General Discussion Thread IX

[Patlin]

Someone brought this up in a thread somewhere recently, but I realise that with more judges added on, this could become increasingly likely--what happens if three judges vote YES and then later three judges vote NO. What about vice versa? Or can this not happen? Even though I disagree with him on several of them, I like how Patlin has come into threads and voted a definitive NO instead of saying nothing, even when everyone else has already voted YES, but we aren't seeing that as often these days--it seems like once there are one or two YES votes, the judges who don't agree just kinda don't vote and wait to see if it will be 'pocket vetoed'.

A very good question, and the judges have been talking about it too. I've been considering a proposal on modifying the proposal rules, actually. Perhaps instead of 3 yes or 3 no a matter should require some sort of supermajority of those voting, with a minimum of 3 yes votes required to pass.

My general stance on rules proposals is that fewer is generally better... I wan't to keep ENWorld at a point where a new player can join us with basic knowledge of the D20 rules and play with very few rules surprises. I can understand why there are so few no votes, as no one wants to be mean to the person proposing any particular change, but I think it's important to overcome that feeling -- the vote is about the proposal, not the proposer.

 

[Rystil Arden]

My general stance on rules proposals is that fewer is generally better... I wan't to keep ENWorld at a point where a new player can join us with basic knowledge of the D20 rules and play with very few rules surprises. I can understand why there are so few no votes, as no one wants to be mean to the person proposing any particular change, but I think it's important to overcome that feeling -- the vote is about the proposal, not the proposer.

Interesting position. As a GM, and also as a random guy who comes into many of these proposal threads and hashes out issues and then throws in support, I am exactly the opposite:

I think that once they are balanced appropriately, any and all new options should be accepted unless they conflict with the setting's flavour or have some other similar reason to be denied.

These ideas are being proposed by people who want to play an interesting character using a new option. If we deny them that option, they either cannot play their character concept, or if they do, it would be a sacrificial effort wherein the character is pitifully useless. Plus, having more choices is cool. And the neatest part about new choices? If they are balanced, the new player doesn't have to read them all--she can just pick something from the core instead of something new and still be balanced. And if she too wants to play a similar concept and asks "Guys, how can I play X without access to book Y", instead of shrugging and telling her she can't, we can smile and say "Hey, actually--We have some neat special feats/spells/whatever that can really help bring that concept to life. LEW can totally do that!"

At least that would be my stance. Even with that said, I still support your voting NO on the proposals to which you disagree. You have a valid standpoint, and I think it may represent the opinions of others, though not of myself.

 

[Patlin]

I understand your position, also, and find it tempting. I usually allow all wizard of the coast books in my tabeltop games, and I enjoy having a lot of choices. I just find that difficult to reconcile with maintaining an easy learning curve. I don't want people turning away from EnWorld if they percieve it to be too complicated. Some of those new people may very well be DMs, and it's hard as a DM to feel like you don't need to understand all of the rules.

But yes, I definitely see your point. I'd love to bring my Warlock and Knight Phantom character concepts to EN World. They'd be great fun to play. Unless Wizards sees fit to add them to the SRD, though, I don't really see that as an option.

 

[Velmont]

Bront, how could you? Seems like everyone is becoming a Judge these days The only multiple-game GMs now who aren't that I know of are me and doghead

EDIT: D'oh, who could forget Velmont and his giant tournament o' games?

Well, the tournement will have many thread but it is still one adventure (the proof will come when it will end: I will receive the DM credit for one adventure...) so I am still single game GM.

But as you remembered me, I'll not pickpocket your character if he show up in one of my thread

 

[Knight Otu]

I'd love to bring my Warlock and Knight Phantom character concepts to EN World. They'd be great fun to play.

Let's start a new Living Game - Living Kitchen Sink*!



*Name subject to change.



And though I posted this humorously, I do think it isn't impossible to have more Living games.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Let's start a new Living Game - Living Kitchen Sink*!



*Name subject to change.



And though I posted this humorously, I do think it isn't impossible to have more Living games.

Living Kitchen Sink? Cool, I'm playing a Kobold Egoist whose best friend is his buddy Sars the Sarrukh

 

[Knight Otu]

Living Kitchen Sink? Cool, I'm playing a Kobold Egoist whose best friend is his buddy Sars the Sarrukh

*Shoots Rystil*

 

[Rystil Arden]

Some of those new people may very well be DMs, and it's hard as a DM to feel like you don't need to understand all of the rules.

That is indeed a good point. The good part about this for GMs is that most characters will probably only use a small number of variant rules, if any, and the GM will know which ones she needs to look up for the adventure and then never have to worry about any of them again by creating NPCs who don't use them. It certainly will be no worse than the learning curves for poor GMs like doghead who have three psionic characters and didn't know the XPH rules coming in.

 

[Rystil Arden]

*Shoots Rystil*

Fine! I'll be a Dweomerkeeper of Mystra. With Divine Metamagic: Persistant Spell.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I've been considering a proposal on modifying the proposal rules, actually. Perhaps instead of 3 yes or 3 no a matter should require some sort of supermajority of those voting, with a minimum of 3 yes votes required to pass.

I guess I never addressed this part. I would think 3 YES votes and 1 NO should still be fine, but maybe a second NO should bump the required YES votes up to 4. To phrase that in your supermajority terms, it would be a 2/3 majority then, I guess.