APG: Alliance Players Guide Beta Feedback

Status
Not open for further replies.
The section on Goblin Stamps and what you can buy with them has a few errors and a couple of omissions, mostly concerning the additional options announced in this post.
  • It says the cost of a full Alchemy or Spellbook is 500 GS, but the post says an Alchemy book is only 250 GS; it also doesn't give the caveat that illegal recipes will not be in an Alchemy book purchased this way.
  • It lists the cost of a Teacher Tag as 50 GS, but the post says it should be 100 GS.
  • It makes no mention of being able to buy LCO Ritual components, but the post has that listed as an option for 50 GS per component.
If the PG is correct as-is, please consider editing the linked post to eliminate confusion.
 
Denise said:
Can we please read the suggested modules on page 93 and address how deeply sexist they are towards women?

“Monique is a little “French” waitress who flits from place to place with her tray and who is often seen dusting high places much to the delight of Gino. Players will assume that her dumb demeanor and attitude is really a cover, but—surprise!—she really is what she seems to be.”
Click to expand...

Big frellin' yikes there. Having that written into an official sample module is pretty disheartening. Same with the whole funny underwear section. I wouldn't be comfortable playing either part, and I would be especially uncomfortable asking anyone to play that part.

'Monique' and 'Candy Cane' are reprehensible roles to write into a demo scenario.

I am extremely disappointed that anyone in any official capacity with the Alliance thought this was a good idea.


Edit: Additional question, why does this glossary have multiple derogatory terms for someone who prefers fighting to RP?

Basher: A player who cares only about fighting and not role-playing.
Hack and Slash: Either a player who cares nothing about roleplaying and is only interested in fighting; or a module adventure that only provides fighting encounters.
Stick Jockey: A player who only cares about fighting.
Click to expand...

Also, why do we have three pages of ads for Mike's books in this thing? I could see it if there was actually an overarching Fortannis setting that was meaningful to characters from every chapter, but there manifestly isn't.
 
Last edited:
Maybe I'm looking into it too much, but what is the extent that prescription drugs aren't permitted to be used by people? Seems very loose in the wording, and I don't recall this from 1.3.

Page 64:
Alcohol and drugs. Neither alcohol nor any drugs that affect your ability to participate are allowed at any Alliance event. This includes alcohol in the parking lot or anywhere on the premises, even before the game begins; nor can you go offsite to drink and then return to play. This also includes prescription drugs which may limit your ability to react or think clearly. You need to be of clear mind to play or else you may be placing the safety of others in jeopardy.
 
I didn’t even see that entry.

That’s some serious ableism right there.
 
That verbiage has always been in the rulebook (page 35 of the 1.3 rulebook, for reference).
 
Darkcrescent said:
Maybe I'm looking into it too much, but what is the extent that prescription drugs aren't permitted to be used by people? Seems very loose in the wording, and I don't recall this from 1.3.

Page 64:
Alcohol and drugs. Neither alcohol nor any drugs that affect your ability to participate are allowed at any Alliance event. This includes alcohol in the parking lot or anywhere on the premises, even before the game begins; nor can you go offsite to drink and then return to play. This also includes prescription drugs which may limit your ability to react or think clearly. You need to be of clear mind to play or else you may be placing the safety of others in jeopardy.
Click to expand...

I'd say that if someone shouldn't drive while taking the medication then it's safe to say that person might not be of clear mind to play.
 
There are plenty of people who take prescription medications for sleep or pain or a variety of reasons that may affect their state of mind. While it may not be safe to engage in the game while under their effects, saying that those people can't play the games because they can't have their medications with them for 2 to 3 days seems a bit harsh to me. For example, benadryl is a very common thing to be in any first aid kit, but under these rules you can't have it with you because it alters your state of mind or might make it unsafe to play the game. I feel like the verbiage should be amended to allow those types of prescription medications so long as the person communicates with their local staff to make sure reasonable accommodations can be made for them.
 
I think it could definitely use clarification. Maybe reword it as 'You cannot play this game while impaired, no matter the source.' or similar?
 
Muir said:
I think it could definitely use clarification. Maybe reword it as 'You cannot play this game while impaired, no matter the source.' or similar?
Click to expand...

We have a class you can absolutely play while "impaired" now, though. Artisan didn't exist back when this was written. It would be better to update the language to something like, "If you take medication that affects your ability to actively participate in combat, you may be restricted to Page status while playing this game. Page rules can be found on <location>. Speak to the staff at the chapter you would like to play at to best determine what level of play may be right for you."
 
The argument could be made that artisans or noncombat character should also be of sound mind because you need to be safe while being attacked as well. I would word it like this "Prescription medications are allowed, but if you have a prescription that may alter your state of mind or otherwise make the event unsafe for you or others, you must communicate with the staff so that reasonable accommodations can be made." Simple but it leaves enough room for there to be wiggle room on either side.
 
Sure! As long as we’re also on board with a blanket requirement that all active chapters are required to have medical professionals with the relevant knowledge on staff in order to ensure that players aren’t being discriminated against.

Or we could just leave the ableism out of the book and assume players will act responsibly with their medications.
 
It doesn't take a PhD to understand "my medicine makes me dizzy so dont come into my room and attack me" or "I can't lay down or kneel for an hour when I take my medicine so I can't kneel for holds". The don't ask don't tell style is the worst policy in my opinion and I dont believe its ableist to put verbiage in the rulebook to encourage players to seek reasonable accommodations be made for them. It's not about keeping people out but opening communication about the matter.

Also, I expect people to play the game safely and they do, but the hold rule still exists for a reason.
 
airkshil said:
It doesn't take a PhD to understand "my medicine makes me dizzy so dont come into my room and attack me" or "I can't lay down or kneel for an hour when I take my medicine so I can't kneel for holds". The don't ask don't tell style is the worst policy in my opinion and I dont believe its ableist to put verbiage in the rulebook to encourage players to seek reasonable accommodations be made for them. It's not about keeping people out but opening communication about the matter.

Also, I expect people to play the game safely and they do, but the hold rule still exists for a reason.
Click to expand...

It is absolutely ableist nonsense to put a requirement on a player to disclose their medical information to a non-medical professional to play a game.

Instead, what would be far more reasonable and respectful of an individual’s privacy is to put a recommendation of disclosure, and for each chapter to have a listed medical contact with whom to discuss that information, -should the player choose to do so.-

I take medication for my ADHD, and depending on how someone chooses to interpret that, it could certainly “affect my state of mind.”

I’m not going to share that information with people I don’t feel is necessary to disclose it to. I will, however, absolutely disclose it to people I feel should know, because I’m a responsible adult.

I don’t need a rule to require that, and frankly, I find the presence of one insulting.
 
Draven said:
I don’t need a rule to require that, and frankly, I find the presence of one insulting.
Click to expand...

Under that rubric there are a very significant number of things that can struck including the no alcohol rule because people should know how to drink responsibly right?

I'm not sure what your ideal is, but what would be a good way to get a across the message of 'If your medication can cause issues that usually, but not always, are something you can handle, please let staff know so they can be ready to assist in the event this game you've never played before causes a situation that exceeds your usual control?'
 
Nobody here is looking for a "If you take any prescription drugs, you cannot play" policy, Evan. Folks are trying to get the vague statement in the rulebook clarified to be more like "Hey, if you take prescription drugs and you think they might interfere with playing the game to the best of your ability, let an appropriate staff member know and we can accommodate if needed." They're not trying to make you post your prescriptions publicly for all to see or prevent you from playing - they're trying to make sure everyone, including you, stays safe.

This same piece of the rulebook has been around for 20+ years. Have you, or any other player you know, been unjustly prevented from playing Alliance due to your prescription stuff during the time you've played? Just because there's a new rulebook doesn't mean chapters will start handling customer service things like needed medication any harsher.
 
It really seems like this should be worded similarly to how impairment is judged for driving under the influence. Its not about if its illegal drugs or legal drugs (prescription, alcohol, marijuana or whatever) -- its about if you are impaired enough to not be safe. I mean, I've seen people over-consume caffeine to such an extent that they were to amped up to be relied on to make a good combat decisions; and I've seen people at larps sleep deprived enough that they aren't combat safe. Playing impaired should be against the rules.
 
To be perfectly honest, I personally find the current language preferable to anything that's been suggested.

Alcohol and drugs. Neither alcohol nor any drugs that affect your ability to participate are allowed at any Alliance event. This includes alcohol in the parking lot or anywhere on the premises, even before the game begins; nor can you go offsite to drink and then return to play. This also includes prescription drugs which may limit your ability to react or think clearly. You need to be of clear mind to play or else you may be placing the safety of others in jeopardy.
Click to expand...

Over 20+ years of playing I haven't heard of someone challenging another player with "hey, you take XYZ prescription, you shouldn't be playing!". I have heard people be asked to leave or not come due to alcohol or weed. I've also known people who were on a temporary scrip choose to stay home because they knew they shouldn't be playing in their current state. This, to me, says that the current wording is a pretty good guideline.

We're trying to play a friendly (but safe) game here. I don't think we need lawyer-proof legalese specifying every possible state in which someone can or cannot play. Historically, Alliance folks really are pretty good about using their own best judgement to determine when they should play (or when someone else is being unsafe); the current text gives guidelines to help inform peoples' choices, and that's all it needs to do. Bottom line; if someone is approaching the game unsafely - due to being under the influence of something unsafe, or swinging too hard in general, or just being a jerk - our community is pretty good about monitoring and moderating that via to the Marshal system and Chapter staff. It's worked well in the past and I don't see any reason this text wouldn't continue to be valuable without being overly restrictive in the future.

TL;DR: My personal opinion is that the current text is just fine and doesn't need to change.

-Bryan Gregory
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top