Paradigm Concepts
http://forums.paradigmconcepts.com/

Heirlooms
http://forums.paradigmconcepts.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=233
Page 2 of 2

Author:  SamhainIA [ Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Heirlooms

So here is the problem with taking a liberal stance.

Person A says, "well this is how I think the rules should work, I hope and encourage the rulemakers to change them"

Person B says "well person A said that the rules should work this way, and I agree so I'm going to use the new rule"

Person C says "well person B did it, so I'm going to do that too"

Person D says "well I can see him doing that, but i cant find that in the rules, I give up on this game the rules are too complicated"

Person E says "well I don't like this rule over here, since you are ignoring that one, I'm going to ignore this one"

Author:  Harliquinn [ Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Heirlooms

I don't think allowing non-mechanically enhanced Heirlooms of other items that could be a family heirloom handed down over generations will cause any game rules problems. However, as a strict reading of the rules, you are correct. However, keep in mind, that even in the main book there are several instances where Heirloom is something other than an irreplaceable weapon, armor or shield.

1) A horse is mentioned in the talent for Hinterlands
2) A 'fine quality' item is mentioned for the Apprentice of the Masters Background
3) A 'windstaff' that can be replaced is mentioned for one of the Paths.

But for the campaign, without PCI approval, it's probably best to stick with what's written. Without access to the old forums, I can't remember if Pedro or Henry allowed other items via the messageboards.

John

Author:  Nierite [ Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:26 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Heirlooms

There was confusion. I believe Pedro allowed it via post, but it was never incorporated into an Errata or FAQ document.

I personally think that--campaign wise--we should probably take a more narrow view of the rules. However, I am a strong believer that PCI and the campaign staff should carry around a stack of blank CP's or Artefact Pages to allow things in specific cases. Things that are grey and cool, but do not quite fall within the letter of the rules.

Author:  SamhainIA [ Mon Oct 28, 2013 10:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Heirlooms

My examples of Person A and Person B have already posted on this thread

Author:  SamhainIA [ Mon Oct 28, 2013 10:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Heirlooms

@John, right but the books are allowed to break/bend the rules because they are the rules.

its been said many times over, but you cant extrapolate new rules based on one off items and how they bend the rules, like your three examples, and the runestaves and permanent rune discussions on the old forums

Author:  acurrier [ Mon Oct 28, 2013 10:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Heirlooms

SamhainIA wrote:
well I don't like this rule over here, since you are ignoring that one, I'm going to ignore this one


Sweet! Hey guys, Josh says we can ignore rules we don't like! :P

Author:  SamhainIA [ Mon Oct 28, 2013 10:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Heirlooms

quick survey, how fast does it take to light a Nierite on fire?

(in this case 6 AR longer because he is a dwarf)

Author:  acurrier [ Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Heirlooms

ROFL

Author:  Eric Hughes [ Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Heirlooms

SamhainIA wrote:
So here is the problem with taking a liberal stance.

Person A says, "well this is how I think the rules should work, I hope and encourage the rulemakers to change them"

Person B says "well person A said that the rules should work this way, and I agree so I'm going to use the new rule"

Person C says "well person B did it, so I'm going to do that too"

Person D says "well I can see him doing that, but i cant find that in the rules, I give up on this game the rules are too complicated"

Person E says "well I don't like this rule over here, since you are ignoring that one, I'm going to ignore this one"



I think that this argument can be summarized as the "Slippery Slope" argument. It certainly has -SOME- merit. The flip side of taking a strict interpretation of the rules however is the notion that not everyone is as intimately familiar with every rule that exists as would be ideal.

The is particularly true when it comes to new players, and new GM's. Indeed, even the PCI staff is not familiar with everything at the same level. So what you end up with is the player or GM that is an expert on rule "A", knows comparatively little about rule "B" and thus interprets rule "A" without thinking about the ramifications of "B". Subsequently the expert on "Rule B" comes along and says "HEY! You can't do this." To which the player who has been playing according to Expert A's interpretation responds by saying "But I've been doing this for years..." and thinks to himself Expert on Rule B is {insert explicative}. This leads to confrontation, which leads to ill will, which leads to people leaving the game, which means we have no game left to play. The result is a slippery slope, that slides off the hill in another direction.

What we need isn't strict rules policy. Or a liberal rules policy. What we need to find is the goldilocks policy. We need that sweet place between playing a game that has grand consensus about what is proper, but without creating an environment where a handful of rules experts chase away new players who innocently read things differently.

Author:  PCI_StatMonkey [ Wed Nov 06, 2013 5:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Heirlooms

val Holryn wrote:
Can I take Heirloom (as a Kio) to have Hawk instead of a horse? What about a dog? A Leopard?
If I was (an elorii?) caster of some stripe could I use Heirloom to take a wand? Or a Rune staff (from FiM II)?
Could I take Heirloom to have an exceptional Altherian Sextant or Spyglass? A Carriage or Chariot?


I will be covering this in the next update to the "Ask the Stat Monkey"

Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/