Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="IronWolf" data-source="post: 5848058" data-attributes="member: 21076">I think this might point more to a flaw with 100% sell back value rule than anything though.I think Mowgli points out the potential of the slippery slope. The key point being proposals being carefully scrutinized and debated, edited and resubmitted. We are quick to approve things because we don't want to deny someone their fun unnecessarily. That is awesome that we want to help enable people's fun, but that doesn't mean we need to abandon scrutiny or edits along the way.Let's take a quick look on Systole's Streamlined Traits proposal sitting out there now. While I am not entirely against the idea it is a rather large deviation for how we've done things in LPF. We have tried to stick to RAW as closely as possible, frequently modeling after PFS when in doubt. To vote streamlined traits in is a major deviation from that precedent.Despite that major deviation we had three yes votes in less than 24 hours to approve the proposal. To me it seems enough of a shift that it warrants some discussion - both on the proposal itself and how this impacts our penchant for staying as close to RAW as we can to ease new players into the LPF.Now I just might adapt this way of handling traits for my home game as I think it could work well for it. But for LPF I am more hesitant to introduce a sweeping rule change in with the small amount of discussion we have had - both on the rule itself and the door we open to more heavily customizing the Pathfinder rules.In the end we may end up voting it in, but I would like to see discussion from all judges surrounding the proposal and make sure everyone had had their chance to raise objections or have their questions addressed.I agree. I wasn't here as a judge when the Peral rules were established, but I find the 100% buyback a bit jarring as well. That barn door may already be open (though I suppose a proposal could be made to set it back to RAW), but the 100% buyback rule could now be skewing our impression of our crafting rules with something thrown out of whack.I've gone on long enough. But I guess I want to say I agree with Mowgli, lets not forget to really think about proposals and scrutinize them. It is fine to send them back to edits. It is fine to ask for them to be resubmitted in a more defined manner. And it is fine to comment on them due to precedents they might set for future proposals. It is all part of judging a living world versus judging your own game at home.</blockquote>

Verification