Character Rewrites With New Edition???

Man..another rules change?? did we at least change spell shield back to "shield magic"? So i can stop screwing that up :)

Just kidding owners. Thank you very much for making our game be ever evolving, rather than sticking your fingers in your ears and not listening to your players. :D

-Ali
 
This is like any release of a game, it's going to get pushed back and pushed back. One of the more recent ones took about a year.
From my experience, if anyone says "It'll be out in February" (which was said the last few times), prepare for august. I don't expect it for over a year, honestly.
~Matt, WCV
 
Dreamingfurther said:
Its just getting a little frustrating every time the new rulebook is mentioned to hear that it is coming out "soon". And then when that time rolls around the same thing is said... =\ I know this is often the way with things like this, but that coupled with the very strict altitude about not letting out anything about what is possibly changing is somewhat frustrating. I am not complaining per say here, but trying to say how people might be a little bit frustrated, thats all.

It would be so much easier if I just did it without allowing the owners to vote on things. Damn this idea of democracy! :D

Seriously, sometimes I wish I could just get my Rules Committee together and get these things done in a few months. It's the voting and arguing and debating among the owners that takes time, and you know, I think most players want that.

For the record, when I started the Alliance I specifically set it up to allow the owners to have a say in the rules. Obviously, I did not have to do that since I own the copyright. But like US democracy, it can be slow, unweildly, frustrating, and sometimes will give us watered-down solutions in order to please the largest number of people.
 
Ezri said:
In the grand scheme of things January really isn't that far away.

More importantly, there is nothing broken about the game now that needs an immediate repair; we could keep playing with the current rules forever.

(Not to say we can't make it better, because we can and that's the point of a new book -- but there is no need to rush)
 
I know your right, and I like the way the system is currently set up.

I also totally agree the game is fine now and I'm very content with it! I'll try to contain my youthful excitement a tab bit more. ;)
 
Fearless Leader said:
Ezri said:
In the grand scheme of things January really isn't that far away.

More importantly, there is nothing broken about the game now that needs an immediate repair; we could keep playing with the current rules forever.

(Not to say we can't make it better, because we can and that's the point of a new book -- but there is no need to rush)

I thought the point of a new book was to make everyone buy more books, so you make money. :D
 
Bwahaha! There are far, far easier, and quicker, ways to make money. With less chance of being injury. (Mental, emotional, physical--let's not forget those sticks!)

Me? I just wanna see the pictures.

:)
ChrisO
 
Fearless Leader said:
It would be so much easier if I just did it without allowing the owners to vote on things. Damn this idea of democracy! :D
Indeed. Given that the owners and ARC have voted on it, the idea that they are being asked to recast their votes at Symposium was a little shocking. It's like casting your vote in the election, then finding out you actually have to cast your vote -twice-.

Seriously, sometimes I wish I could just get my Rules Committee together and get these things done in a few months. It's the voting and arguing and debating among the owners that takes time, and you know, I think most players want that.
They want arguing and debating, or they want to owners out of it?

Personally, I'd rather each edition of the rules were a product. You put out the game you want to write, and chapters decide which edition of the rules they want to play. Those that play the same edition can transfer. Deciding what rules go into a game based on popularity, rather than effectiveness and adherence to vision has always seemed odd to me. It would make more sense to me to ask owners what issues, conflicts, and weaknesses they feel the rule system has, then the rulebook writing team gets together and addresses the ones that they agree with or seem frequent, and pushes forth changes that support that, as well as the ones that you, the author, want.
 
if you're going to end up splitting the chapters up by what editions they want to use (ultimately because they do or don't like a series of rules), how is that different than wrtiting a new edition of the rules yourself and then it basically becomes a series of chapters running thier own games that have nothing to do with each other. not much of an alliance.
 
People on the ARC usually play chapters and talk to the owners often enough and have a good number of proposals based on their discussions with the owner of the chapters they play at the most. Also items for discussion the ARC brings up themselves are items they pull from the public boards that need addressing or rules that are currently that need to be reviewed. We do our best to get items that need most attention out first for owner review and trickle in the minor changes while we work on the next big batch of proposals.

When we originally started going thru all the proposals we had over 50, some were merged with other rules for clarifications while some needed to be kept seperate to be presented as a full body proposals like the Wand Proposal put before the owners. Having chapters work with different editions of rules can get sticky if you ask me. If a chapters really wants to work with different rules edition they can always start with a viarant campaign but one cannot expect to pull in the same number of people because of the non-transferability running a viarant game.

Justin H-
 
chriso said:
Bwahaha! There are far, far easier, and quicker, ways to make money. With less chance of being injury. (Mental, emotional, physical--let's not forget those sticks!)

Me? I just wanna see the pictures.

:)
ChrisO

Speaking of pictures, are they all just going to be HQ pics or are chapters from everywhere sending 'em in and subject for review, et cetera.
 
The ones in the current book are not all from HQ. Mike usually puts out a call for pics when they're just about ready to do the layout. Stay tuned!
 
I am in favor of a rewrite and here are my reasons why:

1) The game (whether people want to call it an organization) is for all intents and purposes a business. The players are customers. The game is a product. You (the owners) voted to improve it. Please allow your customers to use those changes. The rules are "being tweaked" to fix inherent rules issues skill issues game balance/class balance issues. It is to improve the overall quality of play for everyone. To not allow a rewrite is to say to players "well remember that flaw with the system that needed mending we fixed it. Now make a new character to take advantage of the fix.

2) Players, my self included, spend quite a while investing time to play- taking time off work, paying for animal/baby/house sitting. They spend quite a while in many cases building props, writing plot, making arc suggestions, making costuming, new player contact, running events, etc. We do all of this without the ability to vote on how our hobby changes, we trust you (the owners) to make appropriate changes and allow us access to them.

3) These same people spend money to play/buy props/buy phys reps/makeup/buying costuming/weapons/food/baby-animal sitting/GAS/food lodging/memberships/rulebooks/etc. I know personally I have spent thousands and would have spent far more if I hadn't been on plot and staff etc. I understand it is a hobby but it is an investment in fun. I am happy with what I have spent, though I think the new rule set is far more wide reaching than originally planned.

4)I am aware of many of the rules changes and they are major in many cases and change how classes function. I believe a lot more changed than initially planned and the player base should have the option to make adjustments.

5) I have heard that arguement-"start a new character" I have 5 characters. All of varying level and class and race. I like my characters in some cases and am still unhappy in others. I do think I should be able to play my primary with the new ruleset as well though. I don't think it is unfair, or unusual to ask to be able to use the same rules at 23rd level that everyone else will be able to use at 1st. There was a reason you changed or added rules. It was because they where broken in some way. Let the players use the fixes you came up with. I am not asking for any advantage over the access another player has to these rules.

6) And, yes,there is a fix for my primary's class. (it may not be perfect but I have been waiting a whole edition for a fix I hoped would come. Finally it has, but without a rewrite I will not be able to take true advantage of it. I am not a stick jock, I have a bunch of rp skills. I actually would rather RP than fight. I do however want to be able to keep my RP character alive. I love my well rounded character. The one I have invested thousands of dollars and 8 years into. After years of waiting for a fix I am now going to be told. Sorry, start another character to enjoy your class.

just seems sad really.
 
Robb Graves said:
if you're going to end up splitting the chapters up by what editions they want to use (ultimately because they do or don't like a series of rules), how is that different than wrtiting a new edition of the rules yourself
It handles any legal concerns someone might have over whether or not you're allowed to charge for an event you host that uses a given set of rules.

There are a few legal discussions that can go back and forth on whether or not purchasing a rulebook allows you to use the material therein to host an event which you charge for (for instance, can you purchase a dozen Scrabble sets, then host a tournament using those sets and charge for said tournament?), but my preference would cover that without a bunch of people needing to go through legal battles.

then it basically becomes a series of chapters running thier own games that have nothing to do with each other. not much of an alliance.
That depends on what you are referring to. "Alliance" the ruleset is a different product from "Alliance" the campaign series. The biggest difficulty I think people have is that they can't divorce the two from each other in their minds, and I believe that it hinders both the ruleset and the campaign series.

paythin said:
If a chapters really wants to work with different rules edition they can always start with a viarant campaign
Actually, no, they can't. Originally it was considered that they could with the new contracts going out, then when the winds of change started blowing, and Mike changed the rules and required that 50% or more of the games run had to be "main campaign".

one cannot expect to pull in the same number of people because of the non-transferability running a viarant game.
I suspect that depends on locality. There are larps out here that run independent of any other chapters that have significantly greater attendance than the Alliance chapters in the same region do, so transferability doesn't seem to be the deciding factor in the war for attendance. Similarly, some of those games have far more unbalanced or hole-riddled rulesets, so it would appear that that is not necessarily the deciding factor. When it comes down to it, what gets people to attend is good entertainment, and clearly that has little to nothing to do with the Alliance rulebook.

Speaking for myself, I would follow a good plot team to whatever game they chose to run far faster than I would follow a good set of rules to a bad plot team.
 
Marcena said:
Just so he can loot the body's magic items easily. That's what detect magic does, no? I've yet to need to learn magics other than curatives. :oops:

Detect Magic identifies any visible magic items as magical. It's much easier to just take everything and sort it out later.
 
Its less the usefulness of it, and more the un-usedness of it.
 
Ezri said:
The ones in the current book are not all from HQ. Mike usually puts out a call for pics when they're just about ready to do the layout. Stay tuned!

People have already been emailing me photos, and I've been saving them up.

Once more, they need to be really good pictures with really good costumes and no anachronisms.
 
jpariury said:
Fearless Leader said:
It would be so much easier if I just did it without allowing the owners to vote on things. Damn this idea of democracy! :D
Indeed. Given that the owners and ARC have voted on it, the idea that they are being asked to recast their votes at Symposium was a little shocking. It's like casting your vote in the election, then finding out you actually have to cast your vote -twice-.

Yes? And you were part of that conversation? I don't recall ever saying anything would have to be cast twice, but I did mention that under the rules of order, there can be motions for revisiting past votes. That's how it works, you know.

You know, JP, I would appreciate it if you and your chapter would stop trying to undermine our process by posting things here and arguing in public. It is completely unprofessional and, sadly, what I have come to expect from you.

jpariury said:
Personally, I'd rather each edition of the rules were a product. You put out the game you want to write, and chapters decide which edition of the rules they want to play. Those that play the same edition can transfer. Deciding what rules go into a game based on popularity, rather than effectiveness and adherence to vision has always seemed odd to me. It would make more sense to me to ask owners what issues, conflicts, and weaknesses they feel the rule system has, then the rulebook writing team gets together and addresses the ones that they agree with or seem frequent, and pushes forth changes that support that, as well as the ones that you, the author, want.

Good thing you're not in charge, then. That doesn't sound much like an Alliance to me.
 
Back
Top