Strict Standards: Declaration of KunenaLayoutBase::debug() should be compatible with JLayoutBase::debug($data = Array) in /home/newtd/public_html/libraries/kunena/layout/base.php on line 38
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: BETA 2015 Quick Token Reference Guide < Feedback!

Re: BETA 2015 Quick Token Reference Guide < Feedback! 5 years 7 months ago #37

  • Graven
  • Graven's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 541
Druegar wrote:
Are you %*#@ing kidding me!?! There is absolutely no reasonable way to justify that, other than the manifestation dickishness.
Ha ha ha :laugh: I'm actually laughing out loud

I didn't expect that from Druegar…

Please post a 'No cookie for you" token and your journey towards the dark side will be complete! :evil: :lol:
[ Click to expand ]
Last Edit: 5 years 7 months ago by Graven.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: BETA 2015 Quick Token Reference Guide < Feedback! 5 years 7 months ago #38

Druegar's, I agree with you completely. A computer would grant zero treasure, but no reasonable human would assume that was the intent for a party of 11+ people to get zero. I would expect a coach to say "this is what it clearly says, but it must be wrong." And call a director if they weren't sure.

And I would also expect any coach who who made that call to feel pretty stupid for asking the question.

My only point was, Eric was right in the sense that that is what the token literally says. And I agree with you, what it says couldn't be what TPTB actually meant.
barkley.neo.rr.com -->see my eBay store HERE or my web store HERE
"Ceci n'est pas une pipe" - Magritte
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: BETA 2015 Quick Token Reference Guide < Feedback! 5 years 7 months ago #39

Graven wrote:
Druegar wrote:
Are you %*#@ing kidding me!?! There is absolutely no reasonable way to justify that, other than the manifestation dickishness.
Ha ha ha :laugh: I'm actually laughing out loud

I didn't expect that from Druegar…

Please post a 'No cookie for you" token and your journey towards the dark side will be complete! :evil: :lol:

Could we also get a What would Wil Wheaton Do? Token? WWWWD....
You don't have to outrun the monster, just the guy next to you - The buddy system.

Cranston's Character Generator for iDevices or Character Generator for Android

Amorgen's Excellent Excel Character Generator

Have you checked the Token DataBase?
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: BETA 2015 Quick Token Reference Guide < Feedback! 5 years 7 months ago #40

  • balthasar
  • balthasar's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Hero Member +1
  • Posts: 2118
How about a token with Nixon's face, but add a red circle with a line through it?
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: BETA 2015 Quick Token Reference Guide < Feedback! 5 years 7 months ago #41

Druegar wrote:
Suggesting it was a mistake to not put "10+" instead of "10" on the Charm of Good Fortune is a reasonable position. I have no problem with that.

Suggesting the intent was for more than 10 legitimately-equipped CoGFs to yield zero chips is completely asinine. "Hmm, I see a trend here. First they get +2 chips, then +3, then +4. Well clearly the next logical step would be zero." Are you %*#@ing kidding me!?! There is absolutely no reasonable way to justify that, other than the manifestation dickishness.

I'm not surprised when a computer program encounters an unexpected result and metaphorically throws up its arms and says, "I don't know what to do, so I'm not going to do anything except crash." But TD coaches, DMs, and other volunteers are not computer programs. That behavior in an adult with at least average mental function is not reasonable.

An equally likely possibility is that a group shouldn't equip more than 10 CoGFs. No one is ever forced to equip tokens, and if it means that in a group which is larger than is technically/normally allowed, one person doesn't get an extra four treasure tokens, is that worthy of spouting profanity and insults against other people's intelligence?

I wasn't around when the Charm was originally being discussed, but if the point was raised then and the token wasn't changed, it's fair to assume that there was a reason for it. My thought was "maybe this is to ensure that 'too many' tokens aren't taken by a group, so that there will be enough for everyone." Since we already have seen shortages of completion tokens and badges over the last couple years, that's not too far-fetched.

In general, I want the token's wording to be as complete as possible. Tokendb is a good resource, but the more tokens which receive errata on it, the greater the barrier that it presents to new players. I am strongly against arguments of flavor and "people should know". There are plenty of rules from D&D 3.x/Pathfinder which True Dungeon doesn't follow - and that makes perfect sense, as it is its own game by now. But if you start adding unwritten rules in some places, don't be surprised when they show up in other places as well...
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: BETA 2015 Quick Token Reference Guide < Feedback! 5 years 7 months ago #42

  • Incognito
  • Incognito's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Hero Member +1
  • Posts: 4361
Druegar wrote:
Druegar wrote:
Was this person suggesting that all 11 players who had equipped a CoGF get zero bonus tokens?
Incognito wrote:
It is a legitimate interpretation.
I disagree. I think it's someone deliberately misinterpreting the spirit of the text for the sole purpose of being a dick.
I do not think it is helpful or productive to be judgmental and automatically assume malicious intent when there are alternative interpretations.

1. For the record, I do not believe the CoGF *should* yield 0 treasure pulls when there are more than 10 of them. And I think that is probably not the intent.

2. Yet I still maintain that as it is written, it is a legitimate interpretation. In terms of objective logic, as Brad has pointed out, that is how it would be interpreted.

3. Please remember that there are indeed people who think and interpret things differently than you do. For example, for people whose native language is not English, they could easily interpret things differently without it being deliberate or trying to be a dick. And yes, there are also other people with different neural patterns and whose brains work differently (and may interpret things differently) than you do.

Brad Mortensen wrote:
As printed, the CoGF says it literally grants no bonus to anyone in the party if a number greater than ten are equipped.

You can argue about what it should say, or what it's meant to say, but not about what it actually says. Because English.

And for the record, I fully support the "invisible plus sign" errata.
Brad Mortensen wrote:
I have a computer programming background. I got very frustrated with clients who said "don't do what I say, do what I mean!" To which I always want to say "Programmers who try to interpret the spirit of a requirement usually get slapped down. I'm not a freakin mind reader, so how about you say what you mean in the first place instead of making me guess!" But I always just say "sorry" instead.

Wheaton's Law also applies to sloppy people who get annoyed when you point out they made a mistake :)
Yes, "intent" and "spirit" are actually really hard to interpret. It is for those same reasons why I dislike terms such as "obvious" and "common sense." Usually people use those terms to only apply their particular interpretation, thereby trying to discredit anyone else's perspective.

Take a look at law, and particularly constitutional law. That is TONS of discussion on the "intent" of the Founding Fathers, yet there are still plenty of cases where different parties wholly believe in diametrically opposing views, yet each is 100% sure that they are right.

Or look at the interpretation of religious texts where there is more than enough dissension about the "spirit" and "intent."
Druegar wrote:
Suggesting it was a mistake to not put "10+" instead of "10" on the Charm of Good Fortune is a reasonable position. I have no problem with that.

Suggesting the intent was for more than 10 legitimately-equipped CoGFs to yield zero chips is completely asinine. "Hmm, I see a trend here. First they get +2 chips, then +3, then +4. Well clearly the next logical step would be zero." Are you %*#@ing kidding me!?! There is absolutely no reasonable way to justify that, other than the manifestation dickishness.

I'm not surprised when a computer program encounters an unexpected result and metaphorically throws up its arms and says, "I don't know what to do, so I'm not going to do anything except crash." But TD coaches, DMs, and other volunteers are not computer programs. That behavior in an adult with at least average mental function is not reasonable.
1. As I have mentioned, this has been an ongoing issue of ambiguity that I have brought up multiple times in the past 1-2 years. While I am glad that there is now an official ruling on it (and I agree with the ruling), the fact that TD did NOT previously clarify this issue (despite it being brought up multiple times), could have meaning by itself. Just like how there is often meaning when the Supreme Court is aware of an issue but declines to hear a case and make a ruling.

2. I think it is close-minded to assume that there is "no reasonable way to justify that, other than the manifestation dickishness." Here are several potential reasons:

A. In some versions of D&D/AD&D, there actually was a rule that if you wear more than one ring on a single hand, that the effects of the rings nullified each other. And in some versions there were issues with Bracers of Defense interfering with other AC protective gear. So there is potential precedent for the "game logic" that having too many CoGF's (more than 10) causes their magical energies to interfere with each other. You might also be able to draw some parallels to how the Mage Armor scroll currently does not work with armor.

B. If you want to have this "intent" argument, how about the Hand of Glory vs Gloves of Glory? I think it would be very "reasonable" that the original intent of the Hand of Glory was to allow an extra ring (in fact, the original wording actually supports that interpretation). So one would think that the Hand of Glory and Gloves of Glory should each allow an additional ring but in fact they do not stack and instead they currently only allow a "third ring" rather than "an additional ring."

C. There have been PLENTY of cases where poor or ambiguous wording of tokens has led to confusion. Fortunately, most of the time, these get resolved fairly quickly, but just as an example:

- Bard Instruments
- Earcuff of Enchantment
- Figurine of Power Dragon & Tortoise
- Viper Strike Set
- Ioun Stone Iridescent Sphere vs Iridescent Spindle
- Lamp of the Marid/Efreeti
- FLINT'S CHARM OF AVARICE

As Brad mentioned, we are NOT mindreaders, so it is often hard to know for sure what Jeff is thinking, especially when the wording is sufficiently ambiguous to allow for multiple valid interpretations.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: BETA 2015 Quick Token Reference Guide < Feedback! 5 years 7 months ago #43

  • Druegar
  • Druegar's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Hero Member +2
  • Enjoy Your Burrito
  • Posts: 5242
Jim Auwaerter wrote:
one person doesn't get an extra four treasure tokens, is that worthy of spouting profanity and insults against other people's intelligence?
My dismay was the suggestion that all 11 players would get zero tokens. That's why I said:Druegar wrote:
Was this person suggesting that all 11 players who had equipped a CoGF get zero bonus tokens? If so, that person needs to be advised to self-fornicate! :angry:
Sadly, I have encountered some "bad eggs" in my years playing TD. There have been some people who enjoy screwing over the party (this is not a reference to certain tshirt-wearing rogues!) As a player and even more so as a coordinator, that attitude angers me--a lot! With the exception of some NPCs, it is not a TD volunteer's job to antagonize or undermine the players. When I first read that scenario, these people immediately popped into my mind.
Jim Auwaerter wrote:
In general, I want the token's wording to be as complete as possible.
As do I. As does Jeff.
Jim Auwaerter wrote:
Tokendb is a good resource, but the more tokens which receive errata on it, the greater the barrier that it presents to new players.
The TDb is an unfortunate necessity because:
  1. There isn't room to detail all the nuances of some tokens*
  2. When an unexpected scenario arises after the tokens have been printed, we can't "patch" the existing tokens with new verbiage.
*I'm not suggesting this is applicable in the CoFG situation. Clearly, there was sufficient room for a plus sign.
Jim Auwaerter wrote:
I am strongly against arguments of flavor and "people should know".
That's perfectly reasonable and I agree. When ambiguous situations arise, the correct response is to ask someone in authority. If I found out one of my volunteers ruled that the entire party's CoGFs were nullified and had not sought the council of a coordinator or director, I'd be having a very serious conversation with the volunteer coordinators about that person.
Incognito wrote:
I still maintain that as it is written, it is a legitimate interpretation.
Let me restate this and hopefully make my position 100% clear.
  • Suggesting that 10 players get +4 chips but the 11th gets 0 is, in my opinion, a reasonable (though inaccurate) interpretation.
  • Suggesting that all 11 players get +5 chips is, in my opinion, a reasonable (though inaccurate) interpretation.
  • Suggesting that the 11th player may not equip a CoGF because 10 is the maximum per party is, in my opinion, a reasonable (though inaccurate) interpretation.
  • Suggesting that all 11 players get 0 chips is, in my opinion, not a reasonable interpretation.
Incognito wrote:
In terms of objective logic, as Brad has pointed out, that is how it would be interpreted.
That is how it would be misinterpreted.

Let's say you and I are standing in front of a closed barn containing 11 cows. I tell you 10 of the animals inside are cows and ask you to guess what the 11th animal is. By saying 10 are cows, I have not said anything about the 11th animal. If I had wanted you to know with certainty that all 11 were cows, I should have said so and you could roll your eyes at me for being vague. But if you attempt to argue cow #11 can't be a cow because I didn't explicitly say she was, you would be making a logical error.
Brad Mortensen wrote:
As printed, the CoGF says it literally grants no bonus to anyone in the party if a number greater than ten are equipped.
It does not "literally" say that. It literally says nothing about what happens when more than 10 are equipped. That's not the same thing.
Incognito wrote:
In some versions of D&D/AD&D, there actually was a rule that if you wear more than one ring on a single hand, that the effects of the rings nullified each other.
TD has a very clear rule saying you cannot wear more than two rings without magical aid. It does not say wearing more than two rings negates the effects of all your rings nor does it say wearing more than two rings negates the effects of all rings worn in the party!
Incognito wrote:
So there is potential precedent for the "game logic" that having too many CoGF's (more than 10) causes their magical energies to interfere with each other. You might also be able to draw some parallels to how the Mage Armor scroll currently does not work with armor.
In all the examples you cited, it's an individual negating some other item s/he is wearing. The situation I'm referring to is a complete negation of an effect for all party members. I believe that is unprecedented in D&D and it's absolutely unprecedented in TD.
Incognito wrote:
we are NOT mindreaders, so it is often hard to know for sure what Jeff is thinking, especially when the wording is sufficiently ambiguous to allow for multiple valid interpretations.
I agree. So when an ambiguous situation arises, the appropriate course of action is to ask, not to negate the effect for the entire party.
Incognito wrote:
I do not think it is helpful or productive to be judgmental and automatically assume malicious intent when there are alternative interpretations.
Fair enough. Though I stand by the core concepts I have asserted in this sub-discussion, I should have phrased them more tactfully. I apologize for my lack of civility.
Have you looked it up in the TDb?
Please post TDb corrections/suggestions in this thread.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: BETA 2015 Quick Token Reference Guide < Feedback! 5 years 7 months ago #44

Druegar wrote:
The TDb is an unfortunate necessity indispensable resource to players and collectors.

Fixed ;)
Pick your Purple and discounted token packs: discount-dungeon.com
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: BETA 2015 Quick Token Reference Guide < Feedback! 5 years 7 months ago #45

  • Incognito
  • Incognito's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Hero Member +1
  • Posts: 4361
Druegar wrote:
]li]Suggesting that 10 players get +4 chips but the 11th gets 0 is, in my opinion, a reasonable (though inaccurate) interpretation.[/li]
Yes, though it would be interesting to see the players argue who is 11th. Actually, I don't think the game rules officially distinguish between who is the 1st player and who is the 11th player.
  • Suggesting that all 11 players get +5 chips is, in my opinion, a reasonable (though inaccurate) interpretation.
  • Perhaps. But that requires inventing/assuming text that is not there.
  • Suggesting that the 11th player may not equip a CoGF because 10 is the maximum per party is, in my opinion, a reasonable (though inaccurate) interpretation.
  • As with the first point, the question is how to determine who the 11th player is.
  • Suggesting that all 11 players get 0 chips is, in my opinion, not a reasonable interpretation.
  • 1. It could be a way to *force* the 1st or 3rd situation through a collective punishment scenario. You guys need to decide amongst you who will not get the benefit, otherwise none of you get it. Like a game of chicken.

    2. The default effect is nothing.

    All we have is the token text (and possible rulings/errata). The CoGF does not specify what happens when you have 11 players, just like how an Elven Longsword does not specify what happens if you hit a Dragon with it. Or the saving throw bonus that Widseth's Lute gives you. The default of those would be none, because the token does not specify it.

    That is how it would be misinterpreted.

    Let's say you and I are standing in front of a closed barn containing 11 cows. I tell you 10 of the animals inside are cows and ask you to guess what the 11th animal is. By saying 10 are cows, I have not said anything about the 11th animal. If I had wanted you to know with certainty that all 11 were cows, I should have said so and you could roll your eyes at me for being vague. But if you attempt to argue cow #11 can't be a cow because I didn't explicitly say she was, you would be making a logical error.
    I agree that the 11th animal could be a cow. But I disagree about the applicability of that scenario Let me try to rephrase the situation to the way I see it:

    There are 11 cows in the barn, and you own all the cows. I do not know how many cows or animals are in there. You promise or we make a deal that:

    "If there are exactly one, two, three, four, or five cows in the barn, then I may have exactly two of the cows.

    If there are exactly six, seven, eight, or nine cows in the barn, they I may have exactly three of the cows.

    If there are exactly ten cows in the barn, then I may have exactly four of the cows."

    There are exactly 11 cows. You did not specify what would happen with exactly 11 cows. You are not obligated to give me any cows. The default state, is that you retain ownership of the cows and I do not get any, since you did not promise me any under this circumstance.
    Incognito wrote:
    In some versions of D&D/AD&D, there actually was a rule that if you wear more than one ring on a single hand, that the effects of the rings nullified each other.
    TD has a very clear rule saying you cannot wear more than two rings without magical aid. It does not say wearing more than two rings negates the effects of all your rings nor does it say wearing more than two rings negates the effects of all rings worn in the party![/quote]
    What I am saying is that there is a D&D precedent that the close proximity of magic items have been known to nullify each other.
    In all the examples you cited, it's an individual negating some other item s/he is wearing. The situation I'm referring to is a complete negation of an effect for all party members. I believe that is unprecedented in D&D and it's absolutely unprecedented in TD.
    I would not be surprised if there are examples.

    - Maybe there is some magic item that creates an Anti-Magic Shell, thereby negating a lot of other magic items

    - Maybe you could reason that with more than 10 of these items, there is just too much synergistic power and they get overloaded and no longer work after being shorted out

    - Maybe there is some sort of magnetic field or physical repulsion that would cause issues if you try to align more than 10 of them

    - In regards to interference, there is already the rule that a player cannot benefit from more than one Artifact group effect.
    Last Edit: 5 years 7 months ago by Incognito.
    The administrator has disabled public write access.

    Re: BETA 2015 Quick Token Reference Guide < Feedback! 5 years 7 months ago #46

    • Incognito
    • Incognito's Avatar
    • Offline
    • Hero Member +1
    • Posts: 4361
    Druegar wrote:
    Jim Auwaerter wrote:
    Tokendb is a good resource, but the more tokens which receive errata on it, the greater the barrier that it presents to new players.
    The TDb is an unfortunate necessity because:
    1. There isn't room to detail all the nuances of some tokens*
    2. When an unexpected scenario arises after the tokens have been printed, we can't "patch" the existing tokens with new verbiage.
    *I'm not suggesting this is applicable in the CoFG situation. Clearly, there was sufficient room for a plus sign.
    Well, I have been harping about the lack of the "+" sign for quite some time.

    1. October 4, 2012

    I specifically mention to Jeff about including the "+" for the CoGF and Cabal items in order to deal with theoretical scenarios of extra players.

    2. June 3, 2013

    truedungeon.com/forum?func=view&catid=5&id=172368#172408
    Incognito wrote:
    For the record, last year I had suggested that the Charm of Good Fortune (and the Bracelets/Gloves of the Cabal) include the "+" sign as a contingency, but apparently it was deemed like it would be too confusing for some people.

    (There could be future scenarios that result in extra copies: Such as being able to equip a token normally not equippable, and who knows if in the future the party size will increase beyond 10).

    3. August 31, 2014

    truedungeon.com/forum?func=view&catid=581&id=202083&limit=12&start=384#204648
    Incognito wrote:
    At the time that the CoGF (and Cabal items) were designed, I specifically suggested they add a "+" number to the highest value to factor in the possibility of additional slots or additional people. So CoGF would be 10+ for 4 chips and the Cabal items would be 5+ for the best Cabal effects.

    What Xavon is saying is that based on a very strict and literal interpretation of the CoGF, the only way to get the 4 chips from the CoGF is to have exactly 10 CoGF. That 11 CoGF's or 20 CoGF's result in 0 bonus chips because those values are not listed on the token (just like how 0 CoGF's isn't). It is a legitimate interpretation of the token.

    Even now there are still rare circumstances where there end up being more than 10 people on a run. In those cases and where those 11+ people all want to use CoGF's, I think the coaches unofficially just allow the CoGF effect to be set at 10, rather saying that all of the CoGF's provide 0 tokens, or essentially forcing the 11+ people to decide amongst themselves which 10 get to use the CoGF. :)


    4. September 7, 2014

    truedungeon.com/forum?func=view&catid=52&id=205627&limit=12&start=60#205876
    Incognito wrote:
    1. In the past, I have advocated that for tokens like the Cabal items and the CoGF, that the maximum number listed have a "+" so Cabal items would have "5+: whatever effect" and the max treasures for CoGF would be "10+". Adding the plus could help deal with potential future scenarios like:

    A. We have more than 10 players. (And actually this occasionally does happen, when we need to squeeze 11 or 12 players on a run).

    B. Future effects that let additional players/classes use tokens they normally can't.

    C. Future effects that allow a player to equip multiple copies of the same item (allowing stacking).
    The administrator has disabled public write access.

    Re: BETA 2015 Quick Token Reference Guide < Feedback! 5 years 7 months ago #47

    • Druegar
    • Druegar's Avatar
    • Offline
    • Hero Member +2
    • Enjoy Your Burrito
    • Posts: 5242
    Incognito wrote:
    there is already the rule that a player cannot benefit from more than one Artifact group effect.
    But that does not negate all the artifacts in the group. It simply requires the party to choose which group effect will take hold. All the individual artifact effects still function.
    Incognito wrote:
    I have been harping about the lack of the "+" sign for quite some time.
    Why are you arguing this point with me? I don't have a TARDIS, what would you have me do about it?
    Have you looked it up in the TDb?
    Please post TDb corrections/suggestions in this thread.
    The administrator has disabled public write access.

    Re: BETA 2015 Quick Token Reference Guide < Feedback! 5 years 7 months ago #48

    It seems like we are in "violent agreement" on the bottom line (the coach should not have ruled "no soup for you" without calling for clarification, if that's what happened, and we all support the stated intent) even if we got there by different paths. There's not much point in arguing why one path was better than the others.

    The "+" was probably omitted inadvertently. The 11+ party is an anomaly, at least I think we all hope we don't go to standard parties of more than ten, so I can see why the "+" didn't seem important years ago, so maybe it was shrugged off as not worth fixing. Doesn't really matter how or why it got left off. It could be years before it comes up again.
    barkley.neo.rr.com -->see my eBay store HERE or my web store HERE
    "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" - Magritte
    The administrator has disabled public write access.
    Time to create page: 0.288 seconds