictive and wishes harm to the player's characters or possibly the players themselves. It would be nice if such an extreme case were actionable, but beyond that I think the rule is quite fitting and apt. -James Maissen
smerwin29 11-18-05, 08:42 AM	Also, GM's do not have to be "unprepared, hostile, or incompetent" to make mistakes. This is the first time I have killed a character because of a rules mistake I made in the nine years that I have been an RPGA GM. That is your opinion, and you give no evidence to support it. I would say that a GM who makes mistakes is human; a GM who makes a mistake that results in the death of a character is incompetent. If I made a mistake that resulted in the death of a character, I would call myself "incompetent," so that is nothing personal against you. And if you think that putting an addendum to the character death rule would not put undue stress on the campaign hierarchy, think of it this way. You probably consider yourself a pretty good judge. Maybe in the top 80% of judges in LG? Now if you are that good, and you are making mistakes that result in the death of a character, think about all of the LG judges out there. Think about all the mistakes being made. Now think of all those mistakes getting complaints and thrown into the system. And those are just the legitimate mistakes. Then add all the people who want to complain for questionable reasons because there is now a loophole there. Obviously your opinion is that adding this loophole will not be too much of a problem. I was a Triad before the rule was in place. I could give you 1000 anecdotes about people trying to get their PC deaths overturned. There was bullying, bribery, threats, and hours of time that I had to spend playing Sherlock Holmes trying to track down witnesses and involved parties. It was a drain on my time, and one of the reasons why I finally had to step down. I don't know how much more evidence you need. You are ignoring all of the people telling you exactly what I just told you because it does not support your opinion. That's your perogative, but in the end, that is the reason why the rule will not be changed. The rule enforces the understanding to players and competent judges that they need to review everything at the table and not walk away until everything is confirmed as finished. Shawn
RLWilde 11-21-05, 02:34 AM	Why live with these problems if we don't have to? I think the solution you're looking for is to run a home campaign rather than LG... that way you're able to address any situations as you see fit, rather than how someone else calls it.
RLWilde 11-21-05, 02:45 AM	Oh, I save all my best venom for you, sweetcakes. That's certainly a mature and compelling argument...
delroland 11-21-05, 03:37 AM	I think the solution you're looking for is to run a home campaign rather than LG... that way you're able to address any situations as you see fit, rather than how someone else calls it. Oh, yeah. I forgot, that is the recommended solution for everyone that doesn't think LG is perfect: go play something else. I am sure that is the wisest course of action to help dwindling membership numbers, kick out anyone that doesn't agree with you. Why not drop the holier-than-thou attitude and acknowledge that RPGA members are allowed to disagree with the staff or specific rulings without having to leave the campaign? It is not YOUR campaign, nor is it the Circle's campaign. It is OUR campaign, and my opinion is just as important as yours, especially when not a few others agree with me, wholly or partially. The "if you don't like it, get out" attitude is an asinine and irresponsible line of reasoning. Maybe if I don't like it, I should work to change it. <snip> I ain't going nowhere. play nice
vvincent 11-21-05, 12:57 PM	No - see, this is where you're wrong. It's our campaign too. Because we're the people who spend all of our free time making sure you have something to complain about. You are correct about one thing: if you don't like something, you should work to change it. You've done so. But expecting a change overnight on the basis of your lone crusade jousting a windmill is, frankly, arrogant. You've repeatedly come across as the one person among all who has the solution while completely ignoring the fact that it's been tried before. You'll belittled the efforts of those who attempted to explain this fact to you, and you've insulted anyone who disagrees with you - including the hard working Triad that you originally sought an answer from in the first place. Any grace and consideration you had been extended has been used up as far as I'm concerned. You may not be going away - but I am. Feel free to rant on these forums all you like. I'll just ignore you. Buh-bye. Oh, yeah. I forgot, that is the recommended solution for everyone that doesn't think LG is perfect: go play something else. I am sure that is the wisest course of action to help dwindling membership numbers, kick out anyone that doesn't agree with you. Why not drop the holier-than-thou attitude and acknowledge that RPGA members are allowed to disagree with the staff or specific rulings without having to leave the campaign? It is not YOUR campaign, nor is it the Circle's campaign. It is OUR campaign, and my opinion is just as important as yours, especially when not a few others agree with me, wholly or partially. The "if you don't like it, get out" attitude is an asinine and irresponsible line of reasoning. Maybe if I don't like it, I should work to change it. If you don't like THAT, why don't YOU quit? Or, as I would prefer, either contribute meaningfully to this thread, or STFU. I ain't going nowhere.
RLWilde 11-21-05, 02:43 PM	Oh, yeah. I forgot, that is the recommended solution for everyone that doesn't think LG is perfect You need to work on your reading comprehension. I don't recall anyone here saying LG is "perfect". You, however, seem to be heavily invested emotionally in getting your own way. Why not drop the holier-than-thou attitude Why don't you? Or, as I would prefer, either contribute meaningfully to this thread, or STFU. Grow up. And aren't you being rather hypocritical here? You haven't contirbuted "meaningfully" to this thread in a while. If you had presented your arguments in a reasonable fashion, I might agree with you... but your tone has been anything BUT reasonable.
solbergb 11-21-05, 06:03 PM	Oh, yeah. I forgot, that is the recommended solution for everyone that doesn't think LG is perfect: go play something else. I am sure that is the wisest course of action to help dwindling membership numbers, kick out anyone that doesn't agree with you. Dwindling numbers? Not in my area at least. We have trouble finding space for all the folks who arrive at conventions, we've actually split off from once convention and formed our own because they couldn't give us big enough space. I have an easier time finding others to game with than I did a couple years ago. As for who doesn't agree other than samwise, I'll name at least two. Myself, and Cedric (I feel safe naming him, I know him). We both posted earlier. Add that to at least a half dozen others who posted that I don't know. The bottom line is about personal responsibility. That of the players, that of the judges. Nothing else can work in a campaign of this scale. Accepting that bad things sometimes happen is part of playing in a sportsmanlike way. Doing your best to prevent it next time is part of behaving like a mature adult. If it stops being fun, then choose another recreation. This may sound harsh, but if you spend your free time doing something you don't enjoy, it is an addiction, not a pastime. Most of us really don't want to add a whole legal appeals system to a pastime already complicated by a huge amount of paperwork. Those who would have to investigate and rule on such appeals also would rather spend their precious volunteer time on stuff that furthers the campaign (writing and editing content, planning conventions, etc). Occam's razor does not apply here. The systems aren't otherwise equivalent. On the one side, you have a system of appeals devoid of paperwork, that ends when the AR is signed. (this is quite similar to a professional sports event, where you can argue with the umpire during the game but when the box score is posted, the hits, runs, errors, etc won't change even if some fan brings videotape evidence, etc) On the other, you have a system that requires investigation after the fact by an already overworked set of people, who probably can't make any better judgement most of the time than could have been made on the game day. The first system may let a few more errors through than the second system. But it actually works "well enough" that such errors are rare, and sometimes cancel out. The campaign volunteers who would have to create and enforce such an appeals process are telling you that it is not worth the effort and causes some unintended consequences (endless bogus appeals for overturned decisions that nobody bothers with today). The error rate is low. The fact that this is the first time it has happened to you as a judge in 8 years should be an indication of how low, at least for an averagely prepared judge with a decent working knowledge of the rules. The error rate of mistakes in play is much higher, but meaningful mistakes (that result in a permanent effect to a character) is quite low. What we hear from those who ran the campaign when such appeals were possible is that the rate of bogus appeals is high, much higher than the actual error rate (if indeed each judge only had a problem once in 8 years, it wouldn't take a lot of triad time...the reality is that it did take a lot of triad time).
CdrcJsn 11-21-05, 06:51 PM	An aside to the main argument, but I think I'll post it just as an FYI anyways. The player involved in the event delroland is speaking of was actually okay with the death and the ruling from the beginning. He has even come up with character roleplaying concepts to explore his new found elfdom (used to be a dwarf). He is a new player, but this experience has not soured him to LG. The Senior GM also was not forced to comply based on Triad pressure. He looked at the initial post, emailed some people, then read the relevant rules in the LGCS and RPGA general rules and agreed with the Triad's ruling and let the death stand. Cedric Atizado
slorak 11-22-05, 06:23 PM	I don't see what the big deal is with delroland not being able to overturn the death that he inadvertantly caused. If a rule is in place stopping him from doing so - it should be changed. He clearly showed that there was no ill intention and gave solid clear evidence as to why it couldn't be changed at the table and it seems that he is getting a lot of attitute from people who do nothing but quote rules and recite what they learned in logic class to divert the real questions. Deroland - I support you 100%. What harm can come from a DM being able to overturn his own mistakes? Who exactly suffers from that? As for what has already been said on cheating - cheating really only effects those that do it. It really bugs me that people take on the attitude that - well I have had a character die in a similar circumstance therefore why should it be any different for you. That is the same kind of logic behind medical school residents having to work ludicrous shifts "just because that is the way it has always been done" - needless to say that it isn't in the best interest of the patient. I am mostly a player and dm occasionally. If my character had died under dubious circumstances I would settle for nothing less than having it corrected. It is ludicrous that if an error was done or a malicious dm purposefully killed a character that a blind eye would be turned towards a resolution. I think that the resolution proposed by delroland would fit the bill for purposeful change. While it may need some refining - he did state that it was a rough draft idea - the intentions are good and could add a more positive feel to LG. I like playing LG and will say that these little rules nuinces that don't help the player really put a damper on the enjoyment. As it stands the amount of really good adventures out there are already at a minimum to the standard fair killer mods - in which an author see's fit to build the most outrageous encounters that can be dreamed up and bogus DC's to "kill off" Min/Max players at the detriment to those that build regular players. Maybe more effort can be put into putting together a good story. Needless to say this last statement is probably meant for another discussion. Back onto this topic - I really get this feeling of an elitist attitude pervaying amongst most of the "attackers" to a perfectly benign problem. No wonder delroland has turned hostile - no courtesy was given to him in the first place. It is attitudes like this that will turn people away from LG. I myself have started finding more enjoyment in playing the Mark of Heroes and I hate the way the rule set works for that campaign. Cheers, -Mike
solbergb 11-22-05, 07:54 PM	Mike, the problem is that you don't see the downside of the proposed change. A lot of time rules seem stupid because they are viewed without the big picture in mind. Not all rules exist to help the players. Some exist to ensure there is a campaign to play, and volunteers to write the content. It has been stated before, but I'll try again. If you allow any exceptions to be made, you open the door to harassment of the triad (or whatever authority can make exceptions) by a much larger number of claims than have merit. In the past, when policies were different, the triads were in fact harassed and wasted lots of time chasing down claims. We have poeple posting on this thread who lived that experience, we're not speculating, guessing or even relying on limited sample sizes. What is more important? (I am trying really hard not to make a straw man here, but I may not have worded it right) 1. Extending the existing review process from "at the table until the AR is signed" to "some fixed period after the AR is signed" in order to correct errors made that weren't caught before the AR was signed. Cost: Waste of the most precious resource in the campaign - the time of the most active volunteers/contributors. Odds of cost happening? 100% 2. Leaving the review system as it is. Cost: Sometimes a character may have a bad thing happen that isn't reversed. Some players may leave the campaign as a result if the mistake was bad enough. Odds of cost happening? This kind of mistake is <1% of all tables (most tables have no such mistakes. most that occur are caught before AR. My sample of characters playing at tables where I have been present is large enough to assert that 1% with reasonable statistical confidence). Furthermore when it happens, the player usually is ok with it (as was the case this time) and moves on. Plus the judge is usually more careful to get it right next time. I don't see this as "elitist". This is perfectly normal cost/benefit analysis, and it is pretty much a no-brainer when looked at that way. It simply costs too much to allow exceptions in a campaign of this size, and furthermore the cost is in a coin we can least afford to pay - contributer time in non-value-add activities. If massive numbers of players were leaving the campaign, or being turned-off upon joining due to rampant errors that could only be corrected by a change - then that's a different story. But the reality is - it just isn't that way. It is very rare. It is rarer still that anyone reacts in such a way that the campaign injured even by the extent of them leaving. Even if folks were leaving in droves, the root cause isn't likely the lack of exceptions after the AR is signed. Something bigger would have to be wrong, and corrective action aimed at the larger problem. The largest complaint I see about the campaign is "killer modules" that when researched are more often "unprepared judges". Not always. But more often than not, when I actually read the mod. (No, the brown bears aren't supposed to materialize next to the party. They're supposed to sneak up as best they can...etc)
slorak 11-22-05, 08:49 PM	What is the downside to letting a DM fix his error? Is it such a big deal to allow him to re-print an AR and fix a mistake. I know this isn't practical in most cases - such as at conventions, but if it is a regularly scheduled game day at a local store and the DM knows who the players are - which sounds like they do in this case - I see nothing wrong with him fixing his mistake. It takes guts to admit you did something wrong and he should be applauded for wanting to make things right. Instead everyone gives him the 3rd degree while throwing interpretive rules his way. The way he was verbally assaulted in these posts conveys the "elitist" attitude I was talking about. As for causing more problems than it is worth - so you open things up a little for cheating. Cheaters will do it anyway. Big deal. I would think you lessen the burden on the circle/triad than increase it. Besides those that are going to complain to them will do so no matter what. As for bad DM's - I have encountered too many of them. There are even a few that my group will get up from the table and leave if we get stuck with him (at local conventions). However there are also an equal amount of "bad mods. Though I have played with some really good judges in some very good adventures - I just wish there were more! At any rate - I don't think AR distribution should change - but at the same time I don't see why a DM at his discretion can't re-print an AR for honest mistakes. Again - leaving this to DM discretion. Granted if you end up wasting favors, etc. it sucks but such is life however adding the burden of raising or resurrecting your character due to DM fault is inexcusable. Cheers, -Mike
Samwise 11-22-05, 09:38 PM	No, you don't open it up for a little cheating. You open it up for the campaign to become dominated by intimidation and favoritism. A "little cheating" would have been saying nothing publicly and just replacing the AR without making any noise about it. You seem to have missed when that was suggested. Delroland certainly didn't. But rather than quietly file it for future reference he went off another rant, accusing the entire campaign of thriving on sub rosa corruption, and insisting that justified his demand for a complete overhaul, as well as providing him incidental "fuel" for his attacks on campaign officials and myself. As for an "elitist" attitude, when did being elite become a bad thing? Mind you, I hardly think expecting people to follow the campaign rules, and be polite when discussing the campaign particularly qualifies as elite. I always thought those were pretty basic standards of behavior.
slorak 11-22-05, 10:57 PM	Maybe he should have printed out a new AR and been done with it. However it would be nice if that was something that was allowed to begin with. One shouldn't have to feel like a dirty little cheater by trying to rectify a mistake. I didn't really see this politeness you talk about coming from many people. Most of the posts seemed pretty much said to shut the original poster up. It seemed like there was an air of this is the way it is - now stop talking about it. My way is the right way... I could be reading it wrong - after all this is a forum so getting the true intention of what is being said is near impossible... but... At any rate - I still feel that we should be thrilled that someone came forward and admitted their DM mistake and tried to correct it. It may not have had a big impact on the player who died, and in the grand scheme of things it probably doesn't matter, but the question I ask - If it was your character that died in this situation - wouldn't you want it fixed if given the opportunity? Don't you think that it would be a good thing to fix problems such as this? Cheers, -Mike
Samwise 11-22-05, 11:16 PM	I think it would be better if someone doing that to my character reviewed everything they were doing at that moment, and looked for any way possible to avoid it. And then double checked everything again just in case. But in the absence of that, I'd rather be left taking one for the campaign than demand I get my way knowing what it would inflict on the campaign officials. And mosts of the posts just stated the rules. If you ask a question about the rules and don't get the answer you want you accept it, you don't get rude just because they didn't give you the answer you wanted. If you do, particularly if you start ranting at people because they accept a campaign rule that you don't, you should expect them to invite you to find another game if they really can't stand the rules of the one in question.
slorak 11-22-05, 11:30 PM	I don't understand this concept of taking one for the campaign. What do you mean by this? If something was done wrong it was done wrong. How does undoing a wrongful death in a campaign wreak havok? I understand that a DM should check, double check, etc. but sometimes things happen such as what the original poster said and after the fact he came forward. Now if the DM had the authority to fix it legally everything woudl be cool and no triad member/circle would ever need to be bothered. Simply letting it slide because you are afraid to ruffle any feathers doesn't help anyone. Cheers, -Mike
RLWilde 11-22-05, 11:32 PM	What is the downside to letting a DM fix his error? Is it such a big deal to allow him to re-print an AR and fix a mistake. On an individual basis? No, it's not that big a deal. However, now you've got the proverbial can of worms opened up. What if the GM doesn't want to change it? Can I email the Senior GM a couple of weeks after the con to get him to change it? If he won't, a month after the con, can I start working the Triad members to rule in my favor? How about the Circle? WotC employees? How many other people in LG will be doing the same in any given month? 100? 300? I don't like the rule... I would much prefer that character death be subject to review... but I understand why it's in place. I know this isn't practical in most cases - such as at conventions, but if it is a regularly scheduled game day at a local store and the DM knows who the players are - which sounds like they do in this case - I see nothing wrong with him fixing his mistake. So, amend the LG rules to allow the death to be overturned at a Game Day (or, presumably, Home Play) event, but not a Convention? It takes guts to admit you did something wrong and he should be applauded for wanting to make things right. Yes it does, and he should be. Instead everyone gives him the 3rd degree while throwing interpretive rules his way. The way he was verbally assaulted in these posts conveys the "elitist" attitude I was talking about. No, he disagreed with an interpretation and asked for opinions on the matter. When those opinions differed from his own, he changed arguments and tone (and even acknowledged he was being "exceptionally rude"). As for causing more problems than it is worth - so you open things up a little for cheating. Cheaters will do it anyway. Big deal. I would think you lessen the burden on the circle/triad than increase it. Besides those that are going to complain to them will do so no matter what. I would expect this to be much more work for the volunteers. Sure, people will complain anyway, but once they complain about an incident they probably stop (for the most part) until the next incident comes along. With the change, there is absolutely no reason for people to take "no" for an answer, and they can just keep on taking up the time. As for bad DM's - I have encountered too many of them. There are even a few that my group will get up from the table and leave if we get stuck with him (at local conventions). However there are also an equal amount of "bad mods. Though I have played with some really good judges in some very good adventures - I just wish there were more! Hmm... considering I'm next door in Long Beach, I admit to being curious about which judge you'll walk away from. Just to compare notes, and all. :devil: At any rate - I don't think AR distribution should change - but at the same time I don't see why a DM at his discretion can't re-print an AR for honest mistakes. Again - leaving this to DM discretion. Granted if you end up wasting favors, etc. it sucks but such is life however adding the burden of raising or resurrecting your character due to DM fault is inexcusable. Honestly, if I had more faith in the player base as a whole... I'd agee with you.
Samwise 11-22-05, 11:54 PM	I don't understand this concept of taking one for the campaign. What do you mean by this? If something was done wrong it was done wrong. How does undoing a wrongful death in a campaign wreak havok? I understand that a DM should check, double check, etc. but sometimes things happen such as what the original poster said and after the fact he came forward. Now if the DM had the authority to fix it legally everything woudl be cool and no triad member/circle would ever need to be bothered. Simply letting it slide because you are afraid to ruffle any feathers doesn't help anyone. Cheers, -Mike Because it is not a "wrongful death." It is a mistake. Mistakes happen. You do what you can to prevent them, but when they do happen in a game, you make note of it so it doesn't happen again and you move on. You don't obsess about it incessantly and demand endless do-overs until you get the result you want. Because sometimes it gets worse, as the DM thinks up some new trick now that he's seen your tactics, or remembers a power he hadn't used last time, or avoids something that just didn't work. It is a recreational activity, a game. But not a competitive game, it is a social game. When you make a mistake you let it go and keep playing. Sometimes that means you need to start a new character. That happens. As it is not a competition, that is not that big a deal. You are there to play the game, and have fun with people you like. You write up another character, and be ready for the next round. Or you run around getting upset, not playing, keeping other people from playing, making a big issue over a little mistake. I'd rather be off playing.
Sieylianna 11-23-05, 12:00 AM	I don't understand this concept of taking one for the campaign. What do you mean by this? If something was done wrong it was done wrong. How does undoing a wrongful death in a campaign wreak havok? You need to understand that the Living Greyhawk philosophy is that all players are cheaters and you have to make things tough on them. That's why we have AR's, MIL's and all the other rules because the campaign staff doesn't trust players. The bulk of the restrictions are aimed at 10-20 percent of the players, but we all have to suffer them. Ed
slorak 11-23-05, 02:33 AM	A mistake that lead to a wrongful death. It was the DM that found the error and approached the player. Not the player whining about "do overs". There should be some leeway to fix problems like this. I agree that sometimes situations are in place that can end a characters life. These things happen. I don't think that everyone should cry for a do-over. For the most part I even agree that everything should be handled at the table before the AR's are signed. But you can get the occasional issues that don't crop up right away and are later found out. These should be open to correction. Yes there could be 100's or 1000's of complaints but that should be expected in such a large collective group and accounted for. I still would not be happy if it were my character. If I ended up killing my character - that is all good. However if my character dies due to errors completely beyond my control as a player that isn't cool. What do you mean Living Greyhawk isn't competitive?!? :D I thought the goal was to get more treasure and XP than anyone else! :cool: Seriously though I agree it should be played to where you can collectively have fun and for the most part - as long as you get a good DM - it is. Cheers, -Mike
rutrow424 11-23-05, 10:45 AM	A mistake that lead to a wrongful death. It was the DM that found the error and approached the player. Not the player whining about "do overs". There should be some leeway to fix problems like this. I agree that sometimes situations are in place that can end a characters life. These things happen. I don't think that everyone should cry for a do-over. For the most part I even agree that everything should be handled at the table before the AR's are signed. But you can get the occasional issues that don't crop up right away and are later found out. These should be open to correction. Yes there could be 100's or 1000's of complaints but that should be expected in such a large collective group and accounted for. I still would not be happy if it were my character. If I ended up killing my character - that is all good. However if my character dies due to errors completely beyond my control as a player that isn't cool. I think we all agree that in a perfect situation the rule in question here would not be necessary - but this is a global campaign that is far from perfect (but I still think is great). As Ed said a few posts back, the campaign rules are largely designed to prevent the minority of cheaters/abusers from getting traction and - as others have noted - driving volunteers (DMs, Triads, Circle) away. No matter how you change the rule, the shadier players will try to take advantage of it. If you concede that there would be 100s or 1000s of complaints were the rule to change, can we not also accept that TPTB have determined the cost of changing the rule to the volunteers is not worth the benefit to a very small percentage of players that the new rule would help. Since the campaign has operated without the rule, and TPTB have evidence as to what would happen should the rule be changed, it is reasonable to trust their judgement. Any time limit to appeals is arbitrary - LG has set that time limit to be the most friendly to its (mostly) volunteer staff. That said, if I were the player that got hurt by this rule, I would probably be mad. I would be mad at the DM for the mistake, and frustrated that I didn't challenge it at the time (of course, I challenge every PC death I encounter, just in case). The big thing that has not been brought up enough (though at least a handful including myself have mentioned) is that this problem in this case, and in most cases, could have been found at the table had all the parties involved made the effort. The new player did not think to challenge the DM, nor did any of his fellow players; the DM did not check and double check to insure he ran things correctly - the whole table rushed to finish and failed to protect the newbie. That series of events is far more tragic than the fact that the LG rules prohibit correcting the mistakes made that day; the player "hurt" by this reportedly does not care and has not been turned off by the experience, which weakens the "change the rule" case even further.
solbergb 11-23-05, 11:52 AM	Seriously though I agree it should be played to where you can collectively have fun and for the most part - as long as you get a good DM it is. Agree 100%. Which is one reason I'm leery of tampering with a rule that actually has the effect of producing more careful DM's - at the table. Although that isnt' the reason for the rule. The reason is it protects the volunteers who make the campaign happen from spending their time on appeals 24x7. 15000 people, hundreds of tables each weekend, plenty of deaths every week, 6 circle members and 1-3 triad per region (there are supposed to be 3 triad, but vacancies happen) The numbers don't add up. Any % is too large when a campaign is that big and the number who could investigate/resolve a dispute is so small.
delroland 11-23-05, 04:15 PM	Which is one reason I'm leery of tampering with a rule that actually has the effect of producing more careful DM's - at the table. Having a rule in place that "teaches the error of a DM's ways" at the cost of a player's experience is not worth it, regardless of the original intention of the rule. Plus, of those 15,000 members you talk about, 2,500 of them are GM's, so, assuming that ALL 2,500 TABLES had a character death, and ALL 2,500 deaths were appealed, that would mean that each GM would have to handle only ONE appeal per week, and that is the extreme worst case scenario. How would this be a significant drain on volunteer time? If there were hundreds or thousands appeals per week, as the naysayers would have us believe, then the thousands of GM's could very easily handle the appeals if only they were given the ability that they already have regarding every other form of player appeal except that involving character death. The whole argument that we would be drowned in a tsunami of appeals is a ridiculous exaggeration put forward as a pathetic excuse to maintain the status quo, and is a "slippery slope" fallacy.
Samwise 11-23-05, 04:29 PM	A mistake that lead to a wrongful death. It was the DM that found the error and approached the player. Not the player whining about "do overs". There should be some leeway to fix problems like this. No it is not a "wrongful death." That is a specific term in law, and has nothing to do with a piece of paper no longer being playable with other pieces of paper. It was a simple mistake. And there is leeway to fix problems like this. They must be resolved before the table ends. What do you mean Living Greyhawk isn't competitive?!? :D I thought the goal was to get more treasure and XP than anyone else! :cool: Seriously though I agree it should be played to where you can collectively have fun and for the most part - as long as you get a good DM - it is. Cheers, -Mike Then play it that way and don't worry about a dead character caused by a mistake.
Samwise 11-23-05, 04:58 PM	Plus, of those 15,000 members you talk about, 2,500 of them are GM's, so, assuming that ALL 2,500 TABLES had a character death, and ALL 2,500 deaths were appealed, that would mean that each GM would have to handle only ONE appeal per week, and that is the extreme worst case scenario. How would this be a significant drain on volunteer time? Do you have any idea how much time the average volunteer has available for the campaign every week? I think it is obvious that the answer is no, so let us consider: First, it is a volunteer position, almost always held by someone with a regular job. So right off the bat let's delete the 40 hour work week and travel time from the available time. So the typical person has 4 hours a day during the week and 12 hours a day on the weekend. Second, a large number of volunteers have a social life, being either married or otherwise involved with another person. We'll be generous and just cut those above numbers in half for that. So 2 hours a day and 6 hours a day on the weekend. or maybe 20 hours per week total. Third, if they are involved in an active LG group we lose another 4 hours for an event, plus travel and preparations. That's one of the weekend days, and we are down to 14 hours a week total. Fourth, they have to read their region's email list and reply to mundane questions. That's about 1 hour a day, and he has 7 hours left. Fifth, he now has to actually do new work, like developing the plot, reviewing submissions, nagging authors to finish submissions, distributing adventures to people who request them, discussing things with the Circle, and other tasks. If he does that for a pathetic 1 hour each day (and how much time does a typical DM take to prepare his home game every week?) he now has no time for anything else. And this doesn't include if he goes to a convention (all his free time over a weekend and more), writes a full adventure himself (all of his free time for a month or more), has to earn more "Spouse/Significant Other Reward Points" (so he can go to a convention without going to divorce court next month), deal with a job crisis (all of his free time for a week or more so he can remain employed), deal with non-immediate family issues (all of his free time for a day or more so he doesn't get disowned), deal with getting sick (all of his free time for a day or more so he doesn't drop dead), and any of the other wonderful things that affect our ordinary lives. And that is ALL being generous. And you want to add "merely" one appeal per week to that total. For which he has to email the player making the appeal for details, email the other players at the table for details, email the DM for details, email the even organizer for details, wait for replies, review the replies, consider face to face meetings to discuss the replies, confer with the other Triad members, and finally make a ruling that he must distribute to the player, the DM, and the event organizer, wait for confirmation from them, and finally put the matter to rest. If there were hundreds or thousands appeals per week, as the naysayers would have us believe, then the thousands of GM's could very easily handle the appeals if only they were given the ability that they already have regarding every other form of player appeal except that involving character death.[QUOTE] All it takes is "singles" of appeals in each region (which gives us maybe one hundred per week) to shut everything down. Even one per region per week is enough to slow things up excessively. And you've had testimony from people involved that they did face at least one a month or so. [QUOTE]The whole argument that we would be drowned in a tsunami of appeals is a ridiculous exaggeration put forward as a pathetic excuse to maintain the status quo, and is a "slippery slope" fallacy. Except the people saying that have experience with the number of appeals that were filed under such a system. So there is no "slippery slope" involved. It is a report of prior experience. (And I thought you didn't want to discuss logical fallacies in regards to this? Or was that merely not having your own pointed out?)
slorak 11-23-05, 05:05 PM	Oh come one. You know what I meant by wrongful death. This is why this thread has taken a negative tone. When you say things like: "That is a specific term in law, and has nothing to do with a piece of paper no longer being playable with other pieces of paper." it makes it look like you are trying to pick a fight. So maybe there isn't the exact phrase of "wrongful death" in LG but everyone has a clear idea of what I am talking about. Nitpicking my word choice to me - makes it seem like you are just being an ass. My point was simply - A grievious mistake was made resulting in character death that should be allowed to be overturned. In this particular case - it was unknown until after the session was over. I agree that more care should have been made at the table but sometimes life isn't perfect and when you are a guest at a store that is trying to close you really don't have the option of holding the table up to doublecheck things, nor do you necessarily have a "senior GM" to turn to to fix it. If something were in place rule wise to fix this - it would have been over and done with. No big deal. The big thing being that the DM wouldn't have to cheat to do it. In the grand scheme of things I guess it really doesn't matter. The player doesn't care I guess. LG will go on. People will either play or not. Good and bad DM's will still be around. Good and Bad mods will still be put out. Probably nothing will change. Cheers, -Mike
delroland 11-23-05, 05:39 PM	No it is not a "wrongful death." That is a specific term in law, and has nothing to do with a piece of paper no longer being playable with other pieces of paper. It was a simple mistake. Stop arguing semantics. The term "wrongful death" can apply here, as it involves the death of a character, and it was a mistake, thus, it was wrongful. Providing an alternate definition to a term does not make the intended definition invalid. And there is leeway to fix problems like this. They must be resolved before the table ends. That is not leeway. That is a restriction, one that needs to be loosened so that there IS leeway.
delroland 11-23-05, 06:00 PM	Do you have any idea how much time the average volunteer has available for the campaign every week? I think it is obvious that the answer is no, so let us consider: First, it is a volunteer position, almost always held by someone with a regular job. So right off the bat let's delete the 40 hour work week and travel time from the available time. So the typical person has 4 hours a day during the week and 12 hours a day on the weekend. Second, a large number of volunteers have a social life, being either married or otherwise involved with another person. We'll be generous and just cut those above numbers in half for that. So 2 hours a day and 6 hours a day on the weekend. or maybe 20 hours per week total. Third, if they are involved in an active LG group we lose another 4 hours for an event, plus travel and preparations. That's one of the weekend days, and we are down to 14 hours a week total. Fourth, they have to read their region's email list and reply to mundane questions. That's about 1 hour a day, and he has 7 hours left. Fifth, he now has to actually do new work, like developing the plot, reviewing submissions, nagging authors to finish submissions, distributing adventures to people who request them, discussing things with the Circle, and other tasks. If he does that for a pathetic 1 hour each day (and how much time does a typical DM take to prepare his home game every week?) he now has no time for anything else. And this doesn't include if he goes to a convention (all his free time over a weekend and more), writes a full adventure himself (all of his free time for a month or more), has to earn more "Spouse/Significant Other Reward Points" (so he can go to a convention without going to divorce court next month), deal with a job crisis (all of his free time for a week or more so he can remain employed), deal with non-immediate family issues (all of his free time for a day or more so he doesn't get disowned), deal with getting sick (all of his free time for a day or more so he doesn't drop dead), and any of the other wonderful things that affect our ordinary lives. And that is ALL being generous.That isn't a blatant assumption with no proof to back it up. Because everything you say would of course have facts to support you. :rolleyes: Throwing arbitrary numbers around like that do nothing to disprove what I have had to say. And you want to add "merely" one appeal per week to that total.That is the theoretical worst case scenario, one that would never happen in real life. For which he has to email the player making the appeal for details, email the other players at the table for details, email the DM for details, email the even organizer for details, wait for replies, review the replies, consider face to face meetings to discuss the replies, confer with the other Triad members, and finally make a ruling that he must distribute to the player, the DM, and the event organizer, wait for confirmation from them, and finally put the matter to rest. Or how about the player brings it up to the DM or Senior GM, gets his five minutes, and an on the spot decision is made? Or, as is the case with my issue, the DM contacts the player, informs him of the mistake, and fixes it? The procedure for handling appeals has only become a bureaucratic nightmare because it has been written that way. By allowing session GM's and Senior GM's to handle it ON THEIR OWN, without having to bother the Triad, which is the STANDARD way of doing it according to the RPGA General Rules, we eliminate this procedural mess and keep it nice and simple. Only in LG do we have an exception that prevents appeals to the Triad when the Triad shouldn't have to get involved in the first place. Again, if the Triads and Circle can't handle this workload, DELEGATE IT TO THE GM'S. All it takes is "singles" of appeals in each region (which gives us maybe one hundred per week) to shut everything down. Even one per region per week is enough to slow things up excessively. And you've had testimony from people involved that they did face at least one a month or so. Ooh! One hundred a month! Such a huge workload! What is that, less than one percent of the member base? Five appeals per month for every Circle and Triad member? If the Circle and Triads can't handle that, then let the GM's. Except the people saying that have experience with the number of appeals that were filed under such a system. So there is no "slippery slope" involved. It is a report of prior experience. (And I thought you didn't want to discuss logical fallacies in regards to this? Or was that merely not having your own pointed out?) A report of prior experience with a different system, one which put the entire workload on the campaign staff. My solution would put the workload on the shoulders of the GM's, spreading the burden across thousands instead of 21 people. That would be, according to your numbers, one appeal per twenty-five GM's per month, or one appeal per two GM's per YEAR. In other words, that would mean that, on average, each GM would have to handle one appeal once every two years. Or would that still be too much work for you? Your current argument as it stands ASSURES us that we need to be protected from cheating, because if we don't, the cheaters will ruin the campaign for everyone. Have they done this in the past? No. So the assumption that they will is a slippery slope fallacy, because there is no prior experience that can demonstrate this. Your current argument ASSURES us that we can't have a character death appeal system, because if we did, the Circle and Triads would be bogged down with so many appeals (five a month each, I think you said) that the campaign would bog down and eventually collapse. Has this happened in the past? Only when we had just twenty-one people who could handle character appeals. Would this happen if we allowed GM's to handle the problem? You don't say either way, whereas I give actual rough membership numbers, but you go on to warn us that if they were given that authority, they would cheat. In which case, I direct you to the previous paragraph. The reason I don't like talking about logical fallacies is that people will disagree on how the fallacy applies to their argument and eat up a whole page on the thread, as it did when King Kashue attacked my argument and couldn't decide which fallacy applied. But it has happened again. The ball is now in your court, and the choice of where to go is yours: whether you want to discuss the issues, or whether you want to argue semantics because your little mind cannot fathom a counterpoint to the points that have been brought up, and now not just by myself.
solbergb 11-23-05, 07:05 PM	and it has happened and heck still happens. I used to get emails from people all the time when I was on the Circle wanting me to overrule their triad or bring their buddy back to life because a DM added 4 to a dice roll instead of 2. Some of these would go on for weeks and weeks and even get Wotc folk involved when they would start spamming any email they could find. Players go home and read the mod after they are done playing micro-analyzing it looking for any little DM mistake so they can fire off appeals and get their death over-turned. I get that at shows still in fact. Bob gets done with a table and talks to his buddy Bill who sat at another table and finds out their DM ran the fight a little different and now they want their AR, Certs, etc. changed because they got screwed. 100% equality is a nice goal to shoot for but it is just not attainable. Fact is this way is simple and easy. It catches the vast majority of problems and fixes them right on the spot. "This is a worst case scenario that never happens in real life" Except that this person, who did the job, said that it did. I would consider an impression that he was getting mail "all the time" when he actually did the job to be pretty significant. It CAN happen because it DID happen. Thus the current rule. Note that even one appeal can result in "weeks and weeks" of followup and hassle, just from a single stubborn person, and worse they go shopping for a different answer- not just wasting the time of the first person, but many others. Those stubborn people are de-fanged by rules that don't have exceptions. They know that no amount of persistence will cause a different result. So they don't begin. In business, this is why tech support exists. So end users can't shop around for a different answer to their problem from the developer, from the manager of the developer, from the VP, from a different developer who has access to the code, etc. They get one point of contact, one resolution system and every attempt to bypass the system is met with a stone wall, a united front. What you get if you make exceptions is midnight phone calls, constant interruptions to your everyday work and no ability to focus on your real job. I speak from experience with this in the business world. Absolute rules in handling disputes are how you keep your productive people productive. The simplest and most powerful absolute rule is to say "you don't get support - you buy it 'as is'". The next simplest is to say "you get support until you sign off on it, then you live with it. You can sign off from now until XXX date" That's what we've got now in LG. The "Support" is the Judge, the other players and in larger venues the senior DM. The time limit is until the AR is signed. The system has the advantage that everyone needed to do support is physically present, and temporally present (not reconstrucing past events). If the system solves the vast majority of disputes, it is plenty good enough for a pastime. We aren't talking airplanes falling out of the air here if we don't get it right.
solbergb 11-23-05, 07:21 PM	Regarding delegating to the DM....that's what the rules do already, but it ends at the AR signing. Assuming this power was extended beyond the signing of the AR: First, any such solution would have to cover situations where another game had been played after the problem AR. (often this is 10 minutes after the last one is signed) Presumably the appeal would only work if you didn't play the character again. Second, it would involve giving the players access to the DM's contact information. Third, it simply doesn't work sometimes. I've had DM's quit the RPGA after signing an AR. If you travel, you probably don't know any of the DM's, and are pretty unlikely to contact them ever again (or at least until your return trip a year later, and only if you're lucky). So you get an uneven situation of appeals, where homegames and situations where you know the GM gives you an advantage over situations where you travel and play at conventions in terms of how long you have to make the appeal. It is a better suggestion than forcing the triad/circle to adjudicate disputes but most of the time it is no different from the status quo because after the AR is signed, a significant population will play another game before they see the DM again (for whatever reason). Of course then there will inevitably be some kind of complaining post about how Joe got his death overturned by his buddy Fred who he sees every day, but how Mary can't get her death overturned because her DM moved to Alaska without a forwarding address, who can help me? Well...the triad. Not as nasty as when DM's aren't delegated, but still the same problem, just lower volume.
Samwise 11-23-05, 08:01 PM	Oh come one. You know what I meant by wrongful death. This is why this thread has taken a negative tone. When you say things like: "That is a specific term in law, and has nothing to do with a piece of paper no longer being playable with other pieces of paper." it makes it look like you are trying to pick a fight. So maybe there isn't the exact phrase of "wrongful death" in LG but everyone has a clear idea of what I am talking about. Nitpicking my word choice to me - makes it seem like you are just being an ass. No, it is me pointing out that your use of the term is excessive. It is nothing but a semantically loaded term, used with the sole intention of escalating the rhetoric by inflaming passions. Which in fact makes the person who used it look bad. My point was simply - A grievious mistake was made resulting in character death that should be allowed to be overturned. And there you go again. "Grievous" What is so particularly severe or horrible about it? It affects a game, that is all. A character died, not a real person. Try to keep it in perspective. It is annoying, sure, but it is hardly "grievous" or anything similar.
Samwise 11-23-05, 08:32 PM	That isn't a blatant assumption with no proof to back it up. Because everything you say would of course have facts to support you. :rolleyes: Throwing arbitrary numbers around like that do nothing to disprove what I have had to say. That is the theoretical worst case scenario, one that would never happen in real life. Well, let's see . . . I was a Triad member from December 1999 to July 2002. Those figures are based on how much time I had to commit to email to keep up to date, as well as the time to prepare for games. The figures for work are indeed extrapolated as I don't have a "traditional" job, but they are hardly unreasonable. The figures for a social life are general, and based on numerous comments from others. (Indeed, the term "Wife Points" was coined by another RPGA member during the time I was on the Triad.) So yes, those numbers do prove that you don't have a clue about how much time is involved. Or how about the player brings it up to the DM or Senior GM, gets his five minutes, and an on the spot decision is made? . . . Again, if the Triads and Circle can't handle this workload, DELEGATE IT TO THE GM'S. Because Triad members aren't on the spot, they are off on the internet. If you limit it to "on the spot", you limit appeals to those people who can track down a Triad member. As for the DM correcting a mistake, he can - at the table. Everything you want is already delegated to the DM's. There is just a time limit. So all we are left with is you demanding a change because you didn't correct your mistake in time. Ooh! One hundred a month! Such a huge workload! What is that, less than one percent of the member base? Five appeals per month for every Circle and Triad member? If the Circle and Triads can't handle that, then let the GM's. We do let the DM's handle it. At the table. A report of prior experience with a different system, one which put the entire workload on the campaign staff. My solution would put the workload on the shoulders of the GM's, spreading the burden across thousands instead of 21 people. That would be, according to your numbers, one appeal per twenty-five GM's per month, or one appeal per two GM's per YEAR. In other words, that would mean that, on average, each GM would have to handle one appeal once every two years. Or would that still be too much work for you? We do put the entire load on the DMs. As for the one's that can't handle that and bring their appeals up higher, like you, if you review the number of posts from Circle and Triad members, plus the RPGA Senior GM, you will note that it isn't too much work for them to tell you "no" as long as they leave extended explanations of why you are wrong to ordinary members like myself. Me, I've got the time to tell you over and over that you are wrong. They said so once, in short posts, and moved on. Or hadn't you noticed that? But it has happened again. The ball is now in your court, and the choice of where to go is yours: whether you want to discuss the issues, or whether you want to argue semantics because your little mind cannot fathom a counterpoint to the points that have been brought up, and now not just by myself. But you have not brought up any points other than that you, individually, failed to do your job as a DM at a single event, and that you now demand a rule that has functioned suitably well for the vast majority of the rest of the campaign for a few years be changed simply to cover for your error. In pursuit of that point, the best you've demonstrated so far is an ability to call me a liar because I know how much time Triad members have available, how much time it takes them to resolve various issues, and what the reasons are for the rule you want to change. And barring proving that most Triad members don't have regular 40 hour/week jobs, with about 20-40 hours of free time per week to devote to campaign administration, other gaming, and their families, you can't disprove the first two. You've already been shown to be wrong about the third. That leaves you still being wrong, and still trying to get a rules change to cover you for being wrong, and having misrepresenting the rules, which you started with, or being rude, either generally or directly, as your only way of intimidating people into supporting you or at least not disagreeing with you. Unfortunately for your plan you keep missing one critical element - I am not a campaign official. I don't have to care about telling you that you are being rude, or ignoring your attacks. They have no effect on me. And it means I don't need to worry about running the campaign and can take the time to point out that you are wrong (and rude) so that other players can understand the reason for the rule. (That is, you are a perfect demonstration of the people it is intended to control.)
slorak 11-23-05, 09:04 PM	No, it is me pointing out that your use of the term is excessive. It is nothing but a semantically loaded term, used with the sole intention of escalating the rhetoric by inflaming passions. Which in fact makes the person who used it look bad. And there you go again. "Grievous" What is so particularly severe or horrible about it? It affects a game, that is all. A character died, not a real person. Try to keep it in perspective. It is annoying, sure, but it is hardly "grievous" or anything similar. Ok you are right. It isn't particularly severe or horrible to you. You are right a real person didn't die. Oh wait - that is your opinion. I am sure you will find others that disagree - wrongful character death can be more than just an annoyance. Sometimes a lot of time gets put into this game where a "simple mistake goes and ruins all the hard work put into the game without the player being responsible for it. Whatever. It really doesn't matter. I am sure enough time has been wasted on this subject. Have a good evening! Cheers, -Mike
Samwise 11-23-05, 09:24 PM	You are right a real person didn't die. Oh wait - that is your opinion. Well, no. That isn't just my opinion. That is a fact. I know this is the internet and nobody is supposed to have anything but "humble" opinions that everyone else can casually disagree with, but this is a real, true, actual, concrete, indisputable, cold, hard, real world fact that you can't just dismiss as someone's "opinion". It is a piece of paper, not a real person. No matter how seriously you take your gaming, that doesn't become subjective. Sometimes a lot of time gets put into this game where a "simple mistake goes and ruins all the hard work put into the game without the player being responsible for it. Yep. And sometimes it is tactical mistakes by other players. Do you want those deaths overturned too? And sometimes an even simpler die roll does it too. Appeals for lousy die rolling too? And sometimes players mess up the long term plans of DMs. Should we also ignore any excessively divergent player choices in the campaign? But they all also still wind up with the same thing - it is a non-competitive game. Set it up again, and play another adventure.
slorak 11-23-05, 09:51 PM	Nice. I like how you cut down what I said to fit your bill. Good job. I give you props. I never said that judges should overturn bad dice rolls. Deaths caused by the player or his "team". What do you mean by messing up the long term plans of DM's? What I was originally commenting on was the "I died and didn't get anything out of it - so you shouldn't either" attitude regarding a DM only mistake that caused a character death. So I guess to narrow it down - I think that character death should be overturned when found to be 100% DM error. Not how a DM ran a legitimate encounter, not how a player had bad luck or bad rolls, not because other party members were stupid, simply DM error. I hope I am clear enough now and didn't use any improper language so as to add another page of meaningless posts! Cheers, -Mike
Samwise 11-23-05, 10:08 PM	Nice. I like how you cut down what I said to fit your bill. Good job. I give you props. Gee, thanks. And would that be anything like how you cut down what I said? I never said that judges should overturn bad dice rolls. Deaths caused by the player or his "team". But why not? None of those are caused by the player either. Why should those stands when a death caused by a DM has to be overturned? It is still a character death isn't it? Why draw a line? I am sure there are people just as upset about such character deaths, why can't we take care of them too? What do you mean by messing up the long term plans of DM's? I mean all the effort the campaign staff puts into developing a plot line that can be turned on its head by some loan player decision during a premiere. The entire plot might need to be rewritten because of that. What I was originally commenting on was the "I died and didn't get anything out of it - so you shouldn't either" attitude regarding a DM only mistake that caused a character death. I am quite aware of what you were commenting on. The problem is that despite your belief that such is the attitude, the fact is that it is not. Several people have noted that they have dealt with such DM errors and just let them go, but none have demanded that anyone "suffer" along with them. You read that into people's posts solely on your own. So I guess to narrow it down - I think that character death should be overturned when found to be 100% DM error. Not how a DM ran a legitimate encounter, not how a player had bad luck or bad rolls, not because other party members were stupid, simply DM error. Character deaths caused by that can be overturned. Perhaps you missed it, but I gave an example where a character death I caused by an error was overturned. But there is a time limit on such corrections. Or were you not aware of that? So you still need to narrow it down even more, or at least clarify. Do you think character deaths caused by DMs should be open to appeals and overturning on some unspecified time limit that is not before a table ends? And if so, why do you feel the current rule is not enough beyond just "character deaths are bad"? (You can address whether players should be able to rant about being told the rules by Triad members, or whether they should call WotC Customer Service for RPGA questions, or whether they should try "appealing" to a message board, which were all raised in the initial post as well if you like, but you don't have to.)
kenobi65 11-23-05, 10:35 PM	Third, it simply doesn't work sometimes. I've had DM's quit the RPGA after signing an AR. If you travel, you probably don't know any of the DM's, and are pretty unlikely to contact them ever again (or at least until your return trip a year later, and only if you're lucky). So you get an uneven situation of appeals, where homegames and situations where you know the GM gives you an advantage over situations where you travel and play at conventions in terms of how long you have to make the appeal. I think this is a really important point. If you empowered Judges to change rulings like this after the session ends, it gives a distinct advantage to home play and game days where the players and Judge know one another, and a distinct disadvantage to those who play at larger game days and conventions, where the Judge and players don't know one another, and may frequently have no way to get in touch with one another after the convention. Delroland, since you're championing this idea, how would you suggest addressing this?
slorak 11-23-05, 10:47 PM	Gee, thanks. And would that be anything like how you cut down what I said? But why not? None of those are caused by the player either. Why should those stands when a death caused by a DM has to be overturned? It is still a character death isn't it? Why draw a line? I am sure there are people just as upset about such character deaths, why can't we take care of them too? I mean all the effort the campaign staff puts into developing a plot line that can be turned on its head by some loan player decision during a premiere. The entire plot might need to be rewritten because of that. I am quite aware of what you were commenting on. The problem is that despite your belief that such is the attitude, the fact is that it is not. Several people have noted that they have dealt with such DM errors and just let them go, but none have demanded that anyone "suffer" along with them. You read that into people's posts solely on your own. Character deaths caused by that can be overturned. Perhaps you missed it, but I gave an example where a character death I caused by an error was overturned. But there is a time limit on such corrections. Or were you not aware of that? So you still need to narrow it down even more, or at least clarify. Do you think character deaths caused by DMs should be open to appeals and overturning on some unspecified time limit that is not before a table ends? And if so, why do you feel the current rule is not enough beyond just "character deaths are bad"? (You can address whether players should be able to rant about being told the rules by Triad members, or whether they should call WotC Customer Service for RPGA questions, or whether they should try "appealing" to a message board, which were all raised in the initial post as well if you like, but you don't have to.) Yawn. You win. You have over talked my interest in this subject. Cheers, -Mike
RLWilde 11-23-05, 11:50 PM	or whether you want to argue semantics because your little mind cannot fathom a counterpoint to the points that have been brought up, and now not just by myself. Nice summary of your argument... But, let's forget your writings for a moment and assume that you're a reasonable human being. What changes, precisely, are you proposing be made to the campaign?
delroland 11-24-05, 02:12 AM	What changes, precisely, are you proposing be made to the campaign? Simply that GM's be given the authority to overturn their own mistakes that result in character death by reissuing the AR directly and informing the Senior GM of the changes made and why. As far as a timeframe goes, I have suggested eight days, as that is the current time limit to submit table results to the RPGA, though this was an arbitrary suggestion on my part. In other words, I suggest GM's be allowed to do the same thing in LG they can do in any other RPGA campaign, in regards to the above.
delroland 11-24-05, 02:19 AM	Nice summary of your argument... But, let's forget your writings for a moment and assume that you're a reasonable human being. Nice thinly-veiled insult. If you want me to be civil towards you, I expect the same in return. Your first post was: I think the solution you're looking for is to run a home campaign rather than LG... that way you're able to address any situations as you see fit, rather than how someone else calls it. essentially suggesting that if I don't like it, I should quit, and it was rude and inane, not to mention off-topic. "But let's forget your writings for a moment and assume that you're a decent human being."
King Kashue 11-24-05, 02:27 AM	Simply that GM's be given the authority to overturn their own mistakes that result in character death by reissuing the AR directly and informing the Senior GM of the changes made and why. As far as a timeframe goes, I have suggested eight days, as that is the current time limit to submit table results to the RPGA, though this was an arbitrary suggestion on my part. In other words, I suggest GM's be allowed to do the same thing in LG they can do in any other RPGA campaign, in regards to the above. You still fail to provide a feasable mechanism by which a judge would do this, as well as an explanation as to why the potential problems (favoritism, players pressuring DMs, etc.) will not be serious... Those problems are the reason the rule exists, and if your suggestion is to be taken as a legitimate alternative, you really need to explain how those concerns are addressed in your idea (and merely saying "these aren't really issues" does not suffice, since the campaign leadership feels they are real issues)...
kenobi65 11-24-05, 11:40 AM	You still fail to provide a feasable mechanism by which a judge would do this, as well as an explanation as to why the potential problems (favoritism, players pressuring DMs, etc.) will not be serious... Nor have you indicated how you'd propose handling this in the case of a large convention. If I'm Judging LG at a home game, or even a game day at my local game store, and I realize, say, two days later that I've made a horrid mistake, and killed a PC that shouldn't have been killed (as in your example, say, by running the monsters at the wrong APL), it's easy enough to print a new AR and get it to the affected player -- because I know him, or can (probably) easily get in touch with him. But, if, let's say, I'm Judging at GenCon Indy, and the exact same thing happens, and I don't realize it until I'm back home...even if I *can* contact the Senior GM about the issue, it's going to be virtually impossible for me to get that corrected AR to the affected player. I *might* remember (or have written down) his name....I likely don't have his RPGA number, and I undoubtedly don't have any pertinent contact information for him.
delroland 11-24-05, 03:25 PM	Nor have you indicated how you'd propose handling this in the case of a large convention. If I'm Judging LG at a home game, or even a game day at my local game store, and I realize, say, two days later that I've made a horrid mistake, and killed a PC that shouldn't have been killed (as in your example, say, by running the monsters at the wrong APL), it's easy enough to print a new AR and get it to the affected player -- because I know him, or can (probably) easily get in touch with him. But, if, let's say, I'm Judging at GenCon Indy, and the exact same thing happens, and I don't realize it until I'm back home...even if I *can* contact the Senior GM about the issue, it's going to be virtually impossible for me to get that corrected AR to the affected player. I *might* remember (or have written down) his name....I likely don't have his RPGA number, and I undoubtedly don't have any pertinent contact information for him. But it would still be the right thing to do to at least try. What if the opposite happened? What if you mistakenly allowed the player to, say, craft a Holy Avenger? How would you fix that mistake? If you can find a way to fix that (which I think you would), then you could find a way to correct a mistaken character death.
delroland 11-24-05, 03:29 PM	You still fail to provide a feasable mechanism by which a judge would do this, as well as an explanation as to why the potential problems (favoritism, players pressuring DMs, etc.) will not be serious... Those problems are the reason the rule exists, and if your suggestion is to be taken as a legitimate alternative, you really need to explain how those concerns are addressed in your idea (and merely saying "these aren't really issues" does not suffice, since the campaign leadership feels they are real issues)... I have provided a feasible mechanism in my previous post. Simply that GM's be given the authority to overturn their own mistakes that result in character death by reissuing the AR directly and informing the Senior GM of the changes made and why. As far as a timeframe goes, I have suggested eight days, as that is the current time limit to submit table results to the RPGA, though this was an arbitrary suggestion on my part. For cons, the Senior GM generally has access to the registration information of the attendees, and could mail the corrected AR directly to the player. I will address how this change would not create any serious problems tomorrow, as I do not have the time now.
kenobi65 11-24-05, 03:30 PM	But it would still be the right thing to do to at least try. I'm not saying it is, or isn't, the right thing to do. The issue is that, if you make a change to the rules (as you're proposing), said change needs to be able to be applied evenly and fairly across all types of LG play, be it a home game with 6 other people you know very well, or at a big con with 6 other people you've never met before, and will never see again. If you want to make this change, you need to figure out how to make that happen.
kenobi65 11-24-05, 03:32 PM	For cons, the Senior GM generally has access to the registration information of the attendees, and could mail the corrected AR directly to the player. Are you sure about that? If Wavester sees this, he should weigh in, since he's been acting as the RPGA's senior GM at most of the big cons. I *think* (though I'm not absolutely positive) that all the RPGA collects at any particular table is the names and RPGA numbers. Those names may, or may not, have accurate, current e-mail addresses attached to them in the RPGA database. Unless it's a convention that the RPGA itself directly runs (i.e., Winter Fantasy), the actual convention registration (which might have more detailed contact information for the player) is handled by a completely different group of people, and the RPGA doesn't directly have access to it. You're also depending on a Judge, who might have run 10 tables at the con, remembering the name of the player whose PC he accidentally killed some days later.
Samwise 11-24-05, 07:24 PM	Simply that GM's be given the authority to overturn their own mistakes that result in character death by reissuing the AR directly and informing the Senior GM of the changes made and why. As far as a timeframe goes, I have suggested eight days, as that is the current time limit to submit table results to the RPGA, though this was an arbitrary suggestion on my part. In other words, I suggest GM's be allowed to do the same thing in LG they can do in any other RPGA campaign, in regards to the above. But that isn't what you are suggesting. There is nothing in the general rules that allows a character death to be appealed or overruled. You want to create an entire new rule to cover such. There is a rule covering appealing a Session GMs ruling to the Senior or Appeals GM for an event, but that is it. A character death is not actually a Session GMs ruling, but a simple game effect. So all that can be appealed is an incorrect application of the rules, and not the actual death except as it relates to the incorrect rules interpretation. And since a Senior or Appeals GM position ends when the event ends, there is no inferred time limit of eight days for such appeals. Stop trying to make up campaign rules and insist they be applied.
King Kashue 11-25-05, 12:12 AM	I have provided a feasible mechanism in my previous post. You really don't...A DM notices his mistake a few days after an event, he needs the contact info of the player & he needs to physically get a new AR to the player...Neither of those is a given in anything but a home game... The mechanism you're suggesting is likely to be unbalanced in favor of home games...Exactly how is the rule to be evenly applied when it's "your friend jimmy" for a game you played at your place thursday night vs. one of 42 players you judged at GenCon indy, who is among 500 who played that con it total?
Rannicarr 11-25-05, 02:37 AM	I haven't read the entire thread but the gist of the arguments haven't changed from the first and second pages to this last one, so I'm going to assume there hasn't been a lot of anything added to the argument from either side. (yeah yeah assumptions are bad but whatever) I'm going to address what I've seen. But why not? None of those are caused by the player either. Why should those stands when a death caused by a DM has to be overturned? It is still a character death isn't it? Why draw a line? I am sure there are people just as upset about such character deaths, why can't we take care of them too? Are you equating a death due to a bad roll, or a bad tactic to a GM mistake? Why draw the line? Well let me ask you if it was handled "at the table" would those two instances be legally reversable causes by the GM? Why draw the line? That argument has absolutely zero to do with the OP's rule problem. No the OPs arguments haven't necisarily been the best either, but by touting your ex-triad status you're trying to establish a certain authority, but if I'm going to recognize that authority I'm going to hold you to a higher standard for arguing as well. Now a couple problems I've seen. That rule doesn't prevent favoritism, the recommended "solution" was for the GM to cheat and contact the player privately and change his AR under the table. The worse part was that some of those that were recognized as authorative actually agreed that this is what the OP should have done. If it is so easy to alter AR records, then those GMs that want to provide favoritism can easily do it via the same method as described as the solution to the OPs problem. Why is it that the seemingly fairest solution to the problem is done via cheating while trying to go through the proper channels punishes the player whos GM made a mistake. Why was this cheating encouraged by people who are in(or at least were in) the authority? They would rather that GMs cheat rather than make a ruling in a case where the intent of the rule was no where near the enforcement of it. For Reference: ... As for your specific issue, you could have easily corrected your mistake by contacting the player directly...While against the rules, you had an option to deal with the issue without involving anyone else...That you did no do so is your error, not the fault of those who are enforcing the rules as written... ... Indeed, very well said King Kashue. And very well phrased as well. ;) Now, you may have been agreeing with the rest of his post, but that quote seems like an endorsement of his entire post. It seems to me that most things that go in a session should be resolved "at the table". However, I believe permanent character death should allow for an appeal. If its appealed at the event then the judgement made at the event should be final, if the mistake wasn't recognized until after the event, if no prior appeal was made I believe an appeal should be allowed. I find its against the spirit of D&D that new players are penalized because they don't have enough experience to recognize a higher level CR encounter. Why do players have to be rules lawyers to have a shot to not be screwed over? You can't prevent a GM from favoritism if he is intent to do it. If a GM wanted to he could make an event for his 4-6 friends every week that runs 2 adventures each and just fill out the ARs for them and say congratulations you guys got a level and every favor allowed by the adventure CR you "ran" the adventure at. So rather than just saying the current rule sucks with no solution I would like it to be this. If you have a problem with the way an adventure is run short of character death it must be taken care of "at the table" IE the same as it is now. In the case of character death, you have one and only one appeal, this can be done at the table or afterwards. However you cannot appeal after you the player have run another RPGA adventure in the same campaign, or after one day, which ever is longer. So, you get one appeal, if the player doesn't recognize the error until later(say he's at a con and wants to enjoy a day of gaming so he doesn't review the module, or in the case of the GM error if he doesn't review his games until the end of the day after the days sessions are done) he can play that day's sessions with no penalty, however if he plays another session on the next day(I made it this way since ARs are recorded by date and not time stamped so there's not a paper trail as to WHEN his character death session occured) then his chance to appeal is up. If he doesn't play another session the next day, then he has until he does. Once you've played another session after the day of the occurance then you conceed your ability to appeal. This prevents people from bringing characters back from the dead after an inordinate amount of time. I would also hope that the added appeal work wouldn't be inordinate as I do appreciate the fact that the people who are going to be reviewing these appeals are volunteers. I don't believe anyone is especially unsympathetic to your plight OP, but ranting and railling don't do anything but put people's backs up, in which case your chances of people giving a damn about you in particular significantly decreases. To the triad members, ex-triad members, would my proposal add such significant work that you would be put off from holding your positions? I don't believe it provides any more leeway to cheat than the current rule.
Samwise 11-25-05, 01:01 PM	Are you equating a death due to a bad roll, or a bad tactic to a GM mistake? Why draw the line? Well let me ask you if it was handled "at the table" would those two instances be legally reversable causes by the GM? Why draw the line? That argument has absolutely zero to do with the OP's rule problem. No the OPs arguments haven't necisarily been the best either, but by touting your ex-triad status you're trying to establish a certain authority, but if I'm going to recognize that authority I'm going to hold you to a higher standard for arguing as well. The reason it is relevant is that once you open the door to appeals of this sort people will start requesting them on any basis. And while the bad die roll one will likely be swiftly relegated to the "Who needs a good laugh?" folder, the bad tactics one won't. I've had to run several events where characters died solely because of the poor tactical choices of other players, and had bad experiences with the "role-playing" choices in others. I consider those deaths to have been much more deserving of reversal than some caused by some alleged DM error, but had to let them pass. That rule doesn't prevent favoritism, the recommended "solution" was for the GM to cheat and contact the player privately and change his AR under the table. The worse part was that some of those that were recognized as authorative actually agreed that this is what the OP should have done. No, the recommended solution was to not make such mistakes in the first place. The next best solution was to catch them before ending the table. The last best solution was to not publicly ask for permission to break the rules. This may seem like semantics, but it is a very critical difference. As I said, barring restricting game play to conventions with characters controlled by databases like those used in the D&D Campaigns, there is pretty much no way to control rules violations, whether it be blatant cheating on the level of just filling out ARs for multiple characters to be used in widely separate locations, to random character rewrites when a new accessory becomes legal, to any of the other ridiculous things people like to indulge in, or whether it is something within the spirit of trying to make the game and campaign fun, like transferring critical hits to a player who volunteers to take one to save another character, or trying to correct a character death caused by a mistake after the fact. But even though everyone "knows" such is going on, to give some sort of official sanction to it is to completely undermine both the rules and any authority to enforce the rules. Just look at how you are reacting to indirect suggestions to do such. How would you expect to legitimately keep someone from blatant cheating during a sessions after casually sanctioning "bending" the rules elsewhere? Now, you may have been agreeing with the rest of his post, but that quote seems like an endorsement of his entire post. Perhaps. But you clipped way too much of his post for the context to be intact. It seems to me that most things that go in a session should be resolved "at the table". However, I believe permanent character death should allow for an appeal. If its appealed at the event then the judgement made at the event should be final, if the mistake wasn't recognized until after the event, if no prior appeal was made I believe an appeal should be allowed. Believing that is nice. Almost everyone who supports the current rule believes that too. But they also recognize that is impossible to have such appeals be set up in such a way as to be timely, reasonably reviewed, and equally accessible. No fair methods that addresses all of those has yet been proposed, nor do you offer any either. I find its against the spirit of D&D that new players are penalized because they don't have enough experience to recognize a higher level CR encounter. Why do players have to be rules lawyers to have a shot to not be screwed over? Actually the rule keeps rules lawyers from having a shot to screw everyone else over. In the case of character death, you have one and only one appeal, this can be done at the table or afterwards. However you cannot appeal after you the player have run another RPGA adventure in the same campaign, or after one day, which ever is longer. In what way is this fair to people attending big conventions who are looking to play 10 sessions in a weekend? They are to be forced to track down a copy of an adventure, read it thoroughly, compare it to their experience, find the Appeals GM, find the Session GM, and get it all taken care of in the one hour between events. Once you've played another session after the day of the occurance then you conceed your ability to appeal. This prevents people from bringing characters back from the dead after an inordinate amount of time. I would also hope that the added appeal work wouldn't be inordinate as I do appreciate the fact that the people who are going to be reviewing these appeals are volunteers. Define "inordinate". I know people who still have active characters nowhere close to retirement who still roll for their argentvorax trade. They use a particular character maybe 3-4 times per year. Do you really think three months between playing an adventure and appealing the results is reasonable? To the triad members, ex-triad members, would my proposal add such significant work that you would be put off from holding your positions? Well I obviously have no problem telling someone "No" without hesitation. However I know lots of Triad members who leave because of burnout over dealing with players over complaints of just about anything. Most people crazy enough to step up really don't appreciate just how wearing it can be until they start to deal with it, so asking those who have done or are doing it isn't really relevant.
Rannicarr 11-25-05, 02:27 PM	The reason it is relevant is that once you open the door to appeals of this sort people will start requesting them on any basis. And while the bad die roll one will likely be swiftly relegated to the "Who needs a good laugh?" folder, the bad tactics one won't. I've had to run several events where characters died solely because of the poor tactical choices of other players, and had bad experiences with the "role-playing" choices in others. I consider those deaths to have been much more deserving of reversal than some caused by some alleged DM error, but had to let them pass. How is this opening the door to appeals of this "type" the type of appeal hasn't changed the only thing that is in question is the time period. Everything you said applies to the rule as it is written now. No, the recommended solution was to not make such mistakes in the first place. You can't have a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, the rule doesn't cover a non-event even as it is written now. This is just another shot at the OP, whom you aren't currently adressing. The next best solution was to catch them before ending the table. agreed, but to do that you would have to be familliar enough with the rules to catch it. If the GM was doing it in a malevolent manner do you think someone would catch a CR4 monster in a CR2 module that is thrown in in addition to the rest of the encounters, bringing the average EL up, but still being a seemingly plausible(and legal) monster, would most people catch it with zero review? The last best solution was to not publicly ask for permission to break the rules. In other words to cheat, so we have the rule as it stands now because? This may seem like semantics, but it is a very critical difference. It does, and I'm not seeing the "critical" difference. All you've done was given a non event, restated the rule as it stands, and suggested cheating. As I said, barring restricting game play to conventions with characters controlled by databases like those used in the D&D Campaigns, there is pretty much no way to control rules violations, whether it be blatant cheating on the level of just filling out ARs for multiple characters to be used in widely separate locations, to random character rewrites when a new accessory becomes legal, to any of the other ridiculous things people like to indulge in, or whether it is something within the spirit of trying to make the game and campaign fun, like transferring critical hits to a player who volunteers to take one to save another character, or trying to correct a character death caused by a mistake after the fact. agreed. But even though everyone "knows" such is going on, to give some sort of official sanction to it is to completely undermine both the rules and any authority to enforce the rules. Just look at how you are reacting to indirect suggestions to do such. How would you expect to legitimately keep someone from blatant cheating during a sessions after casually sanctioning "bending" the rules elsewhere? I'm not suggesting sanctioning the undermining of the rules. I'm suggesting changing the rule. Perhaps. But you clipped way too much of his post for the context to be intact. The rest of the context didn't involve cheating, and thus your endorsement of them wouldn't prove a problem. There was no other context to his suggestion of cheating, I included it in its entirety. Believing that is nice. Almost everyone who supports the current rule believes that too. But they also recognize that is impossible to have such appeals be set up in such a way as to be timely, reasonably reviewed, and equally accessible. No fair methods that addresses all of those has yet been proposed, nor do you offer any either. Not having a solution doesn't mean you should stop looking for one, or assume that its impossible to have a rule that while not perfect is at least better than the current rule. I'm not suggesting that my rule is better, it was just an attempt to get discussion away from the infraction and toward brainstorming a better rule. Actually the rule keeps rules lawyers from having a shot to screw everyone else over. Howso? In what way is this fair to people attending big conventions who are looking to play 10 sessions in a weekend? They are to be forced to track down a copy of an adventure, read it thoroughly, compare it to their experience, find the Appeals GM, find the Session GM, and get it all taken care of in the one hour between events. Define "inordinate". I know people who still have active characters nowhere close to retirement who still roll for their argentvorax trade. They use a particular character maybe 3-4 times per year. Do you really think three months between playing an adventure and appealing the results is reasonable? meh, so you could limit it to a max of a week or some other apropriate time period, I don't know that over a week is necisary, and the person trying to jam as much playing as possible in a weekend is the reason I put the one day caveat in in the first place. But you could make it 2 days if you really wanted to, I just thought that if the incident happened on the first day of a con, it'd be better to resolve it at the con with all the participants there. We're talking character death only here, if someone cares that much about their character, they will review the module in a timely manner, if they dont then I don't have that much sympathy for them. I do have sympathy for someone who doesn't get ANY time to review the module. Well I obviously have no problem telling someone "No" without hesitation. However I know lots of Triad members who leave because of burnout over dealing with players over complaints of just about anything. Most people crazy enough to step up really don't appreciate just how wearing it can be until they start to deal with it, so asking those who have done or are doing it isn't really relevant. Huh? Not relevant? Since they would be the ones getting the additional work load how is it not relevant? Just because they may not know exactly what they are getting into until they do doesn't mean that they don't understand their situation once they are. However, you seem to feel that the current rule is perfect, or at least as the best rule that could exist. I've given my idea, and allow for the fact that its not perfect, and can and should be debated, and changed. But not allowing any alternatives to even be considered bars any actual discussion. Since both sides seem to opposed to actual debate I will bow out of the thread.
RLWilde 11-25-05, 02:51 PM	Simply that GM's be given the authority to overturn their own mistakes that result in character death by reissuing the AR directly and informing the Senior GM of the changes made and why. What appeals mechanism are you proposing for instances where a GM does not initiate this action? Or is this meant to primarily be of benefit to players at game days/ home games with friends judging? Would any other circumstances (other than character death) qualify for a GM to unilaterally reissue an A.R.? For example, a GM incorrectly marked a favor or rare item access as not being received or miscalculated experience or treasure received. What about if a GM makes an error and runs an encounter at too LOW of an APL?
Samwise 11-25-05, 03:01 PM	How is this opening the door to appeals of this "type" the type of appeal hasn't changed the only thing that is in question is the time period. Everything you said applies to the rule as it is written now. Well the rule as it currently reads doesn't allow for any appeals because of DM discovered error after the fact, but that is what started this whole thread. How is the door open for that? You can't have a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, the rule doesn't cover a non-event even as it is written now. This is just another shot at the OP, whom you aren't currently adressing. Unless the rule covers a problem that did exist and that has been eliminated. (Or at least heavily reduced.) And this is not a shot at anyone. It is merely pointing out that your analysis was incomplete. agreed, but to do that you would have to be familliar enough with the rules to catch it. If the GM was doing it in a malevolent manner do you think someone would catch a CR4 monster in a CR2 module that is thrown in in addition to the rest of the encounters, bringing the average EL up, but still being a seemingly plausible(and legal) monster, would most people catch it with zero review? Well, seeing as how I played in two events where the DM did it because that is how the adventure was written and people noticed it, I would have to say the answer is yes. People will notice when an encounter is over EL. Whether they will know all the details, particularly situational modifiers, is pretty much impossible without active review. But they will note if the critters are overpowered. In other words to cheat, so we have the rule as it stands now because? Yes, to cheat. And we need the rule as it stands now because without it players will harass DMs and campaign officials endlessly to have any negative effect overruled, be it a character death, a curse, or even loss of item access. It does, and I'm not seeing the "critical" difference. All you've done was given a non event, restated the rule as it stands, and suggested cheating. No, I've suggested not cheating openly, or asking for official permission to cheat. I can't explain it any more simply if you still can't see the difference. I'm not suggesting sanctioning the undermining of the rules. I'm suggesting changing the rule. I am aware of that. I take it you are aware that the thread was started by someone upset that his request for a sanctioning of the undermining of the rules was refused. As for changing the rules, the problems with that have been noted. Not having a solution doesn't mean you should stop looking for one, or assume that its impossible to have a rule that while not perfect is at least better than the current rule. I'm not suggesting that my rule is better, it was just an attempt to get discussion away from the infraction and toward brainstorming a better rule. Of course that assumes the people who made the rule didn't do just that. And that some other group is going to be have more success by default. Howso? Actually I should note that it prevents Rules Weasels from taking advantage of the rules. Rules Lawyers are actually a reasonable and useful part of the campaign structure. A Rules Weasel operates on the principle of "It doesn't say I can't." If you don't write the rules so precisely as to allow absolutely no leeway for consideration, the Rules Weasel immediately seizes on anything as an excuse. The Rules Weasel thrives on what is there, what is not there, and what can be "conveniently" ignored for the moment. That is why part of the rules cover misrepresenting RPGA rules. You must not only know the rules, you must not try and twist them to serve some end. The rule on character death appeals is simple, direct, and absolute. It must be resolved at the table. No exceptions. No explanations. No circumstances. Once the table ends, it doesn't matter. There is no way a Rules Lawyer can work around that. There is no way to stop a Rules Weasel from trying to pretend it doesn't exist. The Rules Lawyer thus doesn't bother, while the Rules Weasel is shot down immediately. meh, so you could limit it to a max of a week or some other apropriate time period, I don't know that over a week is necisary, and the person trying to jam as much playing as possible in a weekend is the reason I put the one day caveat in in the first place. But you could make it 2 days if you really wanted to, I just thought that if the incident happened on the first day of a con, it'd be better to resolve it at the con with all the participants there. We're talking character death only here, if someone cares that much about their character, they will review the module in a timely manner, if they dont then I don't have that much sympathy for them. I do have sympathy for someone who doesn't get ANY time to review the module. And it is even better to resolve it at the table with all the participants already gathered. And the requirements for gaining access to an adventure are such that nobody can reasonably review in anything less than a week. They have to set up an event, order the adventure, download it, and read it. And they need to set the event up in good faith, and not just to gain access to the adventure. It is also a violation to just casually pass the adventure to someone so he can check that the DM ran it properly. That is not proper distribution of an RPGA adventure. Huh? Not relevant? Since they would be the ones getting the additional work load how is it not relevant? Just because they may not know exactly what they are getting into until they do doesn't mean that they don't understand their situation once they are. Because most people who sign on to be Triad members won't just cut and run a month or two into it when they realize how difficult things are. Current Triad members already know the rate they are burning out. Former Triad members already did burn out or quit for other reasons. So asking them how this "change" would affect how long they stay is pretty much irrelevant. It won't. However, you seem to feel that the current rule is perfect, or at least as the best rule that could exist. I've given my idea, and allow for the fact that its not perfect, and can and should be debated, and changed. But not allowing any alternatives to even be considered bars any actual discussion. Since both sides seem to opposed to actual debate I will bow out of the thread. Debate involves presenting positions, supporting, and defending them. If you are unwilling to defend your position there can in fact be no debate. Offer your alternatives, but be prepared for the flaws in them to be pointed out. If you don't want to hear any support of the current rule then in fact it is you who are not allowing any alternatives. I have been willing to defend my support of the current rule. What I have not been willing to entertain are casual insults directed at the campaign staff, other than myself, both current and past. I hardly consider that overly "restrictive" of open discussion and debate.
Rannicarr 11-25-05, 04:05 PM	Well then, on with the debate. Well the rule as it currently reads doesn't allow for any appeals because of DM discovered error after the fact, but that is what started this whole thread. How is the door open for that? Right, but it allows for the GM to correct his mistake "at the table" which as your wording points out, isn't an appeal, just a correction. So does the appeal rule for "at the table" apply? If it does then is it just a semantic difference? And if so then wouldn't the actual difference still only be the time period in which the change could be made? Unless the rule covers a problem that did exist and that has been eliminated. (Or at least heavily reduced.) And this is not a shot at anyone. It is merely pointing out that your analysis was incomplete. Right but the rule does not cover the event of no problem to begin with IE not making the mistake in the first place. Its superfluous, has no bearing on the argument and I will drop it to try to focus the arguments more from here on out. Well, seeing as how I played in two events where the DM did it because that is how the adventure was written and people noticed it, I would have to say the answer is yes. People will notice when an encounter is over EL. Whether they will know all the details, particularly situational modifiers, is pretty much impossible without active review. But they will note if the critters are overpowered. If its obvious yes, but I don't think someone not familiar with the rules is going to notice that instead of 4 encounters of 1 CR2 monsters they got 2 encounters of 1 CR 2 monsters, 1 encounter of 2 CR1 monsters and 1 encounter of 1 CR 3 monsters which is .5 CR over. Just enought for the DM to kill off the character of the player he doesn't like but not high enough for a tpk. Some players may realize it, but they have to be familiar with the CR of the monsters they're running into, or the CR value of a trap, its not something that's obvious for new players or someone who's never DMd. Yes, to cheat. And we need the rule as it stands now because without it players will harass DMs and campaign officials endlessly to have any negative effect overruled, be it a character death, a curse, or even loss of item access. And this will happen anyway, as its possible to change the AR prior to submitting it as you've said. No, I've suggested not cheating openly, or asking for official permission to cheat. I can't explain it any more simply if you still can't see the difference. He went through proper channels, and was given his ruling, he didn't like the ruling, but he got a ruling, he didn't ask for them to cheat, he had obvious problems with the rule as its written and thinks it doesn't apply to the situation at hand. I'm not arguing that an official should cheat, I'm arguing that having no recourse other than to cheat for the situation presented is in my opinion not acceptable. Thus I'm arguing for a rule change. I am aware of that. I take it you are aware that the thread was started by someone upset that his request for a sanctioning of the undermining of the rules was refused. As for changing the rules, the problems with that have been noted. I am aware what started the thread. It may have been in the part of the thread I skipped, if you could link me or tell me what page to read where the problems of changing rules are noted so I can form an opinion on it, I'd appreciate it. Of course that assumes the people who made the rule didn't do just that. And that some other group is going to be have more success by default. I'm not suggesting that the people who made the rule didn't think of it, but time goes by, more data is collected, problems that may not have been obvious at the time arise. Actually I should note that it prevents Rules Weasels from taking advantage of the rules. Rules Lawyers are actually a reasonable and useful part of the campaign structure. A Rules Weasel operates on the principle of "It doesn't say I can't." If you don't write the rules so precisely as to allow absolutely no leeway for consideration, the Rules Weasel immediately seizes on anything as an excuse. The Rules Weasel thrives on what is there, what is not there, and what can be "conveniently" ignored for the moment. That is why part of the rules cover misrepresenting RPGA rules. You must not only know the rules, you must not try and twist them to serve some end. The rule on character death appeals is simple, direct, and absolute. It must be resolved at the table. No exceptions. No explanations. No circumstances. Once the table ends, it doesn't matter. There is no way a Rules Lawyer can work around that. There is no way to stop a Rules Weasel from trying to pretend it doesn't exist. The Rules Lawyer thus doesn't bother, while the Rules Weasel is shot down immediately. I'm not talking about rules weasels, I'm talking about rules lawyers, people intimately familiar with the rules, enough to recognize that something about how the adventure was run was wrong(even if done subtlely). The rules lawyer has a chance to recognize it at the table, the new player doesn't have a prayer. And it is even better to resolve it at the table with all the participants already gathered. I agree, but that's not always practical. And the requirements for gaining access to an adventure are such that nobody can reasonably review in anything less than a week. They have to set up an event, order the adventure, download it, and read it. And they need to set the event up in good faith, and not just to gain access to the adventure. It is also a violation to just casually pass the adventure to someone so he can check that the DM ran it properly. That is not proper distribution of an RPGA adventure. What does prep time have to do with the argument? Are you suggesting that this is the case for reviewing the adventure in regard to an appeal? If so, if you can't review it in anything less than a week, how can you possibly review it "at the table"? Because most people who sign on to be Triad members won't just cut and run a month or two into it when they realize how difficult things are. Current Triad members already know the rate they are burning out. Former Triad members already did burn out or quit for other reasons. So asking them how this "change" would affect how long they stay is pretty much irrelevant. It won't. Great then no matter how much we add we won't have to worry about it, cause everyone's gonna burn out the same time no matter what! Somehow I don't think that's accurate. Debate involves presenting positions, supporting, and defending them. If you are unwilling to defend your position there can in fact be no debate. Offer your alternatives, but be prepared for the flaws in them to be pointed out. If you don't want to hear any support of the current rule then in fact it is you who are not allowing any alternatives. I have been willing to defend my support of the current rule. What I have not been willing to entertain are casual insults directed at the campaign staff, other than myself, both current and past. I hardly consider that overly "restrictive" of open discussion and debate. I've offered my alternatives, but since you are the only one responding to them, and you seem to feel the current rules are the way they should be, and refuse to consider my alternative, how would I continue a discussion, we would just agree to disagree and part our ways. I wouldn't mind hearing support for the current rule, something other than, "thats how it is" would be required however. The only other thing I've seen that could be considered a supporting argument for the status quo is that the only time you could have sufficient evidence of a mistake/appealable death is "at the table". That's simply not the case, and I wouldn't have any problem with someone throwing an appeal out on grounds of insufficient evidence, but that judgement would be better served by the Sr. GM than by the clock.
CdrcJsn 11-25-05, 04:48 PM	A better way to resolve the problems with the deaths resolved at the table rule is to encourage that players and judges take a 5 minute break every time a PC is killed to make sure that the rules were followed and that the encounter was ran as written. If a judge made a mistake, it will be caught. If a quick reread of the mod doesn't catch the mistake, it's unlikely that a greater amount of time will. This won't add any paper work to the administration of the campaign. If the cause was a vindictive judge, then having a longer review time won't help anyways. Again, to reiterate, the only time that the deaths must be resolved at the table rule hurts players is : 1) When it was a Judge mistake and wasn't noticed by anyone or the judge was vindictive and out to get the players. 2) The Players don't know about the appeals process 3) The Players are unaware of the deaths must be resolved at the table rule This is solved by making sure everyone knows about the rule and appeals process and making sure that judges take a quick break to make sure they didn't make any mistakes when a death occurs. I've organized over a dozen conventions and game days in the Pale. This is less of a problem than it seems. It just doesn't happen that often. Cedric Atizado
Rannicarr 11-25-05, 07:06 PM	A five minute break sounds reasonable, if the player still believes a mistake was made he can appeal to the senior GM at that time. The thing I would add is if the GM fails to announce the option to the player, then what? I play at a small college and in our very small con (doesn't even qualify as a con according to RPGA standards just a large game day) we had probably 10 first timers playing who wouldn't know any of the rules, I would suggest the burden of announcing the option for review to the player be put on the GM. The Sr. GM should probably run down rules before the sessions anyway it might prevent some common behavioral problems, and eliminate problems 2 and 3 you listed. I really don't see the malevolent GM as a common problem in any way, and this would definately help prevent the GM error. I think adding something as simple as this could help a lot. By the way speaking of Sr. GM should probably go through rules pre-session, is there any RPGA published guidelines/rules for running an event? Not just the rules governing the event, but good guidelines for the actual running of the event. If not maybe the people here who have a lot of experience running them could come up with a list of guidelines to keep things running smoothly. Yeah I know WAY off topic there :D
Samwise 11-25-05, 08:27 PM	Right, but it allows for the GM to correct his mistake "at the table" which as your wording points out, isn't an appeal, just a correction. So does the appeal rule for "at the table" apply? If it does then is it just a semantic difference? And if so then wouldn't the actual difference still only be the time period in which the change could be made? If the Session GM corrects an error it is a correction. If the Senior or Appeals GM must correct an actual error, then it is an appeal. That is the technical difference. And no, the actual difference is not just the time period, but the availability of all the parties involved, and the freshness of their memories. Right but the rule does not cover the event of no problem to begin with IE not making the mistake in the first place. Its superfluous, has no bearing on the argument and I will drop it to try to focus the arguments more from here on out. Well actually, the rules do cover it. They direct DMs to be prepared. If its obvious yes, but I don't think someone not familiar with the rules is going to notice that instead of 4 encounters of 1 CR2 monsters they got 2 encounters of 1 CR 2 monsters, 1 encounter of 2 CR1 monsters and 1 encounter of 1 CR 3 monsters which is .5 CR over. Just enought for the DM to kill off the character of the player he doesn't like but not high enough for a tpk. Some players may realize it, but they have to be familiar with the CR of the monsters they're running into, or the CR value of a trap, its not something that's obvious for new players or someone who's never DMd. First, CR values on traps are severely low. A truly vicious writer can design a near guaranteed slaughter trap at the APL with little difficulty. Fortunately they have more self respect, and prefer not to associate such things with their events. So the only problem there is people who don't know just how easy it is to do that. As for not being familiar with the rules to the point you suggest, if an entire table is that unaware then nothing will help them. However, you rather significantly underestimate just how much regular players know, and how quickly they pick up on such things. No, a complete newcomer won't catch such things. Someone with half a dozen events played will. And this will happen anyway, as its possible to change the AR prior to submitting it as you've said. So we should get rid of the rule because of that? We can't stop everyone, so we shouldn't bother trying to stop anyone? He went through proper channels, and was given his ruling, he didn't like the ruling, but he got a ruling, he didn't ask for them to cheat, he had obvious problems with the rule as its written and thinks it doesn't apply to the situation at hand. I'm not arguing that an official should cheat, I'm arguing that having no recourse other than to cheat for the situation presented is in my opinion not acceptable. Thus I'm arguing for a rule change. Except the rule does apply to the situation at hand. Anyone can say it doesn't, but that doesn't change that it does. By trying to work around it by some rather extreme leaps of reasoning he was in fact trying to get permission to ignore the rule, which as you noted is in fact cheating. I am aware what started the thread. It may have been in the part of the thread I skipped, if you could link me or tell me what page to read where the problems of changing rules are noted so I can form an opinion on it, I'd appreciate it. It is throughout the thread, and I have stated it regularly. Changing this rule will require too much time from campaign officials, be unable to be implemented fairly,and leave DMs and campaign officials open to harassment, bullying,and favoritism. I'm not suggesting that the people who made the rule didn't think of it, but time goes by, more data is collected, problems that may not have been obvious at the time arise. Which is quite reasonable except it is reviewed regularly. I am pretty sure it came up in the last LGCS discussion, and I wouldn't be surprised if it came up in the next one. Also, although I no longer hear all the complaints, I still hear some of them on the regional list. As such, I expect there are even more that still get submitted privately. And so I doubt there is anything new to indicate there won't be a mass of appeals if such a change is implemented. I'm not talking about rules weasels, I'm talking about rules lawyers, people intimately familiar with the rules, enough to recognize that something about how the adventure was run was wrong(even if done subtlely). The rules lawyer has a chance to recognize it at the table, the new player doesn't have a prayer. I don't think I know any rules lawyers who won't back up another player at a table in such a situation. So at most that means only a table without one will have a problem. And while I would certainly agree that every table should have someone properly equipped to handle such a position, at some point we must accept that every game is going to require a certain proficiency with the rules to be fully playable. However I will note that this directly relates to my scenario of being killed (or suffering some other loss) because of the lack of tactical ability on the part of another player. I am sure we would all agree that it would be wrong to allow one player, no matter how competent or well informed, to direct all of the activity of a table, even in the face of opposition from another player. And yet it may happen that only one player at a table has the ability to direct the action to prevent a character death or worse. "The tactics laywer has a chance to recognize it at the table, the new player doesn't have a prayer." How would you correct for this? I agree, but that's not always practical. Compared to the alternative, resolving it with everyone present is the only practical option. What does prep time have to do with the argument? Are you suggesting that this is the case for reviewing the adventure in regard to an appeal? If so, if you can't review it in anything less than a week, how can you possibly review it "at the table"?[/QUoTE} The player can not review it at thet able. The Senior or Appeals DM can. That is the difference. [QUOTE]Great then no matter how much we add we won't have to worry about it, cause everyone's gonna burn out the same time no matter what! Somehow I don't think that's accurate. Everyone volunteer will burn out as his own pace. That pace may be accelerated by such a change, but no one can possibly know to what extent until it is too late. I've offered my alternatives, but since you are the only one responding to them, and you seem to feel the current rules are the way they should be, and refuse to consider my alternative, how would I continue a discussion, we would just agree to disagree and part our ways. I wouldn't mind hearing support for the current rule, something other than, "thats how it is" would be required however. The only other thing I've seen that could be considered a supporting argument for the status quo is that the only time you could have sufficient evidence of a mistake/appealable death is "at the table". That's simply not the case, and I wouldn't have any problem with someone throwing an appeal out on grounds of insufficient evidence, but that judgement would be better served by the Sr. GM than by the clock. It isn't the case? How many appeals have your overseen? And I, and others, have given a good deal of support for the current rule other than "that's how it is." We've explained the rule, the origin of the rule, and the effects of the alternative you've suggested, which was how the rule was before it was changed. How much more can be offered? Oh, and the rules as stated already note that appeals should only be considered in the most egregious and obvious of situations anyway. And that also supports why they must be limited to the Senior or Appeals GM resolving it at the table.
Samwise 11-25-05, 08:35 PM	A better way to resolve the problems with the deaths resolved at the table rule is to encourage that players and judges take a 5 minute break every time a PC is killed to make sure that the rules were followed and that the encounter was ran as written. If a judge made a mistake, it will be caught. If a quick reread of the mod doesn't catch the mistake, it's unlikely that a greater amount of time will. This won't add any paper work to the administration of the campaign. If the cause was a vindictive judge, then having a longer review time won't help anyways. That is, to me, both reasonable and well reasoned. And I would certainly support adding it the rules as an element of standard procedure. And I think the point Rannicarr raised in regards to the obligation of the Session GM to note the rule for the players, or the Senior GM to make a general announcement of the proper procedure could be added as well.
delroland 11-26-05, 09:24 PM	... I have been quite busy the last few days, and since then, you have posted a lot; rather than reply to everything you said, are there any specific issues you would like to hear my opinion on? Just an FYI, as I noted in my original post, when I and my Triad member first disagreed, and it looked like he was unwilling to discuss the issue or deal with it in a timely manner, I went to the RPGA main website and used the "Ask A Question" link under the "Contact the RPGA" tab. This forwarded my question to WotC Customer Service, who got back to me in less than 24 hours. My question: On 10/24/05, I was the session GM for a Living Greyhawk module. In the last combat encounter of the module, I made a mistake and added one extra monster to the encounter, which directly resulted in a PC's death. Unfortunately, by the time I had realized the mistake, I was already home, and the session was over. According to the RPGA General Rules, the Senior GM can overturn the ruling of a session GM, especially when there is a good reason for it (like a GM making a mistake, which is the case here). My question is this: can I, as the session GM, fix the mistake myself by reissuing the AR's for the mod, or do I need to go through the Senior GM to have the problem fixed? The character in question has not yet been played in another adventure, but our next Game Day is scheduled for 10/31, so I need this issue addressed as soon as possible. Let me also say that I do not feel it would be right to punish the player in question for a mistake I made. The character was brought back to life, but at the cost of a level, which represents months of time investment. I appreciate your time, and I hope for a rapid response. Thank you. Here is their response: Patrick [that's me], As the GM you can correct the mistake by reissuing a new AR. You should also notify the Senior GM that you have done so. Good Gaming! We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire. [This is fluff text, but I left it in for the sake of completeness.] To login to your account, or update your question please click here. Pat H. Customer Service Representative Wizards of the Coast
JohnduBois 11-26-05, 10:34 PM	The "take five minutes" idea is an excellent idea. I would like to point out to everyone, though, that the idea of "take five minutes" does not need to be a rule to be implemented. I use that concept every time I think I kill a PC (only once so far, mainly because when I make a mistake as a GM, it's running combats at too low of an APL). That one time, a PC failed his save against a deadly trap (in that the effect of the trap is "you die") by 1. As I was looking at the module to make sure I missed nothing, I encouraged the player to look through his documents and make sure he missed nothing as well. The player realized that he had just gone from a +1 cloak of resistance to +2 and had not marked it on his character sheet. After looking at the AR, the player was saved, and we got to continue. Implementing personal policies to eliminate the risk of mistaken PC death is, in my mind, essential to good gaming and makes both the players and DM more confident that the module is being run correctly, enhancing fun for all.
CdrcJsn 11-26-05, 11:16 PM	Just an FYI, as I noted in my original post, when I and my Triad member first disagreed, and it looked like he was unwilling to discuss the issue or deal with it in a timely manner, I went to the RPGA main website and used the "Ask A Question" link under the "Contact the RPGA" tab. This forwarded my question to WotC Customer Service, who got back to me in less than 24 hours. And as was stated by that Triad and numerous other people, RPGA HQ has no say on this since the LGCS contains stricter rules than the general RPGA guidelines and apply in this case. If this was another campaign like living arcanis or living kalamar that doesn't have the deaths resolved at table rule, you can indeed follow the suggestions given by RPGA HQ. Also, RPGA HQ is not one of the sanctioned sources of information allowed for rules interpretation in this campaign. Cedric Atizado
JamesMaissen 11-26-05, 11:34 PM	So for sake of arguement let's take a look at your idea, shall we? You suggest that instead of a death needing to be resolved 'at the table' when ARs are signed that there be an 8 day period afterwards to resolve things. So first of all let us take what happened at your table under the current rules and then adjust things a little. You ran a module, made some mistakes, and didn't take the time (as you were 'rushed' and outside factors limited your time) to make sure everything was done right and the death was valid instead of the mistake it was. After the current allotted time period you discovered the mistake and as it was a local game were able to contact the player to inform him of the error in an attempt to arrange for a time to give him a replacement AR. Now lets assume I run a module, and for whatever reasons make a mistake or two that results in a player's character dying when they should not have done so. Assume we don't have the time then to look over things (maybe it's not even brought up) and for whatever reasons (real life, work) I don't notice the error until after the grace period (8 days or whatever you assign to it). This is just as much my error in this case as your error was in yours. Shouldn't I want your rule to be changed to allow me to correct my error that is affecting this poor player? If not, why not? So the first result of this is simply that an arbitrary time limit needs to be in place. Will this be perfectly fair? You certainly do not believe so. Either we accept this and move on, or we do without such a time limit. Doing without one will lead to questions about deaths even years past... that doesn't seem feasible. This leads me to my next question on how this will work. How is this to be handled? How do you get in contact with one another? What if you have trouble doing so, or it doesn't happen at the pace you desire? What if the player and the judge disagree, shouldn't the player be able to appeal to someone else? What if they, too, are wrong can I ask the person 'above' them? How much traffic can I create over this one instance? Assume I'm a stubborn gamer that despite what many established and veteran volunteers tell me, that I hold to my own views with an unwavering belief that I'm right inspite of what they say? But even if you can contact everyone involved and get them to agree in a timely (or not so timely fashion) there's questions of how do you rectify it? What if I've played the character already or even signifigantly since the error? If I'm at a con and think the death was valid I could easily play 8 or more slots that weekend to try to get back all I lost. What if I die again in one of those modules because I was a lower level due to this mistaken death? Can I appeal that as well? What if the appeal was delayed because there was an extended period to have it handled in? (This seems a very reasonable result of this rule's implementation in a time pressured convention setting) I think that trying to handle deaths after the table is done suffers from many problems. First, you have to set an arbitrary time limit and whatever that limit is someone will be on the other side of it. Second, after the table breaks up you have the logistics of getting all the parties together for not only resolving disputes, but for getting the whole story and for having everyone there to be able to resolve it. Third, if time is extended beyond the module to reverse this death then there is a real continuity problem to be handled.. and how can that be done fairly? I frankly don't think it's viable. I do wish that there was some mechanic in place to handle the very abberant case of a judge that's 'out to get players' but in my experience this is such a rarity that a broad rule would not be the best solution thereby. I've played in somewhere of around 500 LG modules all over the country (and Canada) and cannot say that I've directly encountered this... and only heard of a few tales of such ever even occuring. I'll close with one last thought. Suppose there were an 8 day period to correct such mistakes. Were I to commit myself to judge at a con, or game day I would (imho) feel that I would be committing to being available for those 8 subsequent days to all the players I judged in case I made a mistake. Also that I would need to take some indeterminate time over those days to go over the situation beyond just at the table to see if I could find a mistake myself as a burden to bear. That may be much more of a committment than I can make given real world concerns. Yet to be responsible I should have that time available, just as you in your case should have made the time to go over the module and the circumstances with the newbie's character death either when it occurred or certainly before you signed off that it did occur. -James
Rannicarr 11-27-05, 12:03 AM	if that was directed toward my idea, yes I know that any arbitrary time period could be too short in certain circumstances. I was simply trying to come up with a time period that wouldn't be so long that people wouldn't remember the details but not so short that people wouldn't be able to review. However, the five minute immediate review is a much better idea anyway, so its kind of a moot point.
delroland 11-27-05, 02:18 AM	if that was directed toward my idea, yes I know that any arbitrary time period could be too short in certain circumstances. I was simply trying to come up with a time period that wouldn't be so long that people wouldn't remember the details but not so short that people wouldn't be able to review. However, the five minute immediate review is a much better idea anyway, so its kind of a moot point. But we would still have the problem of people who don't know all the rules. A Herald-level GM does not need to know the RPGA General Rules, let alone the LGCS, in order to take the test. The only materials required are the Core rulebooks. So the five-minute thing, while it may have prevented my issue, still would not prevent mistaken character death when dealing with new members, as I seriously doubt they are going to consult the LGCS mid-game to check for a rule they don't know about. What is much more likely is that the GM will check the rules after the game, so as to not disrupt play, realize his mistake, and search for an avenue to correct his mistake. That search, of course, would be pointless as the rules stand, because if he asks anyone about it, he has already lost his window to anonymously cheat, as would be suggested to him. As was suggested to me. Also, I posted the WotC Customer Service response solely for reference, and nothing more.
Rannicarr 11-27-05, 03:53 AM	If the gm doesn't read the rules of the campaign he's playing, there's no hope anyway. He wouldn't know that he couldn't just adjust the AR (if he even bothered to look back over the module to see he made a mistake in the first place). Why would he even know/care to appeal something if he doesn't even read the rules in the first place. If this is a con type environment they don't even have to be a herald level GM to just run a module, at that point the Sr. GM who is organizing other judges is responsible for covering basic rules. I think the RPGA general rules should be read through before each session (or at least the highlights), and the GMs should be given the rundown before the game. The Sr. GM should be giving copies of the rules out along with the modules, or at least ensuring that the GMs that he's having run games are familiar with them. GMs have a certain burden of knowledge, if they don't have at least a certain minimum they shouldn't be running the game in the first place. Sure it may happen, but you just can't prevent EVERYTHING. To run a game for themselves they have to have at least run through the herald level test. If they were to run a LG game they would at minimum have to read the rules just to be able to properly report the game. Otherwise the first time a character comes up with an item they shouldn't have or wrong money/XP levels the GM would get shut down. The point is we can't prevent all ignorance, but at least by publishing a rule we can give someone who has at least read the rules of the campaign the option. Sure brand new players may not know them, but players who continue with the game are expected to have a PHB or access to it and a general idea of how the game works. They are not expected to know all the things a DM knows, nor are they expected to even have access to the DMG/monster manual. However the fact is the campaign rules are completely free, so don't add a financial burden, and are fairly short, therefore the time burden is small as well. So though we can't prevent all ignorance, we can make it as painless as possible to alleviate the condition.
delroland 11-27-05, 02:10 PM	I think a better option, if this is the route one wants to take (i.e. the "five minute rule"), there should be a one-page summary of GM do's and don't's in every adventure. If the five minute rule were implemented, this would be an excellent opportunity to spread it around to those that might not catch one line in the entire LGCS. Let me point out though that one does not even need to be a Herald level GM to run RPGA events. When people join the biggest campaign in the RPGA, the flagship of the organization so to speak, they expect the rules to work according to the RAW, and the rule in the LGCS is counterintuitive in that light. The current General Rules state that:A GM must be prepared to report to the Senior GM any incident arising during play at the first appropriate opportunity after that incident arises.And on the subject of player appeals:A player may not appeal to [the] Senior GM or the Appeals GM before his or her session GM renders an initial decision.It seems to me that in my case, that would have been after the conclusion of the table, especially since neither the player nor I could bring it to his attention until AFTER the incident had arisen, and therefore, according to the General Rules, the Senior GM should have had the power to overturn the death and have me reissue the AR. But then we have this character death rule in the LGCS, which, IMO, works AGAINST the General Rules. On another topic, no one has yet addressed the ethical dilemna presented by a campaign staff that suggests cheating in secret in order to resolve my issue. If a course of action is suggested to me by Circle and Triad members, but that course requires breaking a rule on my part, then there is something seriously wrong with the rule in the first place. It just seems to me that if my Triad member suggested I do something, but I refuse to do it "behind closed doors", so to speak, and then the Triad member threatens to sanction me for trying to take the very action HE SUGGESTED, then that Triad member, and everyone else who has suggested that course of action but then gone on to suggest that I would be a cheater, is a hypocrite. Hypocrisy does not belong in the campaign staff, nor does it belong in the rules.
solbergb 11-27-05, 02:24 PM	A better way to resolve the problems with the deaths resolved at the table rule is to encourage that players and judges take a 5 minute break every time a PC is killed to make sure that the rules were followed and that the encounter was ran as written. This is something to generally encourage. I generally slow everything down when I see somebody about to die, but I don't always stop after they die to do a review. This is a suggestion I'll keep in mind for the future, it seems like a pretty darn good approach to Judging. As a side note, your LGCS rules dument already has a 1 page "do's and dont's" description of how to run a game properly as a judge. It starts with things like "Read the module. Then read it again." It is actually pretty damn good advice - I remember reading it recently when looking for a rule and being startled at how much like the advice I give to new Judge's is. (of course *I* think it is good advice, since I agree with most of it and practice it...). The "5 minute pause" idea isn't there, but that is the sort of place it should go - not as a rule, but as a strong recommendation for running a good game.
solbergb 11-27-05, 02:34 PM	As for the "secret cheating" vs "public cheating" in this scenario, if you'd been willing to live with the consequences of your decisions (running the mod incorrectly, not reviewing it at the table, not being sure you had it right before you signed the AR) then you wouldn't have even been asking for the change that lead up to whatever private advice was given. I don't really run into this particular ethical problem, because for me a game I run ends when I sign the AR, or when I accept the AR with the Judge's signature. I live with the mistakes I made, and with the mistakes others made, even if I learn they were mistakes after the fact. The only exception to that are the MIL and the running time/xp/gold totals on the AR's which get audited from time to time for math errors and corrected later in the approved way (get a judge to sign off on next AR).
delroland 11-27-05, 02:40 PM	As for the "secret cheating" vs "public cheating" in this scenario, if you'd been willing to live with the consequences of your decisions (running the mod incorrectly, not reviewing it at the table, not being sure you had it right before you signed the AR) then you wouldn't have even been asking for the change that lead up to whatever private advice was given.That doesn't change the fact that the advice to cheat "in secret" was given by several people in authority.
Rannicarr 11-27-05, 03:38 PM	Let me point out though that one does not even need to be a Herald level GM to run RPGA events. When people join the biggest campaign in the RPGA, the flagship of the organization so to speak, they expect the rules to work according to the RAW, and the rule in the LGCS is counterintuitive in that light. I still expect a judge/GM/DM to read the rules for the campaign they'll be running, RPGA GM level or no. If I was Sr. GM of an event where I was organizing GMs I'd be responsible for ensuring the GMs get the modules in a good amount of time, and to make sure they have access to and have read the rules of the campaign.
CdrcJsn 11-28-05, 04:39 PM	That doesn't change the fact that the advice to cheat "in secret" was given by several people in authority. The triad told you what the rules were. He then stated that he wasn't at the venue when the event happened and if in fact you had resolved the mistake prior to leaving the table, he wasn't there to say otherwise. He was leaving it up to you whether or not to bend the rules and unless someone who was there reported otherwise, he cannot do anything about it. You instead chose to report in a public forum that you thought the rule was stupid and that you were going to reissue a new AR because you felt like it and that it was your right as DM. At that point since you made aware your intentions in public, he was forced to issue a public warning to others as to the consequences of that action. If you find this hypocritical, then that is how you view it. If this causes you to lose faith in the campaign and leave, well that's your choice as well. I for one have no issue with how the Triad acted in this matter. Cedric Atizado
delroland 11-29-05, 06:21 PM	The triad told you what the rules were. He then stated that he wasn't at the venue when the event happened and if in fact you had resolved the mistake prior to leaving the table, he wasn't there to say otherwise. He was leaving it up to you whether or not to bend the rules and unless someone who was there reported otherwise, he cannot do anything about it. You instead chose to report in a public forum that you thought the rule was stupid and that you were going to reissue a new AR because you felt like it and that it was your right as DM. At that point since you made aware your intentions in public, he was forced to issue a public warning to others as to the consequences of that action. If you find this hypocritical, then that is how you view it. If this causes you to lose faith in the campaign and leave, well that's your choice as well. I for one have no issue with how the Triad acted in this matter. Cedric Atizado Whatever... sounds like splitting hairs to me. But I guess that's okay when a Triad member does it. :rolleyes: And I would appreciate it if people would stop suggesting I leave the campaign if I don't like how it is going. I have too much time invested in this campaign to quit just because I disagree with one rule. In fact, I enjoy this campaign enough to rock the boat when I see an issue that detracts from the campaign and take the time out of my day to try to do something about it. What many of you fail to realize is that many of these little problems cause players to leave the campaign WITHOUT saying anything, and I feel this is a TREMENDOUS problem. We have nowhere near the membership numbers that we did during the heyday of LC, and almost all of our members have been in the RPGA for only a few years or less. So you may be quick to say, "If you don't like it, get out." It won't cause me to quit, but that attitude can cause other players who may have had a fun experience in the RPGA to quit because of that air of arrogance, that somehow the campaign is more important than its players. The campaign is meant to serve the players, and not the other way around. And when the Living Greyhawk philosophy is that all players are cheaters and you have to make things tough on themyou essentially flaunt in the face of new players that we don't need them, and we don't care about them. What happens when that disgruntled player leaves? He tells his friends, "Don't play RPGA, because it sucks." Flexibility in adaptation leads to growth and survival. Inflexibility leads to stagnation and death. The rules are not perfect, and they will never be. But we can edit the rules as problems come along so as to prevent future occurances of those problems. In fact, it is our responsibility to do so, as our core philosophy in the RPGA is to provide a fair and fun experience. Allowing a character death to be reversed if the GM and player are willing to cheat but not allowing the same for the GM and player who refuse to cheat is neither fair nor fun. How much simpler can I put it?
King Kashue 11-29-05, 06:36 PM	Allowing a character death to be reversed if the GM and player are willing to cheat but not allowing the same for the GM and player who refuse to cheat is neither fair nor fun. How much simpler can I put it? That is the most reasonable point that you have made. I completely agree. However, that statement being true does not mean that the situation would be reversed if the rule were changed. As several people have said, it is believed the "net unfairness" would be increased were the rule altered as you have suggested. No one is saying that this particular unfair situation wouldn't be eliminated, but merely that even as it eliminates this situation, it would create different, and more plentiful, unfair situations.
delroland 11-29-05, 06:54 PM	That is the most reasonable point that you have made. I completely agree. However, that statement being true does not mean that the situation would be reversed if the rule were changed. As several people have said, it is believed the "net unfairness" would be increased were the rule altered as you have suggested. No one is saying that this particular unfair situation wouldn't be eliminated, but merely that even as it eliminates this situation, it would create different, and more plentiful, unfair situations. Then we should allow the rule change during a "playtest" phase, perhaps in only one region or metaregion. If the change works for the better, we implement it, and if it doesn't, then at least we tried.
BillKronick 11-29-05, 06:56 PM	So you may be quick to say, "If you don't like it, get out." It won't cause me to quit, but that attitude can cause other players who may have had a fun experience in the RPGA to quit because of that air of arrogance, that somehow the campaign is more important than its players. The campaign is meant to serve the players, and not the other way around. And when you essentially flaunt in the face of new players that we don't need them, and we don't care about them. What happens when that disgruntled player leaves? He tells his friends, "Don't play RPGA, because it sucks." Flexibility in adaptation leads to growth and survival. Inflexibility leads to stagnation and death. Please note, *I* am not saying, "You don't like it, get out!" I applaud your desire to make changes for the better. However, this forum won't cause those changes to occur. The discussion for the 2006 LGCS (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=541172) will be taking place in the near future and that is just about the only place where you can make your suggestions, such that they'll have even a chance of making it in as a rule change. I would strongly suggest to make your voice heard there. I do, however disagree with you on one point. While the campaign and the game may be all about player fun, the RPGA exists expressly to market and promote WOTC product. Have a great day! Bill
delroland 11-29-05, 07:06 PM	I do, however disagree with you on one point. While the campaign and the game may be all about player fun, the RPGA exists expressly to market and promote WOTC product. Erm... talks about Wizard$ of the Coa$t do not belong in this thread. The RPGA General Rules do not say, "Go, my toadies! Make money for the motherland!" Rather, they talk about all the rules working toward a fair and fun experience. Otherwise the Complete line of books would be required material to play, which they are not. I think you will find that even those who most vehemently disagree with me will agree with that.
King Kashue 11-29-05, 08:30 PM	Then we should allow the rule change during a "playtest" phase, perhaps in only one region or metaregion. If the change works for the better, we implement it, and if it doesn't, then at least we tried. First of all, this isn't "we", neither you nor I put in dozens of volunteer hours on paperwork and drudgery to make the campaign work... Second, just because something is suggested doesn't mean it deserves to be tested out. You believe that it is a positive change, the people in charge don't. They considered the ramifications when they made the rule in the first place, and a "test" isn't required simply because you think it is. "Can" does not imply "ought"...
delroland 11-30-05, 12:10 AM	First of all, this isn't "we", neither you nor I put in dozens of volunteer hours on paperwork and drudgery to make the campaign work... Second, just because something is suggested doesn't mean it deserves to be tested out. You believe that it is a positive change, the people in charge don't. They considered the ramifications when they made the rule in the first place, and a "test" isn't required simply because you think it is. "Can" does not imply "ought"... Let us look at the two sides. Those that support the rules as they are: "Changing the rules like delroland wants would be detrimental to the campaign, because we say it would be, as those in charge have more experience than he does. It is not worth trying, because those in charge know it wouldn't work." Me: "I think the rules are causing an unintended problem, and that with a simple fix we can remove that problem. All I ask is that we try it, and if I am wrong, we reverse the change and be done with it." My biggest problem in this debate is that the other side refuses to acknowledge even the POSSIBILITY that I may be right, because they already know better. That is inappropriate and irresponsible. You talk about the burden of proof. I try to provide support to what I say so that others can understand my opinions and see where I am coming from. Yet the other side refuses to prove anything, simply saying that the current way is best, without actually addressing anything I have to say. The LG staff are the ones who wrote the rule that screwed over characters, not I. Should not the burden of proof be on them, and on you?
delroland 11-30-05, 12:14 AM	You suggest that instead of a death needing to be resolved 'at the table' when ARs are signed that there be an 8 day period afterwards to resolve things. Just as a clarification, the eight days was not a totally arbitrary number I picked off the top of my head. It directly corresponds to the current time limit in place to report an event to the RPGA, according to the General Rules, and so seemed appropriate for this purpose as well.
Samwise 11-30-05, 12:54 AM	My biggest problem in this debate is that the other side refuses to acknowledge even the POSSIBILITY that I may be right, because they already know better. That is inappropriate and irresponsible. Given the absurdity you posted above, that is beyond outrageous. You have deliberately ignored everything anyone has said who disagrees with you, falsely representing what they have said, and presenting yourself as some savior of the campaign, the only person who "KNOWS" what the rules "REALLY" mean. You talk about the burden of proof. I try to provide support to what I say so that others can understand my opinions and see where I am coming from. Yet the other side refuses to prove anything, simply saying that the current way is best, without actually addressing anything I have to say. The LG staff are the ones who wrote the rule that screwed over characters, not I. Should not the burden of proof be on them, and on you? You have provided nothing but assertions by fiat, false comparisons, and logical fallacies. The people who disagree with your attempt to usurp the campaign have provided full and complete explanations of their positions, as well as statements of the experiences that contributed to their taking those positions. All of this can be found in the thread. You obviously want to distract people from reading everything that has gone before, directing them away from your outrageous behavior, and hoping no one will look and see what has really been said, as well as hoping no one will speak out against your attempt at deception. If you really cared about the campaign you would have presented such information honestly. This is just another example demonstrating that this has nothing to do with bettering the campaign, and everything to do with trying to cover for yourself, and get revenge on people who dared to tell you no. I hope the campaign staff absolutely rejects your attempt to usurp the campaign rules for your own aggrandizement, and that people will take the time to read through the thread and see that this is nothing but a personal vendetta on your part.
JamesMaissen 11-30-05, 02:49 AM	Just as a clarification, the eight days was not a totally arbitrary number I picked off the top of my head. It directly corresponds to the current time limit in place to report an event to the RPGA, according to the General Rules, and so seemed appropriate for this purpose as well. But you fail to address my points.. Let us say that this '8 day rule' goes into effect. What then? 1> What happens when someone realizes they made an error 9 days later instead of 8? Would not the same exact arguements you've already made apply to them against your rule? 2> How would this change the ease or willingness of judges to review events on the spot if they have this arbitrary time to figure things out? In a rushed con evironment, suddenly you are pushed aside because it doesn't need to be settled now and the judge has another slot to make. How do you handle the dead character until it's solved? Are you then required to change who you were planning to play for the rest of the con?? 3> How are you to maintain contact with the DM, the player of the character in question and the other players at the table for these 8 days? 4> What degree of onus does this put on the judge to be available for the subsequent 8 days to answer inquiries? What recourse does a player have if the judge is not available in this time? 5> If you in your circumstance had understood the rule thats currently in place and acted responisbly with it in mind, how would having or not having extra days facilitate things? 6> Wouldn't it be more reasonable to promote awareness of the current rule and explain to fellow players and judges alike that upon a character death that it is prudent to make sure that everything was indeed done correctly? This would include not only the judge going over the encounter and the player going over thier character, but also everyone at the table helping to recall for example that a third character had cast prayer which perhaps the dead character didn't factor into thing? 7> In the example in #6, how is that to be handled in the case that this is discussed a week later rather than at the time? Will not memories be blurred and the players possibly scattered across the states (or more)? Personally I can understand a case for having something in place to sanction a judge that wantonly abuses the game. However as I've said I think that such an abberation is fortunately so rare that the number of false positives that would be involved would do more harm than good in that case. Thank you all for your time, James Maissen
King Kashue 11-30-05, 03:34 AM	Let us look at the two sides. Those that support the rules as they are: "Changing the rules like delroland wants would be detrimental to the campaign, because we say it would be, as those in charge have more experience than he does. It is not worth trying, because those in charge know it wouldn't work." Me: "I think the rules are causing an unintended problem, and that with a simple fix we can remove that problem. All I ask is that we try it, and if I am wrong, we reverse the change and be done with it." My biggest problem in this debate is that the other side refuses to acknowledge even the POSSIBILITY that I may be right, because they already know better. That is inappropriate and irresponsible. You talk about the burden of proof. I try to provide support to what I say so that others can understand my opinions and see where I am coming from. Yet the other side refuses to prove anything, simply saying that the current way is best, without actually addressing anything I have to say. The LG staff are the ones who wrote the rule that screwed over characters, not I. Should not the burden of proof be on them, and on you? Could you have written the two "positions" with more biased language? I'm sure you could have, but it would take some serious effort... I could just as easily write them thusly: On the one hand the Circle, after consulting with many people within the campaign, and after a period of deliberation and discussion created the rule as it is, acknowledging it is not perfect, and is likely to create undesirable situations in either case, determined that the greater good was served by having the rule as it is. On the other hand, you, after experiencing a single undesireable event decided that you had identified a heretofore unknown and unconsidered situation, and, clearly knowing as much as the campaign leadership, have suggested that the rules be altered so that your solution, which despite having been previously considered and rejected, would not merely fix the situation you describe, but create several new situations, most of which are considered worse in the eyes of the campaign leadership... You say "change it and if it doesn't work change it back", you're suggesting that it's somehow easy to change the rules for a campaign of 30,000 people. It's not, hundreds of hours go into the LGCS revisions every year...You act as if this is done lightly... And no one is denying the possibility you are right...They just disagree with you and are unwilling to change the rules for 30,000 people just to test the hypothesis of one person. If you can't differentiate between the two, you are going to have a rough life. You also talk about the burden of proof being shared, It's not...You're making the claim, you've got to substantiate your argument. You've got to provide reasons for the change; you are trying to convince the campaign leadership you are correct, and quite frankly you're doing a lousy job...You've been dismissive, hostile, insulting, argumentative, and condescending...Why the hell should they listen to you? You have provided a sloppy, unfocused argument and you've presented it in a manner unlikely to make anyone want to listen... Not only that, but you undertake this quest to alienate folks when such a change could actually happen, considering the new LGCS is currently being drafted...You could have presented a coherent and cogent argument, laying out what you believe to be a significant issue and a possible way to address it...Instead you have ranted and raved and told everyone else they're wrong (often in an insulting manner), from random RPGA members to a circle member and the RPGA Senior DM...And you wonder why people aren't receptive (I've got a theory or two as to why)... However, to avoid being totally negative, I will provide a suggestion. I honestly think your solution will result in more unfair situations, not less, and therefore cannot support it. However, as I said I do believe that you are correct, that the requirement that all deaths be resolved at the table does create situations where a judge's error cannot be corrected because the player cannot see the module until after it has been completed, at which point the death is final. Therefore I would suggest (assuming the circle is still even bothering to read the ramblings in this thread) that the inclusion of a mandatory review be included in the upcoming LGCS . The "Five Minute Break" (or 10, whatever) that Cedric suggested could easily be made a requirement, that the DM check all the pertinent information on the encounter and make sure they ran everything correctly. 5-10 minutes would not be a significant time consumption, even in a con slot, and would provide a DM the opportunity to catch and correct their mistakes, the very opportunity you are hoping to create. This obviously does not go as far as you would like, but it does address the issue and possesses one feature your solution does not; it might actually be adopted.
delroland 11-30-05, 03:19 PM	Look, I didn't intend my previous post to sound as stand-offish as it did. But regardless of the number of considerations made or people consulted with by the Circle, it still does not change the fact that it had not yet been put to the test until implemented. Just as with computer software, problems with the system often do not crop up until thousands of people put the system to use, as is the case now. When bugs show up in a program, they fix them, no matter how small, because those bugs can lead to other bugs. Why should it be any different with the LGCS? Frankly, I think the "five minute" idea is a step in the right direction, but this has its own problems, such as already-long mods not having the spare five minutes, or players begrudging the player who died or the GM for interrupting gameplay. I am sure other problems would show up as well if this were implemented. However, my suggestion is one already supported by the RPGA General Rules in that they support player appeals only after the incident occurs, and that the appeal can happen at the earliest possible convenience. The existence of the "must be resolved at the table" rule countermands the RPGA General Rules and creates a Catch-22 in that the player must wait until after the incident, per the General Rules, and if this is at the end of a mod, by the time they have the opportunity to appeal, they can't, per the LGCS. The whole purpose of the appeal system is to provide players a chance to challenge unfair rulings without disrupting gameplay, and this is being taken away from them (us) because apparently there are so many cheaters in the RPGA that we need to be protected from them. The LGCS ENCOURAGES players to interrupt gameplay with every single dispute they have with the judge (which is an infraction according to the General Rules, btw), because once the mod is over, they can't do anything about it. And so does the "five-minute timeout" suggestion, though admittedly to a lesser extent. So instead of using the General Rules as written, we create a custom rule that countermands them, because otherwise the "Cheaters" (whomever they may be) would ruin the campaign. Why can't you all see this as counter-intuitive? Again I must ask, how is it fair to punish players and GM's who abide by the rules so as to ward away the spectre of cheating, and then suggest cheating as a viable alternative?
delroland 11-30-05, 03:47 PM	Let us say that this '8 day rule' goes into effect. What then? 1> What happens when someone realizes they made an error 9 days later instead of 8? Would not the same exact arguements you've already made apply to them against your rule? Possibly, but I really don't see someone reviewing the mod in detail nine days down the road just to see if they made a mistake the last time they ran it. Heck, eight days is excessive in this light, but I feel a little extra time can't hurt. 2> How would this change the ease or willingness of judges to review events on the spot if they have this arbitrary time to figure things out? In a rushed con evironment, suddenly you are pushed aside because it doesn't need to be settled now and the judge has another slot to make. How do you handle the dead character until it's solved? Are you then required to change who you were planning to play for the rest of the con?? My suggestions would in no way affect the current appeals system as it stands. If a player wished to appeal, he could still do so, and the current guidelines as laid forth in the General Rules would apply. As it stands now, they do not. And my change is a tool solely for GM's to fix their own mistakes. It does not FORCE them to stop play, or to spend time reviewing the mod just in case they got it wrong. Rather, it gives them the ability to correct their mistakes if they happen to notice them after the mod is over. 3> How are you to maintain contact with the DM, the player of the character in question and the other players at the table for these 8 days? When attendees to a con register, they must generally provide their home mailing address. If a situation arises where the GM must send the AR after the con, he can contact the con coordinator and get the address. Also, there are many forums for open discussion available, such as various yahoo groups, message boards, and mailing lists. If the GM needs to contact someone, there is a good chance he can get a hold of them through those channels. Failing all of that, the player never gets contacted, and the mistake never gets corrected. But my option provides some chance (and a pretty good chance I believe) rather than the no chance the current rules offer. 4> What degree of onus does this put on the judge to be available for the subsequent 8 days to answer inquiries? What recourse does a player have if the judge is not available in this time? None, and none. Again, this is not a player tool to challenge character death. That is what the appeal system is for. This is solely a tool for GM's to correct their own mistakes. 5> If you in your circumstance had understood the rule thats currently in place and acted responisbly with it in mind, how would having or not having extra days facilitate things? Having the extra days would have fixed the problem, not having any extra time after the conclusion of the mod would have not fixed the problem. Knowing the death rule more intimately would not have changed the situation, as I did not have the time to review the death at the table, and I would not have seen my mistake until I did. 6> Wouldn't it be more reasonable to promote awareness of the current rule and explain to fellow players and judges alike that upon a character death that it is prudent to make sure that everything was indeed done correctly? This would include not only the judge going over the encounter and the player going over thier character, but also everyone at the table helping to recall for example that a third character had cast prayer which perhaps the dead character didn't factor into thing? In a perfect world, maybe. But sometimes there is just not enough time, especially when a problem occurs at the end of a mod rather than at the beginning. Also, I ran the game rules perfectly at my table, and so did my players. There were no missed bonuses or other such mechanic that might have saved the character. My mistake was a mod mistake, in that I used too many monsters in the final encounter. No one could have seen the mistake until they had a chance to read the mod themselves (which they CAN'T until the mod is over; another Catch-22) except myself, and I didn't see my mistake until the mod was over. 7> In the example in #6, how is that to be handled in the case that this is discussed a week later rather than at the time? Will not memories be blurred and the players possibly scattered across the states (or more)? Maybe, but in my case, I can still recall the exact circumstance of the character death and exactly what mistake I made. The only reason I don't go into detail is so that I do not provide any spoilers. Personally I can understand a case for having something in place to sanction a judge that wantonly abuses the game. However as I've said I think that such an abberation is fortunately so rare that the number of false positives that would be involved would do more harm than good in that case. False positives? If the number of judges that wish to abuse the game is so low, how would there be so many false positives?
Samwise 11-30-05, 03:58 PM	Look, I didn't intend my previous post to sound as stand-offish as it did. But regardless of the number of considerations made or people consulted with by the Circle, it still does not change the fact that it had not yet been put to the test until implemented.[?QUOTE] Which is why you are ignoring that it has been implemented already. If you don't intend to address the issue honestly then don't. Don't make such weak attempts at being disingenuous. [QUOTE]Just as with computer software, problems with the system often do not crop up until thousands of people put the system to use, as is the case now. When bugs show up in a program, they fix them, no matter how small, because those bugs can lead to other bugs. Why should it be any different with the LGCS? That's what they did. The appeals procedure was a major bug. It has been fixed. You keep insisting on putting the bug back in. Frankly, I think the "five minute" idea is a step in the right direction, but this has its own problems, such as already-long mods not having the spare five minutes, or players begrudging the player who died or the GM for interrupting gameplay. I am sure other problems would show up as well if this were implemented. Oh please! And what if DMs don't want to be bothered with a player appeal after a session is over?What if he begrudges someone questioning him after the fact? After spending so much time insisting that no one would be the subject of harassment and favoritism, you now want to oppose another suggestion offered, one that people who reject yours favor, simply because some people might not like it? However, my suggestion is one already supported by the RPGA General Rules in that they support player appeals only after the incident occurs, and that the appeal can happen at the earliest possible convenience. The existence of the "must be resolved at the table" rule countermands the RPGA General Rules and creates a Catch-22 in that the player must wait until after the incident, per the General Rules, and if this is at the end of a mod, by the time they have the opportunity to appeal, they can't, per the LGCS. The whole purpose of the appeal system is to provide players a chance to challenge unfair rulings without disrupting gameplay, and this is being taken away from them (us) because apparently there are so many cheaters in the RPGA that we need to be protected from them. This is a deliberate misrepresentation of the RPGA rules. No Catch-22 is involved at all. There is always a Conclusion after the last encounter of an adventure, so there is always a chance to appeal any ruling. You are also deliberately misrepresenting what the appeals cover. The text is clear: "The Senior GM or the Appeals GM has the right to overrule other GM's decisions, but should only do so for good reason, such as rules oversight on the part of the session GM." Just thinking a Session GM is "unfair" is not enough. You can only get a decision overruled if it goes beyond that into forgetting or misapplying a rule. The LGCS ENCOURAGES players to interrupt gameplay with every single dispute they have with the judge (which is an infraction according to the General Rules, btw), because once the mod is over, they can't do anything about it. And so does the "five-minute timeout" suggestion, though admittedly to a lesser extent. So instead of using the General Rules as written, we create a custom rule that countermands them, because otherwise the "Cheaters" (whomever they may be) would ruin the campaign. Why can't you all see this as counter-intuitive? Arguing with a Session GM over the rules is an infraction. Pointing out errors is not an infraction. Misrepresenting the rules for your benefit is an infraction. If you constantly interrupt to challenge rules and you are constantly wrong about those rules, then yes, you are committing an infraction. If the Session GM simply doesn't know the rules, then he is the one committing an infraction. And again we have you opposing adding a clarification while you demand a full rules change. Again I must ask, how is it fair to punish players and GM's who abide by the rules so as to ward away the spectre of cheating, and then suggest cheating as a viable alternative? How is the GM being punished? By making him (you) live with the consequences of his (your) mistake? That is what happens when a GM (you) don't abide by the rules to run an adventure properly.
delroland 11-30-05, 04:28 PM	The text is clear: "The Senior GM or the Appeals GM has the right to overrule other GM's decisions, but should only do so for good reason, such as rules oversight on the part of the session GM." Yes, the text is clear. There was a rules oversight on the part of the session GM; therefore, the Senior GM should overrule the session GM's decision. If the Session GM simply doesn't know the rules, then he is the one committing an infraction. Last time I checked, making an honest mistake is not an infraction according to the RPGA General Rules. That is what happens when a GM (you) don't abide by the rules to run an adventure properly. I made a mistake, that does not mean I was not abiding by the rules. Don't call me a cheater again.
Samwise 11-30-05, 08:10 PM	Yes, the text is clear. There was a rules oversight on the part of the session GM; therefore, the Senior GM should overrule the session GM's decision. Then why do you continually phrase it otherwise? Why do you repeatedly suggest that a Senior or Appeals GM can overrule anything a player feels is "unfair"? Last time I checked, making an honest mistake is not an infraction according to the RPGA General Rules. Making an honest mistake is not. Making repeated mistakes and refusing to allow players to point them out is. That is the situation you gave, and the one you tried to make the fault of the players. I have corrected your false representation, as I correct your other false representations of the rules. I made a mistake, that does not mean I was not abiding by the rules. Don't call me a cheater again. I didn't call it cheating. I said it was failing to abide by the rules, and it is. You did not prepare the adventure properly, you did not run it properly, and you did not correct it properly. You failed to abide by the rules in all three of those cases. You also classified being required to abide by these rules as "punishment", a very loaded word, particularly since you don't actually want to have to abide by those rules, but instead be allowed to change things after the allowed time. If you chose to classify that as cheating, as opposed to any of the other categories covered by the rules, that is your rhetoric and not mine. If you do not like it then correct your rhetoric. You seem to have little problem with calling other people cheaters, or hurling various accusations and insinuations about with abandon at anyone who dares to disagree with you. If you find it so horrible when you are receiving end then you should take steps to correct yourself.
delroland 11-30-05, 11:51 PM	Then why do you continually phrase it otherwise? Why do you repeatedly suggest that a Senior or Appeals GM can overrule anything a player feels is "unfair"? Making repeated mistakes and refusing to allow players to point them out is. That is the situation you gave, and the one you tried to make the fault of the players. I have corrected your false representation, as I correct your other false representations of the rules. You really have no clue, do you? The player never claimed he was treated unfair. I never refused to allow the player to point out my mistake. You are the one that wishes to distort facts and bend the rules, because if we don't, the cheaters might win! Or is it just that you can't stand to lose? Really, do me a favor and crawl back down your hole, because your belligerence and your ignorance sicken me, as does your superiority complex.
solbergb 11-30-05, 11:53 PM	Just as with computer software, problems with the system often do not crop up until thousands of people put the system to use, as is the case now. When bugs show up in a program, they fix them, no matter how small, because those bugs can lead to other bugs. Actually, in real life software systems a lot of bugs go uncorrected because the risk of unintended consequences is greater by changing things than by leaving things alone. Also, many bugs remain because the cost of fixing them without breaking something else vastly exceeds the cost of living with the bug. If we're going with a software project metaphor here, your suggestion is an example of a project that never makes it out of discovery, because the stakeholders think it is either too risky, or too expensive (to do without messing up something else) or both. Speaking as somebody who's been an IT professional for > 10 years, and who has been a user of software systems in a professional environment for nearly 20 years.
Samwise 12-01-05, 12:17 AM	You really have no clue, do you? The player never claimed he was treated unfair. I never refused to allow the player to point out my mistake. You are the one that wishes to distort facts and bend the rules, because if we don't, the cheaters might win! Or is it just that you can't stand to lose? *SIGH* Are you not even following what I'm quoting and what you are saying? I was talking about the example you had just given in "support" of your position, not your personal complaint. Since you seem to have forgotten it: Yes, the text is clear. There was a rules oversight on the part of the session GM; therefore, the Senior GM should overrule the session GM's decision. and, Last time I checked, making an honest mistake is not an infraction according to the RPGA General Rules. I know you keep ignoring and misrepresenting what others write, but at least try and remember your own words.
rutrow424 12-01-05, 12:12 PM	Having the extra days would have fixed the problem, not having any extra time after the conclusion of the mod would have not fixed the problem. Knowing the death rule more intimately would not have changed the situation, as I did not have the time to review the death at the table, and I would not have seen my mistake until I did. ...snipped some... In a perfect world, maybe. But sometimes there is just not enough time, especially when a problem occurs at the end of a mod rather than at the beginning. My mistake was a mod mistake, in that I used too many monsters in the final encounter. No one could have seen the mistake until they had a chance to read the mod themselves (which they CAN'T until the mod is over; another Catch-22) except myself, and I didn't see my mistake until the mod was over. One significant problem with this "debate" is that you refuse to acknowledge that in general, and in your case in particular, if the GM and players do what is right, there would not be any need to change something after the fact 99.99% of the time. That combines with your lack of understanding that the rules were as you desire for a time, and that it was decided that the current rule would be/is better on the whole. You commented in this response and previously that you were in a hurry to finish - people make mistakes when they hurry. If the GM is well prepared, and the players are somewhat knowledgable, the 5 minute suggestion is all that MAY be necessary. At no point in your specific case did anyone take the time to make sure that a mistake wasn't made. I find that hard to believe, even if rushed, when you had added extra monsters to the encounter. That may be just how y'all play, but IME in 2 separate states and at big Cons, at least 1 if not more players (and likely the DM too) would have sensed that the encounter was too difficult for the APL and stated as such when a PC died (as in "8 ogres at APL 2? Are you sure about that?"). The fact that the party apparently survived except for this PC shows they have some experience with the game (or were extremely lucky). You have also made broad claims that this rule technicality drives players away, and that play numbers are smaller than the LC heyday, etc. I think it is far more likely that players are driven away by bad GMs, bad mods, and desire for a different experience (more RP, less hack 'n slash for example). That is because more players are exposed to the GMs, mods, and play style than will ever be affected by the complexity of the LGCS rules. Other players attitudes also have an affect, but the negative attitudes seen herein relate more to you and your style than general "superiority" over other players. Move on in life, bring it up during the new LGCS, and make sure you are in the future better prepared to run mods and handle PC death situations.
slorak 12-01-05, 01:47 PM	As if this topic hasn't already been drained dry of any life left to it - You certainly have a nice way of trying to shut Delroland down. Do you really believe this? - "I find that hard to believe, even if rushed, when you had added extra monsters to the encounter. That may be just how y'all play, but IME in 2 separate states and at big Cons, at least 1 if not more players (and likely the DM too) would have sensed that the encounter was too difficult for the APL and stated as such when a PC died (as in "8 ogres at APL 2? Are you sure about that?"). The fact that the party apparently survived except for this PC shows they have some experience with the game (or were extremely lucky)." Do you know the specifics of his game? Have you ever played at a store where the game has run longer than the store hours are open? If he said he didn't have time to check things out as he was rushed to finish by store staff - I am pretty sure that was what happened. Why would you insinuate a lack of understanding of rules, or how supposedly it would be obvious that he ran a wrong encounter, to be the root of his problem. Why can't a mistake just be that - a mistake. It happened - big deal. I will agree with you though - that bad DM's really put a sour taste to the game. Delroland doesn't sound like a bad DM to me. As a matter of fact I really like how he wants to fix a mistake that could have gone without him even saying anything. Like I said before - He should be applauded for stepping up to the plate - admitting his mistake and trying to rectify it. The way is see it - The only real thing that needs to be changed is - it should be acceptable to have a DM fix his mistakes. Be it at the table, the next day, etc. The only real time limit should be it has to be before the next game is played (obviously). Having something like this in place does no real harm. You don't need to say that players can appeal, etc. etc. Leave it simply - a DM can fix errors he made if he finds them. No harm no foul. If he corrects it then great! A happy day to the player. If not - it wouldn't have happened anyway. If a friend DM is going to cheat and fix things all the time - it happens now - so again no big deal. A 5 minute break after a character death is all good as well - but I agree that there are certain times when games run long that those 5 minutes (which - let's be honest - would really end up being 15-20 minutes) really could make the difference of finishing a mod or not. Cheers, -Mike
smerwin29 12-01-05, 02:17 PM	The way is see it - The only real thing that needs to be changed is - it should be acceptable to have a DM fix his mistakes. Be it at the table, the next day, etc. The only real time limit should be it has to be before the next game is played (obviously). Having something like this in place does no real harm. You don't need to say that players can appeal, etc. etc. Leave it simply - a DM can fix errors he made if he finds them. No harm no foul. Again, here is the problem. The next LGCS has the rule that judges who find they make a mistake can fix that mistake before the player plays the next mod. Simple, right? No. Now we have the situation where a PC dies at a table. They leave the gameday/convention and three days later read the mod or talk to a friend who played the mod and see something that might be a mistake. Now they want to contact the judge, point out his mistake, and get him to change things. So the player contacts the convention/game day coordinator or Senior GM. He wants contact information for the judge. The guy can certainly refuse to give that information, but he still has to deal with this (as well as dealing with judges trying to contact players). You are giving license for disgruntled players to harass, bribe, and threaten judges since judges can now make changes after the fact. And you can say all you want that it shouldn't be a problem because it is only the judge who can decide. But players will abuse this and try to contact the judges. Then if the judge refuses, they WILL contact senior GMs/Triads/Circle members to say, "Listen to the terrible mistake the judge made. Make him make it right." As soon as you create a loophole here, even the most innocent and specific loophole that you suggest, people are going to burden the hierarchy trying to exploit it. It's too bad that this is the case, but this is the case, as it was before the "settle everything at the table" rule was established. This thread has wandered all over the place, turned into personal attacks and gotten ridiculous. When all of that is stripped away, what I say still is the reason that the rule is in place and the reason that it is going to stay in place. The only shame is that a member of the Circle has not stepped in and said, "Thanks for the discussion, but the rule is not going to change." Or maybe they have and everyone has just been ignoring it for entertainment purposes. :-D Regards, Shawn
slorak 12-01-05, 03:53 PM	It should be easy enough to word it as such as to not allow or at least discourage further persuit past the DM. At its most base point it could be left at the sole discretion of the DM. It need not be directed soley for character death but any mistake the DM feels he has made. I am sure that those that would whine and complain over things - do so now anyway. I doubt it would change as much as people think. Now if it was worded as such to allow for further "appeal" that is asking for a workload. In the example of the original post - if it were allowed by DM discretion - he would have simply printed out a New AR and fixed the mistake. No harm no foul - everyone is happy. Rather than to simply say - sorry too late, or print out an new AR and feel like a heel for not following LG campaign Law. You may still not get the results you want at the big game conventions and what not but - as it stands now - you don't get them anyway. Cheers, -Mike
rutrow424 12-01-05, 04:01 PM	As if this topic hasn't already been drained dry of any life left to it - You certainly have a nice way of trying to shut Delroland down. Thanks I suppose - but it will be futile I'm sure; the Circle is not going to change the rule based on his rantings. Do you really believe this? - "I find that hard to believe, even if rushed, when you had added extra monsters to the encounter. That may be just how y'all play, but IME in 2 separate states and at big Cons, at least 1 if not more players (and likely the DM too) would have sensed that the encounter was too difficult for the APL and stated as such when a PC died (as in "8 ogres at APL 2? Are you sure about that?"). The fact that the party apparently survived except for this PC shows they have some experience with the game (or were extremely lucky)." Do you know the specifics of his game? Have you ever played at a store where the game has run longer than the store hours are open? If he said he didn't have time to check things out as he was rushed to finish by store staff - I am pretty sure that was what happened. Why would you insinuate a lack of understanding of rules, or how supposedly it would be obvious that he ran a wrong encounter, to be the root of his problem. Why can't a mistake just be that - a mistake. It happened - big deal. I do believe what I wrote. I know nothing but what he has said about his game and mistake, and it still seems strange to me that no player nor himself ever sensed the encounter was wrong. I think it is doubly strange when a PC death (of a newbie even) occurred. He ran the encounter at the wrong APL, which added foes, and the other players were skilled enough to presumably win the encounter in spite of a PC death. But, none were savvy enough to sense the encounter was too hard for the APL. Again, it could be a difference in play styles, or they could have gotten lucky, or it could just be the mod/encounter in question, but IME many players would start questioning the encounter as soon as the foes were learned of (like in my example of 8 ogres). If a PC died, the judge would have been questioned, innocently, if he was running the proper APL. Of course, IME when this happens the APL has been correct, but the mod broken. And I am not insinuating anything, I am stating that he made a mistake that could have and IMHO should have been corrected on the spot. How long does it take to check what APL the encounter is being played at? I have rushed and been rushed during play, and mistakes get made in those instances - but even if the PC was killed as the store owner was physically kicking the group out to the curb there's not much of an excuse for the error made here to not be corrected before the session ended. Delroland made the biggest mistake, but the players are culpable to some degree and the circumstances contributed. That does not mean he is a bad DM, or that the players are terrible, but that none of them did their jobs very well that day (to insure a fun, fair experience for all participants). The mistake itself is regrettable, and it is unfortunate the campaign RAW prevent fixing it after the fact, but the player in question reportedly is not upset nor turned off from LG. Nothing from this instance provides any evidence that would overturn the campaign's experience under a system similar to that which Delroland proposes, which prompted the rule he wrongly blames for the problem. The way is see it - The only real thing that needs to be changed is - it should be acceptable to have a DM fix his mistakes. Be it at the table, the next day, etc. The only real time limit should be it has to be before the next game is played (obviously). Having something like this in place does no real harm. You don't need to say that players can appeal, etc. etc. Leave it simply - a DM can fix errors he made if he finds them. No harm no foul. If he corrects it then great! A happy day to the player. If not - it wouldn't have happened anyway. If a friend DM is going to cheat and fix things all the time - it happens now - so again no big deal. A 5 minute break after a character death is all good as well - but I agree that there are certain times when games run long that those 5 minutes (which - let's be honest - would really end up being 15-20 minutes) really could make the difference of finishing a mod or not. I think Shawn refutes you very well, but I will add that in most cases the 5 minutes would be too long, if the DM and players are reasonable. Checking APL and rereading the encounter take very little time; if a rule mistake was made players can help find it. But if no immediate basis for a correction exists the game would move on; or, if the DM made a mistake a quick fix gets implemented to keep the game moving. Only if there is a legitimate dispute between the DM and players would this 5 minutes extend much longer as a Senior GM gets involved.
slorak 12-01-05, 04:45 PM	I know nothing but what he has said about his game and mistake, and it still seems strange to me that no player nor himself ever sensed the encounter was wrong. I think it is doubly strange when a PC death (of a newbie even) occurred. He ran the encounter at the wrong APL, which added foes, and the other players were skilled enough to presumably win the encounter in spite of a PC death. But, none were savvy enough to sense the encounter was too hard for the APL. Again, it could be a difference in play styles, or they could have gotten lucky, or it could just be the mod/encounter in question, but IME many players would start questioning the encounter as soon as the foes were learned of (like in my example of 8 ogres). If a PC died, the judge would have been questioned, innocently, if he was running the proper APL. Of course, IME when this happens the APL has been correct, but the mod broken. And I am not insinuating anything, I am stating that he made a mistake that could have and IMHO should have been corrected on the spot. How long does it take to check what APL the encounter is being played at? I have rushed and been rushed during play, and mistakes get made in those instances - but even if the PC was killed as the store owner was physically kicking the group out to the curb there's not much of an excuse for the error made here to not be corrected before the session ended. Delroland made the biggest mistake, but the players are culpable to some degree and the circumstances contributed. That does not mean he is a bad DM, or that the players are terrible, but that none of them did their jobs very well that day (to insure a fun, fair experience for all participants).. The problem I have with what you say above is - you are putting your own personal viewpoint or gaming exeriences down and suggesting that is the only way it could happen. This really comes off when you suggest that the other players (who didn't die) should be knowledgable enough with the rules to spot the "glaring error". What if the next APL put just one more creature in. Maybe it was only 1 creature whose special abilities now unbalanced the encounter just enough to have the party expend all of their resources and kill 1 of them off. Maybe it was difficult and not impossible so it felt right to the players. So they didn't think to question it. I personally have not had a character die but I have been at the table when one does and in all the cases where I was playing - it seemed appropriate. We didn't question or fight it. Did we not do our job well that day? The point being - circumstances were obsviously in place for things to happen in the way they did. Delroland stated that he acted to correct the problem in what seemed like an almost immediate action. Only to be shut down by what has been argued as a stupid rule. When asked to debate rule options most opponents to his suggestions keep attacking it as it being his fault. You ran it wrong, it was your fault you didn't catch it at the table, your logic is faulty, etc. etc. etc. Rather than sticking with the rule aspect of it - now it seems to be resorting to bad mouthing and insinuations. That is what annoys me. Ultimately I guess it doesn't matter if a rule is changed or not. Obviously this thread will have no bearings on a rule change. I just find it interesting how people focus so much on the negative or simply gravitate to not wanting to make change rather than looking at a way to make it work. OK maybe the suggestions that were made wouldn't cut it - but rather than poo-poo ideas what things do you think would work? It is easy to shut something down - it is coming up with a good solution that takes some work. Cheers, -Mike
rutrow424 12-01-05, 05:27 PM	The problem I have with what you say above is - you are putting your own personal viewpoint or gaming exeriences down and suggesting that is the only way it could happen. This really comes off when you suggest that the other players (who didn't die) should be knowledgable enough with the rules to spot the "glaring error". I have merely commented that it seems strange that no player, who were apparently skilled enough to overcome the over-APL encounter, nor the DM stopped to think or got any sense that the encounter's APL was wrong. I left open that we do not know enough about what happened to make any conclusions as to whether they never had any reason to question it - for all we know the newbie ran in alone and got slaughtered round 1 because of the extra monster(s). But if the PC died because of extra monsters, I would expect someone to raise an eyebrow. I do suggest that the DM and players in this instance let the newbie down by not questioning the encounter; it would have taken 5 seconds to double check the APL. The point being - circumstances were obsviously in place for things to happen in the way they did. Delroland stated that he acted to correct the problem in what seemed like an almost immediate action. Only to be shut down by what has been argued as a stupid rule. When asked to debate rule options most opponents to his suggestions keep attacking it as it being his fault. You ran it wrong, it was your fault you didn't catch it at the table, your logic is faulty, etc. etc. etc. Rather than sticking with the rule aspect of it - now it seems to be resorting to bad mouthing and insinuations. That is what annoys me. Ultimately I guess it doesn't matter if a rule is changed or not. Obviously this thread will have no bearings on a rule change. I just find it interesting how people focus so much on the negative or simply gravitate to not wanting to make change rather than looking at a way to make it work. OK maybe the suggestions that were made wouldn't cut it - but rather than poo-poo ideas what things do you think would work? It is easy to shut something down - it is coming up with a good solution that takes some work. Others have noted quite correctly that the change being proposed was once the rule, and it was decided that the current rule was preferred. Most agree that under different circumstances, that Delroland's suggestion would be the right direction to go, but that in LG simplicity has triumphed over perfect justice. The arbitrary deadline for corrections has been set at the end of the table instead of some time afterwards - since no arbitrary time frame will be perfect (unless corrections can be made forever). All the possibilities have imperfections; the at the table limit is the easiest to implement and creates the least headache for the campaign staff/volunteers. Under the current system therefore the best solution is for us all to do our best to prevent mistakes. Don't rush, avoid running mods cold, when deaths occur pause to verify the APL/rules/etc, question the DM. That is why many of us keep pointing back to the fact that this mistake was avoidable and certainly can be prevented in the future. The fact that this case happened in and of itself does not justify changing the rules, and the OP's continued ignoring of the opposite viewpoint (as presented by Circle and Triad members past and present) and childish sniping have fed ill will to the rest of the thread, myself included. Placing a reminder to pause when deaths occur is something that can be done and be more productive in the long haul that allowing a week of possible protests - fix the problem (if there is one) before it spirals out of control.
slorak 12-01-05, 05:48 PM	... who were apparently skilled enough to overcome the over-APL encounter, nor the DM stopped to think or got any sense that the encounter's APL was wrong. I do suggest that the DM and players in this instance let the newbie down by not questioning the encounter; it would have taken 5 seconds to double check the APL. This is exactly what I was talking about - how you interject your beliefs/ideas into what happened. What has been said that "makes it apparent" the others were skilled? You can have an encounter that is one APL higher and not have it be a complete hose job. It would still be more powerful than what the mod was inteded for that level but doesn't necessarily be super deadly so as to instantly pick up that it was a mistake. I like how the easy road to faulting the DM is to say he should have allowed for time to look into the death. What part of the store is closing get out don't you understand? Obviously the normal game wrap up was cut short due to the constraints of the store hours. I am not Delroland nor do I know him. Maybe you should direct that question to him directly so he can answer it to your satisfaction. As for your suggestion for how to handle things under the current situation: Since it seems that several agree that the rule as is ins't the best nor the most fair for everyone but rather the easiest - what CHANGES to the rule do you think could be made to correct this. Rather than hash up what the rule may or may not have been, or what it currently is - maybe a good discussion on what it could be would be in order? No? Cheers, -Mike
RLWilde 12-01-05, 05:53 PM	Really, do me a favor and crawl back down your hole, because your belligerence and your ignorance sicken me, as does your superiority complex. And please, you can do the rest of us the same favor.
rutrow424 12-02-05, 10:40 AM	This is exactly what I was talking about - how you interject your beliefs/ideas into what happened. What has been said that "makes it apparent" the others were skilled? You can have an encounter that is one APL higher and not have it be a complete hose job. It would still be more powerful than what the mod was inteded for that level but doesn't necessarily be super deadly so as to instantly pick up that it was a mistake. I like how the easy road to faulting the DM is to say he should have allowed for time to look into the death. What part of the store is closing get out don't you understand? Obviously the normal game wrap up was cut short due to the constraints of the store hours. I am not Delroland nor do I know him. Maybe you should direct that question to him directly so he can answer it to your satisfaction. I have already conceded that none of us know exactly what happened in Delroland's case. But having some experience both as a DM and player, both in and out of the RPGA, I find it odd that NO ONE at the table got any inkling that the encounter was too difficult as ran. In simpler terms - if the mod was run at APL 2 and the opponent was 2 ogres (EL4), the APL 4 encounter would be 4 ogres (EL6) in many cases. The use of NPCs with levels, or simple adding of other foes to add difficulty, complicates the "on the fly" calculation, but IME there are many savvy players who would figure out the problem; especially if a death occurred. I draw a conclusion on their skill (or luck) based on the fact that a party down 1 PC survived the over APL-encounter. Again if the death was funky (PC runs in by himself, or gets critted, etc) that complicates my thoughts here. I do understand they were rushing, and that the player in question did not care about the death - but unless the death happened as they were getting the boot (which actually makes it worse IMHO), they had the rest of the slot for someone to notice the mistake, even if the slot was abbreviated/rushed. As for your suggestion for how to handle things under the current situation: Since it seems that several agree that the rule as is ins't the best nor the most fair for everyone but rather the easiest - what CHANGES to the rule do you think could be made to correct this. Rather than hash up what the rule may or may not have been, or what it currently is - maybe a good discussion on what it could be would be in order? No? I thought that was what we were attempting. FWIW, I think the current rule is perfectly fine, and I don't think that there is any proposal that could be made to change it that will either be "better" or have much chance to be adopted. Others have done a far better job explaining why the current rule was adopted, and the problems inherent in trying to "improve" it for the very rare case of a significant DM mistake not caught until after the table is finished. Part of the reason for my discussion on the circumstances of the table is to illustrate that the campaign is better served by all of us doing our best to prevent these issues from happening in the first place. If a PC dies, it is in all of our best interests for everyone to slow down and double check things were done right. With reasonable DMs and players, a minute or 2 can resolve whether any mistake was made, and correct it if necessary. That alone will do more to make the campaign better and friendlier to all players than changing the "at the table" rule. Combine that with well prepared DMs, good mods, and polite players and players new and old will be happier, and LG better overall.
Sieylianna 12-02-05, 12:40 PM	That's the reason that I'm much happier with modules which have all the encounters grouped by APL instead of the modules which have the APLs grouped by encounter. That allows me to set aside the sheets which don't pertain to the table that I'm running. Ed
slorak 12-02-05, 12:41 PM	I have already conceded that none of us know exactly what happened in Delroland's case. But having some experience both as a DM and player, both in and out of the RPGA, I find it odd that NO ONE at the table got any inkling that the encounter was too difficult as ran. In simpler terms - if the mod was run at APL 2 and the opponent was 2 ogres (EL4), the APL 4 encounter would be 4 ogres (EL6) in many cases. The use of NPCs with levels, or simple adding of other foes to add difficulty, complicates the "on the fly" calculation, but IME there are many savvy players who would figure out the problem; especially if a death occurred. I draw a conclusion on their skill (or luck) based on the fact that a party down 1 PC survived the over APL-encounter. Again if the death was funky (PC runs in by himself, or gets critted, etc) that complicates my thoughts here. Your example illustrates an APL change that is obvious - but not necessarily what it would really look at. You can have higher APL challenges in which the base creature is simply enhanced. IE it has more HD or special abilities. In this example it might be very hard or impossible to tell that it is the wrong APL. It could be challenging enough to just expend the party resources and possibly cause a PC death. I would wager that most players aren't so intimately familiar with the monster manual, more specifically all of the nuances of advancing creatures (especially if it came from one of the secondary monster manuals) and would not readily recognize errors for their level. I also have DM and player experience - but that doesn't mean that other people (both DM's and players) outside of my gaming influence - play the game the same way. I don't assume that things are a certain way because that is the way I do it. So again you simply cannot suggest that the players would have been experienced enough to notice a problem (simply because they did not die), at the same token it could be reasonably taken that the DM could also over look such a thing as the next higher APL encounter could very much look similar to the one below it with only minor alterations. So I still disagree with you there. As for the rules thing... Most people posting either simply talked about the rule at hand, ranted on how a rule change wouldn't fix things, or simply bad mouthed Deroland. Other than the 5 minute review comment I don't think much of anything positive has come from this thread. I agree with a lot of what you said about well prepared GM's, good adventures, and courteous players will do a lot to make the LG better. We can all hope right?! :) I still think that re-wording the at the table rule to a GM discretion will do little to upset the happy medium of the campaign and allow little things like the problem mentioned here to be resolved. I understand that everything is on a volunteer level - but that shouldn't be grounds for implementing lazy - easy way out rules. It would simple enough to imput something about nobody other than the DM will help you and that is left to DM discretion (of course worded a little more friendly) and leave it at that. Like I said before I really don't care. I will still play - though I am liking the quality of the Eberron adventures more than most LG mods. I simply feel for Delrolands plight and don't see the big deal in letting him overturn his mistake. Cheers, -Mike
Jarnor23 12-03-05, 05:16 PM	I also do not see why this GM should not be allowed to correct an error. You people seem to love blindly following rules rather than look at the justice behind them. Frankly, if a GM screws up or, God forbid, actually deliberately hoses a player, there should be an appeal that involves those higher up. Many times a GM IS the Senior GM, so it's hard to argue your case at a local table. And apparently if it isn't resolved at the table, Jesus Christ can't overturn it according to this logic. What upsets me most is that this person's LG character was destroyed, and told to remain so, even though they did nothing wrong. The answer was "kill them all, and let God sort them out" - kill the PC so we don't show weakness as game masters. I'm sorry, but that is simply WRONG. If you can't see why that is, you should be kept away from any position of power. And as far as the player having any idea it was wrong, LG writers are putting in some really insane things of late, hard to tell when it's wrong, or just a crappy module.
King Kashue 12-03-05, 09:12 PM	I also do not see why this GM should not be allowed to correct an error. You people seem to love blindly following rules rather than look at the justice behind them. Or you could, you know, actually read what people have said... Within the rules, a DM can correct his error, he just needs to take time at the table to catch it...Second, most folks here recognize that the rule exists to address favoritism and to protect the DM from pressure from the players. It also creates some undesireable situations, such as the one here. However, Delroland could have corrected it, just quietly and without raising an issue... Delroland's original issue (though he has since altered his argument when things went poorly) was that he publically stated he wanted to circumvent the rules, and got upset the Triad member chastized him for it...He wasn't claiming the rule was wrong, but that the Triad member was wrong for chastizing him...The issue wasn't "is the rule right or wrong" but "Is the triad member right or am I?" What are your opinions on this subject? Am I right in this matter? Or is the Triad member? Was I wrong to contact WotC when my Triad member and I disagreed on the rules? Does a Triad member have the authority to make a ruling of this nature? The answers were, no, yes, no (but WotC customer service is irrelevant in LG), and yes... He didn't like the answers, and then made it about the rule itself... What upsets me most is that this person's LG character was destroyed, and told to remain so, even though they did nothing wrong. The answer was "kill them all, and let God sort them out" - kill the PC so we don't show weakness as game masters. I'm sorry, but that is simply WRONG. If you can't see why that is, you should be kept away from any position of power. And if you had read the thread, you would see that the character wasn't destroyed, he just died...He died, it cost a level and 5000-ish gold...And this isn't about not admitting error, but rather establishing guidlines to preserve the integrity of the process (a greater good), even though it sometimes creates undesireable situations (a lesser evil)...
Cardinal Teplin 12-04-05, 08:29 AM	Deroland has a point I'm afraid. The present rules is a problem, and has directly led to the collpase of several games I've played in. The problem with sorting it out at the table is that there isn't _time_. You get into a rules dispute, the game won't finish on time, and everyone suffers. The sane logical thing would be to sort it out after the game, but the LGCS doesn't allow you to do so. The dispute has to interupt the game. I've been on all sides of the issue, it's pain in the neck and the LGCS makes it worse. The problem is that the rules are written, not to promote the play of the game, but to protect the people running the game from the players. While that is, I believe, and admirable end, and probably correct in terms of priorities, it does cause frustration when people such as Deroland expect the rules to govern how the game is run. Hence widespread cheating. By widespread, I mean, every event I have ever gone to, with maybe one or two exceptions. And by cheating, I don't mean people doing something wrong, but merely ignoring a LCGS provisions in some way as being silly or enenforceable. Maybe that's what we need? The game does seem to be running ok to me, the rules are invoked only to protect people in charge from harrissment, and the rest of the time common sense prevails. But if we could change the rules so that they make sense, I'd be all for it. It seems that past experience has revealed a siazable pool of people who get unreasonable when character death occurs, so a special rule has been put in to make sure they can't take the matter any further. Since this is clearly unreasonable, people deal with the matter 'under the table' instead. Ultimately, the only reasonable solution is going to be one that all concerned agree on. The LGCS assumes that isn't going to happen. I would greatly prefer the time immediately after the game to be available for discussions of this kind. Whether it is 5 minutes or 8 days doesn't matter to me. Those who now the people involved personally are going to get better treatment in either case, just as they do now. I can see favouritism is a problem, but neither the status quo nor any suggestions made are going to change that.
delroland 12-04-05, 10:54 AM	And please, you can do the rest of us the same favor. Give me a break. Samwise has been nothing but condescending and confrontational this entire thread. I DIRECTY QUOTE something he says and demonstrate how it says the exact opposite he says it does, and then he tells me that I "didn't read what he had to say" or that I somehow misquoted him. I PUT what he had to say RIGHT IN MY POST, and frankly, I am tired of his total lack of anything constructive to say. He repeats the same things over and over again, as though simply saying something twenty times makes it true. So please do not try to scold me for getting torqued off with him. Please, keep your posts on topic and address the subject at hand.
Cardinal Teplin 12-04-05, 01:09 PM	>Within the rules, a DM can correct his error, he just needs to take time at the table to catch it...Second, most folks here recognize that the rule exists to address favoritism and to protect the DM from pressure from the players. It also creates some undesireable situations, such as the one here. However, Delroland could have corrected it, just quietly and without raising an issue... I've read the whole thread, and I don't agree. Saying that a DM needs to 'take time to catch a problem during the game' is a little misleading. He needs to take everyone's time, and run the game slowly. That may mean the game doesn't finish, or that another event doesn't get run at all. That isn't a practical or workable solution to the problem described. Second while a few people have mentioned favouritism, I don't seen how a reveiw period (whether 5 mins after the game to 8 days) would help with favouritism at all. Merely compressing the time period doesn't alter favouritism. Having to hold up the entire game to make a proper accounting of the situation is a very difficult thing, and I'm not confident I would be as willing to do i for a stranger, or even someone I disliked, as I would for a friend. At least the review period means other people can be involved, and the chances of all those people having the same biases is greatly reduced. It also reduces the appearance of favouristism, which is a good thing in itself, that help with the smooth running of games and events. I suppose the bottom line is that, as a gm, I feel threatened and not protected by this measure. Allowing for a short period of time at the end of a game would help enormously. The present rule is a bad one, and should be changed along the lines he suggested.
King Kashue 12-04-05, 02:31 PM	I've read the whole thread, and I don't agree. Saying that a DM needs to 'take time to catch a problem during the game' is a little misleading. He needs to take everyone's time, and run the game slowly. That may mean the game doesn't finish, or that another event doesn't get run at all. That isn't a practical or workable solution to the problem described. I'm talking about 5 minutes after a death to confirm that the encounter was run properly...That's not a lot of time, and it wouldn't even happen in every game...That won't cause games to go unfinished... What's being suggested is not a mandatory review whenever a player thinks the rules are wrong, but a DM reviewing an encounter to make sure he didn't bollocks something up when he killed a character... Second while a few people have mentioned favouritism, I don't seen how a reveiw period (whether 5 mins after the game to 8 days) would help with favouritism at all. Merely compressing the time period doesn't alter favouritism. Having to hold up the entire game to make a proper accounting of the situation is a very difficult thing, and I'm not confident I would be as willing to do i for a stranger, or even someone I disliked, as I would for a friend. At least the review period means other people can be involved, and the chances of all those people having the same biases is greatly reduced. It also reduces the appearance of favouristism, which is a good thing in itself, that help with the smooth running of games and events. But we're not talking about the appeals process, we're talking about the DM correcting his own mistake on his own authority, not a senior official being brought in to deal with the issue... The issue of favoritism comes in with the fact it must be dealt with at the table, in front of all the other players...I can't legitimately kill your character in a game, and then secretly negate the death later...If it was a mistake, you correct it at the table, so the other players see the correction. The rule being suggested of a several day period review would allow DMs to say "oh, I caught a mistake" and then negate their friend's deaths. Even if you have to report the mistake to a senior official of some sort (likely triad) you could easily fabricate a mistake, since it's unlikely you can get the other players around to say "yes that mistake actually happened" or "no, that didn't happen"... Allowing for a short period of time at the end of a game would help enormously. The present rule is a bad one, and should be changed along the lines he suggested. Then if there is a death take 5 minutes and review before the player does his AR... Again, this isn't about the appeals process, this is about DMs catching their own mistakes and wanting to correct them. If a DM is concerned about a player death, s/he should take 5-10 minutes once the module is over and review the encounter to make sure it was legit...That's not going to cause the world to end, and it maintains accountability... Better yet, after an encounter where a character dies, call a 5 minute bathroom break and review...You could correct, and the player can continue even better for the overall fun of the campaign (which Delroland says is his greatest concern)...
slorak 12-04-05, 03:09 PM	The issue of favoritism comes in with the fact it must be dealt with at the table, in front of all the other players...I can't legitimately kill your character in a game, and then secretly negate the death later...If it was a mistake, you correct it at the table, so the other players see the correction. The rule being suggested of a several day period review would allow DMs to say "oh, I caught a mistake" and then negate their friend's deaths. Even if you have to report the mistake to a senior official of some sort (likely triad) you could easily fabricate a mistake, since it's unlikely you can get the other players around to say "yes that mistake actually happened" or "no, that didn't happen"... That happens now. No rule will elimiate a cheater. If it is going to happen it will happen. Implementing something like this will simply allow the GM to fix things without having to resort to cheating. If a DM is going to fix his "friends" death after a game - I can guarantee he is doing it now. Cheers, -Mike
scon40 12-04-05, 06:42 PM	Nothing new is being brought up at this point in the discussion. We've heard the arguments from both sides of the fence now. So unless there is a different proposal to be brought up, I recommend we wrap this thread up.
King Kashue 12-04-05, 11:39 PM	Nothing new is being brought up at this point in the discussion. We've heard the arguments from both sides of the fence now. So unless there is a different proposal to be brought up, I recommend we wrap this thread up. Other than including a "strongly suggested" 5 minute review after a players death, I've got nothing (and heard nothing) that seems like it would be best to institute...
Jarnor23 12-05-05, 12:32 AM	Or you could, you know, actually read what people have said... You assume far too much. I have read the thread, and I see this smug, condescending attitude to be the cause of the issue. You seem to assume players and GMs can't be trusted, and if that's the case, nothing would truly help. You seem to think that if you hammer the players with draconian rules, it will eliminate cheating. All it does is harm those who actually obey the rules, as I do as GM. Cheaters, sadly, can always get away with saving friends. "Oops, another 1! How the hell did that happen? Oh well, guess you get all the loot without a scratch again, buddy." However, if a player is messed up by a DM, and dying IS getting messed up, contrary to your cavalier attitude to it, there should be a way to appeal beyond the local DM, and 5 minutes won't swing that. Worse yet is the idea that bringing the game to a screeching halt to figure it out is acceptable. Frankly, we run short on time regularly where we play. That's because we do this thing called role-playing. Just because you say there is nothing to be gained by discussion doesn't mean there is. Frankly, that kind of authoritarian attitude is the problem here.
Jarnor23 12-05-05, 12:37 AM	Nothing new is being brought up at this point in the discussion. We've heard the arguments from both sides of the fence now. So unless there is a different proposal to be brought up, I recommend we wrap this thread up. Very well. I wish to second the proposal on here earlier about having an overall appeals person for these kinds of issues. I'd imagine the appeals will be far less than people worry, and far more fair than what is in place. With accountablity, I think the campaign would be be improved by a greater level of trust. I wouldn't worry about finding a person either, I'm sure someone would volunteer for the job. I know some triads that have many hoping for a chance, and I'll bet that some of those fine folks might step up to bat.
King Kashue 12-05-05, 01:00 AM	You assume far too much. I have read the thread, and I see this smug, condescending attitude to be the cause of the issue. You seem to assume players and GMs can't be trusted, and if that's the case, nothing would truly help. You seem to think that if you hammer the players with draconian rules, it will eliminate cheating. All it does is harm those who actually obey the rules, as I do as GM. Cheaters, sadly, can always get away with saving friends. "Oops, another 1! How the hell did that happen? Oh well, guess you get all the loot without a scratch again, buddy." However, if a player is messed up by a DM, and dying IS getting messed up, contrary to your cavalier attitude to it, there should be a way to appeal beyond the local DM, and 5 minutes won't swing that. Worse yet is the idea that bringing the game to a screeching halt to figure it out is acceptable. Frankly, we run short on time regularly where we play. That's because we do this thing called role-playing. Just because you say there is nothing to be gained by discussion doesn't mean there is. Frankly, that kind of authoritarian attitude is the problem here. Well, considering that Delroland's issue and proposed solution doesn't involve the appeals process at all, then maybe you aren't reading the thread that well... Delroland is saying that Judges should be able to correct their own mistakes if they catch them...He isn't saying that players should have someone to appeal to, or that there should be an extra step in the process by which they can have their own deaths corrected... Delroland is suggesting a period of review to allow DM's to catch and correct their own mistakes. I think it's a good idea, but a long period creates opportunities for favoritism, cheating, and player pressure of judges...A shorter period, before the table disperses (to maintain open, transparent review) is a compromise solution... As for "think that if you hammer the players with draconian rules, it will eliminate cheating", I certainly don't, and definitely haven't said that...Merely that there is a reason for the rules existing, and while imperfect it's there is an explicit reasoning behind it, and I happen to agree... I also recognize that no solution is going to be perfect, and that it's not about eliminating issues, but minimizing them...