Necromancy and AL

[Pauper]

My guess is that they are in response to DM's who don't trust their players

Players are people. They make math errors. They misunderstand phrases in the rules. They only read as far as they find a magic item description interesting and then stop. There are plenty of reasons to confirm a player's interpretation of anything rather than simply accepting it at face value, even if you otherwise trust that player.

(Edit: I believe the famous phrase is "trust but verify". It's good advice.)

Also keep in mind that other players don't have this power -- if you've ever been a player in a game being ruined by someone who obviously was misintepreting a magic item ability or had clearly forged an item award and watched helplessly as the DM did nothing to correct the error, you might have a different idea of the DMs role in keeping AL games entertaining and fun.

--
Pauper

 

[Inconnunom]

You seem to be saying that *every* DM will automatically revoke those things -- because DMs are jerks, apparently? You're taking this to a false extreme to try to discredit the idea that a DM can ever refuse a player anything written in the character log.

I don't feel you're deliberately trying to be unethical here, but it's a very sketchy way to make your point. (But it's better than just resorting to calling me names, so I'll give you that much credit.)

I apologize if I am not clear. I do not mean to say that every DM will revoke those things. Only that, a DM that DOES revoke those things specifically because they do not trust players is a "jerk".

Also, I see you are seeking to discredit me by claiming that I am being unethical and that my opinion bares marginally more regard than name calling. Thanks? (How does one even begin to respond to that?)

 

[skerritthegreen]

Interesting.

So do you audit the players' sheets?
Do you confirm that the judges that ran their games have valid DCI numbers?
How do you know they just didn't make up a level whatever character?

At WF the admins gave out favors - they were hand written on a photocopied cert. Do you consider them legal?
I mean, anyone could photocopy and hand write in...well anything.
and to further that, anyone can scan and reproduce any cert of pretty much anything...do you know everything that has been given out from the campaign to challenge its validity? The Admins have been giving out far more in "special" certs than is commonly advertised / available or even probably known. It appears to keep expanding...how will you keep up?

It sounds as if you are referring to the fortunes from Sybil Rasia. These are present in Fai Chen's for season 4 and since you are likely to hand out LOTS of them (people can get one everytime FC is open for 5gp/1DT) and since most of them are one use, we allow these to printed on normal paper. Also since they are all the same except the (1 of 54 different) effect of the card you pull, the effect is handwritten in (rather than print 54 different certs). This will be standard for the campaign for the fortunes (which are clearly labelled as one of her fortunes). Also, to have one, they should show the 5 gp/1 DT purchase as part of their Fai Chen logsheet entry.

 

[kalani]

I was not the one to mention them. My guess is that they are in response to DM's who don't trust their players and the players insist that at least having something on paper will allow their local DM's to use said item due to a general lack of trust. Because they aren't legal to trade with (afaik).

The admins have been suggesting players take photocopies and/or photographs of "unusual rewards" that happen in an adventure (Out of the Abyss specifically, as it is loaded with such rewards like basilisk eggs, baby hook horrors, and maze engine effects to name a few) specifically in order to help DMs validate them. I suspect that since DDEP4 premiered at Winter Fantasy, the photocopied reward falls along similar lines.

 

[Pauper]

Either way, when it comes to mounts - DMs do not have the authority to prohibit a mount at their table as it is something that can be purchased from the equipment section of the PHB.

Really? Because DMs have been doing this since Living City with a simple phrase:

"Your mount doesn't fit through the door of the dungeon."**

The PC can then pick up his mount after the adventure and take it to the next adventure.

** - Not every adventure has a dungeon, but most have some feature that makes it easy to separate a PC from a potentially abusive mount. (City watch won't let the mount pass the gates, mount smells something in the cave and refuses to enter, etc.)

--
Pauper

 

[Pauper]

Also, I see you are seeking to discredit me by claiming that I am being unethical and that my opinion bares marginally more regard than name calling. Thanks? (How does one even begin to respond to that?)

By not playing the 'I'm going to radically misinterpret everything you say to make you look bad' game? (That would be how I would get from "I don't think you're deliberately being unethical" to "You are claiming I am being unethical".)

Otherwise, just use the Ignore button. That's what I do when I find someone is less interested in engaging with the argument than trying to play semantic games.

(*plonk*)

--
Pauper

 

[Inconnunom]

By not playing the 'I'm going to radically misinterpret everything you say to make you look bad' game? (That would be how I would get from "I don't think you're deliberately being unethical" to "You are claiming I am being unethical".)

Otherwise, just use the Ignore button. That's what I do when I find someone is less interested in engaging with the argument than trying to play semantic games.

(*plonk*)

--
Pauper

I would point out that you were the one insinuating that I was doing little better than name-calling. But I agree that semantic games should not be played.

Here is a reset button then so we can get back to the argument at hand

 

[RCanine]

So to clarify, it's the player's responsibility to convince a DM that a completely legitimate reward is legitimate. Instead of the DM's responsibility to be properly informed?

Obviously the DM should use the tools available to be properly informed. Here's a list of those tools:

(this space intentionally left blank)

You are pretty much calling players liars and starting a session off without trust.

DM: "Sorry, you don't have certs for any of those items so you can't have them."
Player: "But.. certs aren't given at cons except for premiers!"
DM: "Too bad."

You have misrepresented my statement. I said a DM has to make a judgement call on what is the most fun for the table, and that to ensure no one player ruins the game for the others. Regardless of how many cons you attend, you are never entitled to do that as a player.

 

[Inconnunom]

You have misrepresented my statement. I said a DM has to make a judgement call on what is the most fun for the table, and that to ensure no one player ruins the game for the others. Regardless of how many cons you attend, you are never entitled to do that as a player.

I apologize if I mischaracterized your statement. I agree that a player that ruins the experience for an entire table is terrible. It is equally terrible of a DM to invalidate rewards of a player. In your post you had just said that you may or may not allow a griffin (a non-certed mount) because it might undermine the fun of the group. Or at least that is how it read to me.

 

[Mirtek]

(This is going to get more complicated now that home play is AL-legal, but its easy enough to figure out who runs regular home games in our area.)

And what about online games?