tieran said:Well quit it.
I don't need any more crap from people about how bad a roleplayer you are.
Simon said:If the rules change this should I not be allowed to adjust?
Fearless Leader said:Simon said:If the rules change this should I not be allowed to adjust?
If they change enough, yes. If a spell changes level, no.
I was objecting to people demanding being able to change their characters without even seeing what changes are coming. Trust me, we want to keep players happy, and if changes are necessary we will allow them, but we also don't want to hurt the integrity of the game by allowing everyone to suddenly change their characters for no real reason.
Personal digs and criticisms aside, I really enjoy the game (both mechanically and experientially), and in the end, I'm just a player like everyone else. I am not a staff member, and as such, I am not (or rather, certainly shouldn't be) held to any particular professional standard of "we are a company, this is our answer". In a public forum, why is it unprofessional for a player and fan of the game to voice concern with what he or she sees, and opine on the direction of the rules? I would agree that if I were an owner or staff member for a chapter, my comments would be untoward, but as it is, I play and occasionally volunteer. Why are you so afraid of public discourse and open, frank discussion?MikeV said: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
Again, are you talking about the Alliance ruleset, or the Alliance campaign? I see them as two very distinct and separate entities. The Alliance campaign is the one where everyone plays the same edition and has a grand old time jumping around the map playing different flavors of the same rich nutty goodness. The Alliance ruleset differs from edition to edition, and each one has it's own strengths and weaknesses. The idea that they are married one and the same would seem to imply that I could use an old edition of the rules and charge for my games and never worry about any form of legal redress, since clearly I was not playing Alliance under that definition.MikeV said:Good thing you're not in charge, then. That doesn't sound much like an Alliance to me.
And yet, by your own admission, the game contains elements that you don't want in it. It ceases to be "your vision" and becomes this weird bastard hybrid that has a lot of stuff you like, but a bunch of stuff you don't like as well. I'd love to give a shot at playing the game you envision, because this one apparently isn't quite it and by your own rules and practices, I can't. From the cheap seats over here, it seems like you have to resort to manipulating people into voting the way you want to get it as close as you can to your vision and settle for something less than that, and it makes the whole thing look a tad shady. That's the part I really don't like.MikeV said:The fact is that, like it or not, this game is MY vision. Seriously, I'm sorry to disappoint anyone, but my name is on the book and in the copyright office.
jpariury said:On rewrites:
Personally, I'd dig if everyone had to start a new character every time the rules changed.
chriso said:I agree. Changes to characters should be based on who and what the character is and has been. Even if the changes are really nifty, I see no in-game reason (hey, it's a Role-playing game, right?) for a Fighter to suddenly become a Scholar, or an Artisan to suddenly be swinging Slays. I think staying within character concepts would be highly appropriate, while still allowing for minor alterations where necessary. (Note that last word.
ChrisO
Gilwing said:chriso said:I agree. Changes to characters should be based on who and what the character is and has been. Even if the changes are really nifty, I see no in-game reason (hey, it's a Role-playing game, right?) for a Fighter to suddenly become a Scholar, or an Artisan to suddenly be swinging Slays. I think staying within character concepts would be highly appropriate, while still allowing for minor alterations where necessary. (Note that last word.
ChrisO
Magic!
200 build under the old rules. Sorry, start over. *thump*.Wraith said:I'd buy that, if it wasn't a surefire recipie for 'Oh, but I've been back-goblining and pay-no-playing an unassigned character, so it's now designated as this new guy and I'll just be taking my 200 build now.'
Tweaking is always iffy. There's a wide gray line between "tweak" and "distinctly change", and it tends to cause sore feelings or worse.Pantzike said:I always am on the side of letting people tweak their characters to adjust for new things whenever possible.
Pantzike said:I agree. Temporary and Permanent medical forges happen frequently enough that people are already used to seeing somebody goto bed a fighter and wake up a scholar. People find all sorts of ways to explain it IG.
Forge worthy changes have occurred in the past and will probably occur in the future. We'll find out where this book rests soon enough.
My opinion on the matter: I always am on the side of letting people tweak their characters to adjust for new things whenever possible.
chriso said:Pantzike said:I agree. Temporary and Permanent medical forges happen frequently enough that people are already used to seeing somebody goto bed a fighter and wake up a scholar. People find all sorts of ways to explain it IG.
Forge worthy changes have occurred in the past and will probably occur in the future. We'll find out where this book rests soon enough.
My opinion on the matter: I always am on the side of letting people tweak their characters to adjust for new things whenever possible.
Mmm...Mayhaps it's just me, but I see a difference between a drastic change made because of medical reasons, and deciding one day that, because Fighters now have some cooler stuff, my mage should be able to re-spend my build and become a fighter, waking up the next morning saying "Wow, I'm now a fighter, must have been a Magical Windstorm from the Chaos plane last night".
I am not saying that there should never be such drastic changes. In fact, I'm not set against the idea of Forging, personally. Skills or race. It's the reasoning behind the Forge that I question, not the act itself.
Ultimately, though, I care not. The new rules will be out soon enough, the transition to them will happen (with a greater or lesser period of confusion and discussion), and we'll get right back into the game. All before then is speculation and conjecture.
ChrisO