Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Howie23 06-08-07, 03:49 AM	http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=lg/lgmp/20070522a A friend just brought this to my attention, and I don't think it's been noticed. There is an option here to buy an item off of a short random list when playing a core mod set in Greyhawk. 1-5: No items are for sale. 6-8:wand of detect magic with 25 charges (CL 1st; DMG; 187 gp). 9: necklace of fireballs type I with a single 3d6 bead (DMG; 450 gp) 10-12: vial of silversheen (DMG; 250 gp) 13-15: wand of hold person with 5 charges (CL 3rd; DMG; 450 gp) 16-19: elixir of vision (DMG; 250 gp) 20: stone of alarm (DMG; 2,700 gp) http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=lg/lgmp/20070522a Interesting development. David
Howie23 06-10-07, 03:46 PM	http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=lg/lgmp/20070522a A friend just brought this to my attention, and I don't think it's been noticed. There is an option here to buy an item off of a short random list when playing a core mod set in Greyhawk. Well, I just tried to do this yesterday in a mod that starts in Ghawk City, and the DM said that he wouldn't honor the Fantastic Location source as a campaign rule (my paraphrase). :( David
pedr 06-10-07, 04:04 PM	Looks like something to post in the Q&A thread and get Britt's word on so you can print it out. I'd agree that it would have been helpful to make it even more explicit, though I don't see how a DM can, with a straight face, say that the article doesn't create a Living Greyhawk rule.Living Greyhawk FAQ: How to Handle Buying and Selling If a PC wishes to purchase one of the items above, list the item and its price in the Items Bought box of the adventure’s AR, noting that the PC purchased the item at the Griffon’s Nest. The PC must pay for the item immediately and only one of each item is available each night. Purchasing the item does not give the new owner the ability to craft the item. Additionally, the item’s price cannot be reduced through haggling.
King Kashue 06-10-07, 04:20 PM	Well, I just tried to do this yesterday in a mod that starts in Ghawk City, and the DM said that he wouldn't honor the Fantastic Location source as a campaign rule (my paraphrase). :( David No offense David, but your paraphrase seems a bit off... He said that he didn't think that it was presented as a rule, but that he could be wrong, and specifically said "If I was better prepared" (i.e., if he had read that item more closely) that he would likely allow it (assuming it was presented as you described)...
Howie23 06-10-07, 04:37 PM	No offense David, but your paraphrase seems a bit off... He said that he didn't think that it was presented as a rule, but that he could be wrong, and specifically said "If I was better prepared" (i.e., if he had read that item more closely) that he would likely allow it (assuming it was presented as you described)... I trimmed the unnecessary portion for the purpose intended, which is to stimulate discussion and understanding of this. This was my purpose originally in starting this thread a few days ago. I am not complaining about his ruling, and the qualifications that he provided, and which you mention above, are unnecessary detail; I'm not complaining, and I'm not calling anyone out. He said that he was not likely to use it as a rules source until it appeared, with instructions, in a mod. He did say that he might see it differently if he had reviewed it, but also that he was disinclined to do so given that it was a Fantastic Location source. I asked if you were able to provide it, at the time and given that we at your house, but didn't press it as he was disinclined to pursue it (I think you heard me, but I didn't hear a reply). All of this, including what you presented above, occured, and may represent a migration of opinion during the conversation. I could have been better prepared, perhaps, by having it, but didn't know the mod in question would potentially qualify. This serves as a concrete reinforcement that the resource is not widely known of, nor understood. The judge in question is generally one of the most knowledgeable that I know. David
King Kashue 06-10-07, 04:49 PM	I trimmed the unnecessary portion for the purpose intended, which is to stimulate discussion and understanding of this. This was my purpose originally in starting this thread a few days ago. I am not complaining about his ruling, and the qualifications that he provided, and which you mention above, are unnecessary detail; I'm not complaining, and I'm not calling anyone out. At least to my eyes, the second post doesn't actually accomplish this. This serves as a concrete reinforcement that the resource is not widely known of, nor understood. The judge in question is generally one of the most knowledgeable that I know. And this is a great point...Except it's not actually anywhere in the second post :P If you had included that, ending the post with "The judge in question is generally one of the most knowledgeable that I know. Since he wasn't familiar with it, we clearly need to get the knowledge out there", I wouldn't have posted my clarification... I know about the judge (and agree), but even I didn't get that's what you were trying to say about the situation. How is someone who doesn't know the DM at all going to get that implication of your statement? (Note that Pedr seems to have missed your point as well) ;)
pedr 06-10-07, 05:00 PM	(Note that Pedr seems to have missed your point as well) ;)Indeed. From what I've just read, it seems that the article wasn't available at the game - if that was the case how could the GM have possibly known what it was? I'm clearly missing something! (how could you have known what the available items were without having the article?)
Howie23 06-10-07, 05:01 PM	How is someone who doesn't know the DM at all going to get that implication of your statement? (Note that Pedr seems to have missed your point as well) ;) So I'm a buffoon who has been able to communicate his message only with your assistance. Thanks for the assist. :) Now, we can proceed. David
King Kashue 06-10-07, 05:23 PM	So I'm a buffoon who has been able to communicate his message only with your assistance. Not what I was saying, but if that's how you are choosing to read it, it remains a free country :P
ARlife 06-10-07, 05:48 PM	Now now, you two, no need to get at each other's throats. This was just a bit of miscommunication. Okay, now that my token attempt at diplomacy is done with, back to the regularly scheduled rules questioning and answering. Since this article was written by Creighton himself, I believe that it is a valid question to post on the Q&A thread so that maybe he will answer it. I myself would allow it if the person brought the article with them or could show me with someones laptop or PC mainly because Creighton wrote it. But hey, I'm just 1 guy.
King Kashue 06-10-07, 05:50 PM	Now now, you two, no need to get at each other's throats. This was just a bit of miscommunication. We're not at each other's throats, and if you read a bit, you'd see we played together yesterday (which is how I know what was said)... So, now now, no need to say anything to us, Mr. guy on the internet who I don't know...;) And you still missed Howie's point in bringing attention to this rules issue :P The issue isn't whether it is a legitimate rule (since it is), but the fact that no one seems to have noticed it existed because of where they chose to publish it...
ARlife 06-10-07, 06:06 PM	Apparently my sarcasm was misinterpreted a bit. I know that you guys weren't actually being hostile. Though I misunderstood what the whole thread was about obviously. I agree that something should be done to get it out there so that the few rules lawyers even more strict then you and Howie, will allow it. I had trouble with convincing a judge that the LG cards were legal before the new LGCS came out, because it wasnt explicitly spelled out in the LGCS. I don't want similar rulings on this new tidbit of information. So I apologize for sounding too serious.
Eric Anondson 06-10-07, 06:37 PM	Having read this article, which I think is a cool thing for the campaign BTW, this is my opinion. Were I the DM, I would say that if this mechanic and location this were summarized somewhere like an appendix in the mod itself, sure. Do it. However, if this nifty mechanic and location did not appear in the adventure, and the PCs wished to do it, then the someone would need to have brought the article with them. Campaign documentation and all that.
Timlagor 06-10-07, 07:34 PM	1) It's not in the LGCS 2) It's not a Dispel Confusion 3) It wasn't in the module 4) The Greyhawk Ruins Sourcebook hasn't come out yet (it's also not in the BS sourcebook) While it might be cool I can't see any way a GM could possibly allow use of this article in an LG adventure that didn't include it in the Module Text. 5) Brit's Q/A thread is NOT official documentation for LG. (I even got him to say so explicitly in the thread)
Howie23 06-10-07, 07:36 PM	Though I misunderstood what the whole thread was about obviously. Reviewing my 2nd post in this thread, I find it a bit trollish and inflamatory. My apologies to any and all. David
pedr 06-10-07, 08:18 PM	1) It's not in the LGCS 2) It's not a Dispel Confusion 3) It wasn't in the module 4) The Greyhawk Ruins Sourcebook hasn't come out yet (it's also not in the BS sourcebook) While it might be cool I can't see any way a GM could possibly allow use of this article in an LG adventure that didn't include it in the Module Text. 5) Brit's Q/A thread is NOT official documentation for LG. (I even got him to say so explicitly in the thread)Your argument has merit. However as a counter argument: 1) It is posted to the WotC Living Greyhawk website and linked from the RPGA site. 2) It is written by a Living Greyhawk Circle member who clearly intends for it to be used in Living Greyhawk. 3) It contains a section which specifically details how it interacts with Living Greyhawk paperwork. I think that the best 'rule of recognition'* for Living Greyhawk rules is this: 'All rules items posted on the WotC Living Greyhawk website which are marked as being rules for Living Greyhawk are rules for Living Greyhawk.' This is logically prior to the authority of the LGCS, which is a set of rules for LG by virtue of being posted on the LG website. Should this new 'rule' be contained in a Dispel Confusion? Probably - although it's not terribly accurate to describe it as dispelling confusion when it's actually the announcement of a new way of accessing equipment. It's better to have a slightly more flexible view of what constitutes a valid source of rules so that such additions as this can be made when necessary instead of waiting for particular dates when updates are taking place. (* Britt, do you study John Austin and positivism in the US? :D For those not fortunate enough to have studied jurisprudence/legal philosophy, a rule of recognition is the standard one uses for determining whether something which purports to be a valid rule or law is in fact valid.)
Timlagor 06-11-07, 05:39 AM	Your argument has merit. However as a counter argument: 1) It is posted to the WotC Living Greyhawk website and linked from the RPGA site. 2) It is written by a Living Greyhawk Circle member who clearly intends for it to be used in Living Greyhawk. 3) It contains a section which specifically details how it interacts with Living Greyhawk paperwork. My initial assumption was that this would turn up in the LGRuins book and/or in LG modules in due course. I think that the best 'rule of recognition'* for Living Greyhawk rules is this: 'All rules items posted on the WotC Living Greyhawk website which are marked as being rules for Living Greyhawk are rules for Living Greyhawk.' This is logically prior to the authority of the LGCS, which is a set of rules for LG by virtue of being posted on the LG website. Definitely a solid point but I don't like it. Should this new 'rule' be contained in a Dispel Confusion? Probably - although it's not terribly accurate to describe it as dispelling confusion when it's actually the announcement of a new way of accessing equipment. It's better to have a slightly more flexible view of what constitutes a valid source of rules so that such additions as this can be made when necessary instead of waiting for particular dates when updates are taking place. Here's why I don't like it. We already have more sources of rules for this campaign than many people are omfortable with. Suggesting that people should regularly check a website for random articles is more than one step too far. .. and if people don't check then you get increasing variation across the campaign. I'd really like to just have LGCS + LG FAQ but at least the D&D FAQ and the DCs are fairly easy to track. [EDIT: and the DC was changing rules within at least the first 3 ..if not he very first issue]
King Kashue 06-11-07, 11:15 AM	I'd really like to just have LGCS + LG FAQ Well, you're in luck on this specific rule then. Since the Fantastic locations article explicitly includes a LG FAQ entry, you should have no issues recognizing it's an official ruling ;)
Nutation 06-11-07, 02:52 PM	I would be the judge in question. I had read the article, but not with the mindset of "Is this presenting actual rules material". To date, Creighton's Mysterious Places articles have all been fluff, merely summarizing what we can expect to see in core modules. 1) It's not in the LGCS 2) It's not a Dispel Confusion 3) It wasn't in the module 4) The Greyhawk Ruins Sourcebook hasn't come out yet (it's also not in the BS sourcebook) Yes, that was my reasoning, caught off-guard and tending to be conservative. Maybe if we had the article at hand, someone would have noticed the FAQ embedded in the article, a bad way to do things. Edit: And, in hindsight, without the chart at hand, it's all moot.
pedr 06-11-07, 03:40 PM	Edit: And, in hindsight, without the chart at hand, it's all moot.Well, indeed. Anyone seeking to use an unfamiliar rule ought to be prepared to present it in case the judge doesn't know it, or wants to check the wording. Clearly a judge can say 'with a straight face': "If you want to do that, show me where it says you can." So I apologise for for my incredulity at your refusal to allow it! I'd have refused to allow it as well. :) I imagine Howie23's real aim of this thread, and of bumping it, was so that more judges would realise that this option exists, and perhaps print out the chart and add it to their LG rules collection. That's a useful thing to have done; I'd skimmed the article but I didn't notice the LG implication until I saw this thread. I still maintain that it's a valid LG option, Timlagor's points notwithstanding. (Must stop arguing with him on these boards: he hosts our local games :D)
Britt 06-11-07, 03:51 PM	It is a valid LG option. We discussed it internally just to be 100% sure and Creighton has said that it is definitely intended to be a valid LG option for players in Core mods, pursuant to the rules in the article. You still have to have the article to use the option, though.
Morgen 06-12-07, 02:17 AM	Good, we can use more flavor like this in a place like Greyhawk. Only wish that kind of thing was allowed for the capital cities of our regions. It isn't like a 450gp 3d6 fireall is going to destroy the game. Plus there is the randomness of it all too, excellent!
gomeztoo 06-12-07, 02:49 AM	Good, we can use more flavor like this in a place like Greyhawk. Only wish that kind of thing was allowed for the capital cities of our regions. You can. You merely need to add the option in your regional scenarios. Gomez
Timlagor 06-12-07, 09:27 AM	Yes, that was my reasoning, caught off-guard and tending to be conservative. Maybe if we had the article at hand, someone would have noticed the FAQ embedded in the article, a bad way to do things. Which would be great if there was any such document as the LG FAQ and that Q&A was actually in it. Britt: you're getting back into the territory of "Well there was a post on the board saying X" "no there wasn't" at tables. Special Arc CSs are bad enough documentation creep but things like this really ought to be referenced in a DC before they can be used.
TimRat 06-12-07, 09:49 AM	Adding something like this to an adventure woudl just increase the page count even more. Now i could see making mention of it to check out the website and print off the copy of it for use. but for any domain of greyhawk adventure, and there is going to be a lot of them coming up, you can use this.
King Kashue 06-12-07, 03:13 PM	Which would be great if there was any such document as the LG FAQ and that Q&A was actually in it. You mean like something in the LGCS? Say, something that was titled Appendix 1: LIVING GREYHAWK FAQ? Something that was, say, on pages 20 & 21 of the LGCS 7.5? Something like that? ;)
Britt 06-12-07, 03:33 PM	It will be in the next Dispel Confusion, along with a lot, a whole lot, of other stuff.
Lomiat 06-12-07, 09:35 PM	If I'm playing a Wild Mage, does the Griffon's Nest count as an item? :P
TetsujinOni 06-13-07, 01:58 PM	It will be in the next Dispel Confusion, along with a lot, a whole lot, of other stuff. Any ETA on the new DC?
Britt 06-13-07, 02:06 PM	First Tuesday in July.
Mattastrophic 06-13-07, 02:21 PM	Any chance of scoring some preview bullet-points of what'll be in the DC? -Matt
Timlagor 06-14-07, 11:41 AM	You mean like something in the LGCS? Say, something that was titled Appendix 1: LIVING GREYHAWK FAQ? Something that was, say, on pages 20 & 21 of the LGCS 7.5? Something like that? ;) No actually.
King Kashue 06-14-07, 12:03 PM	No actually. Okay, so the existing "Living Greyhawk FAQ" (Titled as the rule item in the article) which is part of the LGCS (and thus obviously official), and is in a question and answer format (just as you required), isn't the rules item you were looking for... Why is that?
Timlagor 06-15-07, 10:44 AM	because it's part of the lgcs and doesn't replace the D&D FAQ.
King Kashue 06-15-07, 01:41 PM	because it's part of the lgcs and doesn't replace the D&D FAQ. Why the heck would it need to replace the D&D FAQ? :confused: You said the Living Greyhawk FAQ section in Creighton's article wasn't an official rule. Your exact words were: "Which would be great if there was any such document as the LG FAQ and that Q&A was actually in it." There is such a thing as the LG FAQ. It's in the LGCS which is a primary rules document. And Creighton specifically intended the article to be viewed as such. Exactly how is "it doesn't replace the D&D FAQ" anything but a non sequitur?