Proposal: Fix the proposal system
- Thread starter JoeNotCharles
- Start date
JoeNotCharles
First Post
I knew KenHood would like it.
I think immediate acceptance is too fast, because it doesn't give anyone any time to object so it'll lead to a lot more angsting about clawing things back if something really is broken. Also because I don't usually pick up the new stuff immediately and as a judge I'd like a bit of time to catch up before players are using things. But I'd be ok with a 1-month period - I always thought 3 months was too much, I just didn't want to be too radical in this proposal.
For the minotaur (and the Dragon Illusions article vs AP) I believe the rule I proposed would make both versions legal until somebody made a proposal to pick just one. But I'm sure in the case of the minotaur somebody (probably someone who played one, or a bugbear worried about the precedent) would jump on that immediately.
One question that occurred to me after posting this - it would be really awkward to have the charter say, "Here's the list of what's legal: PHB, PHB2, these Dragon articles, and everything after August 20, 2009 is automatically approved 3 months after it's published," so I think we should change the current list of approved sources to a list of exceptions. That means we should go through and find the things which were specifically voted on and rejected.
Would we grandfather in things that weren't proposed yet, or list them as banned until somebody proposes them? (There are a couple of Dragon magazines nobody's even mentioned.) Would we grandfather in things that were voted on without conclusion? Or would we treat them as being rejected? Minotaur's one of those.
I'd say for both of those questions, they should be accepted 1 month (or 3 months) after this proposal passes. That way people still have some time to object.
I think immediate acceptance is too fast, because it doesn't give anyone any time to object so it'll lead to a lot more angsting about clawing things back if something really is broken. Also because I don't usually pick up the new stuff immediately and as a judge I'd like a bit of time to catch up before players are using things. But I'd be ok with a 1-month period - I always thought 3 months was too much, I just didn't want to be too radical in this proposal.
For the minotaur (and the Dragon Illusions article vs AP) I believe the rule I proposed would make both versions legal until somebody made a proposal to pick just one. But I'm sure in the case of the minotaur somebody (probably someone who played one, or a bugbear worried about the precedent) would jump on that immediately.
One question that occurred to me after posting this - it would be really awkward to have the charter say, "Here's the list of what's legal: PHB, PHB2, these Dragon articles, and everything after August 20, 2009 is automatically approved 3 months after it's published," so I think we should change the current list of approved sources to a list of exceptions. That means we should go through and find the things which were specifically voted on and rejected.
Would we grandfather in things that weren't proposed yet, or list them as banned until somebody proposes them? (There are a couple of Dragon magazines nobody's even mentioned.) Would we grandfather in things that were voted on without conclusion? Or would we treat them as being rejected? Minotaur's one of those.
I'd say for both of those questions, they should be accepted 1 month (or 3 months) after this proposal passes. That way people still have some time to object.
Dude, you know it! I'm the John Calvin to your Martin Luther.
covaithe
Explorer
I'm kind of conflicted about this.
On the one hand, it would act to reduce the number of proposals in play, which would be a Good Thing. The proposal system was never designed to cope with the sheer volume of material that WotC are producing. It worked well enough for LEW, where the content that could be considered was severely restricted; the vast majority of proposals were for homebrew content. But here, where every month there are two or three new releases that someone is sure to want something from... I didn't anticipate that people would be so eager to bring so much new stuff in so quickly.
On the other hand, opening the floodgates entirely to new material pretty much ensures that broken content is going to get in. It helps a bit to put in a clause that says that anyone (I assume you don't mean just judges, but anyone at all) can make a proposal to prevent something new from going in, but there will surely be misses. Some obscure item in AV2, which when combined with that one feat from Dragon 982343835, turns out to be really powerful. KenHood argues that our players are well-intentioned. I believe this, but our players also want their characters to be powerful, within the rules. I want my characters to be powerful. Sooner or later, someone is going to cross a line, and then there will have to be a conversation about whether or not to nerf their character. It will be painful and divisive and will generally suck. That conversation is more likely to happen under this proposal than under our current system, IMO.
So, yeah. Conflicted.
On the one hand, it would act to reduce the number of proposals in play, which would be a Good Thing. The proposal system was never designed to cope with the sheer volume of material that WotC are producing. It worked well enough for LEW, where the content that could be considered was severely restricted; the vast majority of proposals were for homebrew content. But here, where every month there are two or three new releases that someone is sure to want something from... I didn't anticipate that people would be so eager to bring so much new stuff in so quickly.
On the other hand, opening the floodgates entirely to new material pretty much ensures that broken content is going to get in. It helps a bit to put in a clause that says that anyone (I assume you don't mean just judges, but anyone at all) can make a proposal to prevent something new from going in, but there will surely be misses. Some obscure item in AV2, which when combined with that one feat from Dragon 982343835, turns out to be really powerful. KenHood argues that our players are well-intentioned. I believe this, but our players also want their characters to be powerful, within the rules. I want my characters to be powerful. Sooner or later, someone is going to cross a line, and then there will have to be a conversation about whether or not to nerf their character. It will be painful and divisive and will generally suck. That conversation is more likely to happen under this proposal than under our current system, IMO.
So, yeah. Conflicted.
Atanatotatos
First Post
Yeah... I'm quite contrary actually. For the reasons Covaithe explained, and also, because I simply don't really see the need! There's plenty of content to use right now, and three months isn't really that long in pbp. Moreover, we have an augmented retrain system, an overhaul system, and we even decided that single-case proposals can be made to change completely one's character, within reason (it has already been done).
So yeah... maybe shorten the wait to two months or such, but I definitely don't agree that passing stuff automatically is Good.
So yeah... maybe shorten the wait to two months or such, but I definitely don't agree that passing stuff automatically is Good.
EvolutionKB
First Post
I like this as well. As a LEB judge, I know I've read a bit on a proposal, and then forgot about it. It stalled then. As a reader of the charop forums, I have faith in them to find the most broken things quickly. Most times, things are leaked from Japan before people in the US have the book. They can give tidbits and from there it's dissected(often weeks in advance).
As far as what Ata said about PbP being slow so what's the big deal. It matters to people because it's slow. The quicker things are approved the quicker they can use material they are excited about. Instead they lose interest and want to move onto a new character, or just leave altogether. Thus they are less likely to bail on DMs and the community as a whole can function better.
As far as what Ata said about PbP being slow so what's the big deal. It matters to people because it's slow. The quicker things are approved the quicker they can use material they are excited about. Instead they lose interest and want to move onto a new character, or just leave altogether. Thus they are less likely to bail on DMs and the community as a whole can function better.
renau1g
First Post
I agree with Evo about the CharOp boards. They identified the abuse of Hero of Faith MC feat from DP in like two days and had a build up in three days:
Ranger/Avenger DPR build (180.21 At-Will DPR) - Wizards Community
Do I expect anyone here to enter into this cheese-fest? No. If they do I can be pretty assured that any common sense DM will not allow them in their games. I know I reviewed each PC before I let them in (not that level 1's can be that overpowered) and my only concern was the oversized weapon for the bugbear. After PHB3 comes out next year with the minotaur (and assuming they follow the dragon article) it'll be the only one left...
Ranger/Avenger DPR build (180.21 At-Will DPR) - Wizards Community
Do I expect anyone here to enter into this cheese-fest? No. If they do I can be pretty assured that any common sense DM will not allow them in their games. I know I reviewed each PC before I let them in (not that level 1's can be that overpowered) and my only concern was the oversized weapon for the bugbear. After PHB3 comes out next year with the minotaur (and assuming they follow the dragon article) it'll be the only one left...
garyh
First Post
Three months is a long time to me, especially if that means you wait that long to play the character you want. Plus, regarding the "plenty of content right now" argument - if you're playing a paladin, the fact that Martial Power is already approved doesn't make waiting three months for Divine Power feel any better.
I think FAR too often we get bogged down in a single feat or item or power, delaying acceptance of uncontroversial rules in the same source for even longer than three months, before the argument just trails off. I'm kinda sick of that, and I'm sure folks looking to use non-controversial stuff that gets delayed due to it are even more sick of it.
EDIT: Also, I'm REALLY not worried about what level 30 cheese the CharOp boards can pull off. We should be so lucky as to ever see that in action in a PbP game.
renau1g
First Post
No it wasn't meant as a prophecy of doom coming to LEW any time soon. It was meant as a demonstration of the speed of the boards identification of broken feats/abilities/etc. As Evo said as well, I drop by from time to time to see what they're up to and to keep it on my radar in case one of my guys trys to sneak one in.
Similar Threads
Split the Hoard
Split the Hoard
Negotiate, demand, or steal the loot you desire!
A competitive card game for 2-5 players