Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Thaelys 08-13-06, 03:39 PM	Hello Everyone, I've just returned from GenCon. I participated in Well of Woes (rounds 1-3 in one day), and CoS-2 Shadow Over Stormreach. I'd like to take the opportunity to post a report based on my experience. I played Zaobon, if anyone who was there would remember was the mentally unstable half-daelkyr evil cleric. I will attempt to avoid any spoiler information for the benefit of those that have yet to play these mods. Day 1, Thursday, started off with a bit of anticipated disorder. It took about 15 minutes to muster groups for Well of Woes. One thing the Floor Judge insisted upon was that tables MUST contain a mix of factions. This came as a suprise to me since I was under the impression that Expeditions where faction objectives, but apparently that wasn't the case. I was provided with a rationale for this arrangement, and it made some sense from a metagame perspective (good mixing of classes). However, The fact that my table and several others contained a mix of CoS and CoL faction members didn't appear natural to the setting. Why would a Warforged Paladin agree to sign on with a group that contains an evil cleric kicking out a flagrant aura of Evil? Meh, I didn't agrue the point. I was eager to get underway. I was assigned to the group DM'ed by Charles (forget his last name). He was a very competent DM and was well prepared for 15 hours of gaming, despite the fact that half his luggage didn't arrive to Indy with him. I was lucky to be placed in a group with players that were mature and upbeat with an even mix of genders and ages. Round 1. My party consisted of a Shifter Druid, an Elven Ranger (both CoL), a Warforged Monk, a Chaotic Good Elven Cleric (both CC), a Teifling Rouge and my character, a Half-Daelkyr Cleric (the CoS members). From the outset our characters felt a bit out of place, but their mission assumption kept them focused and tolerant of the other party members. The two CoL party members just jumped into Xen'Ex and had never played a mod in this campaign. The players had almost no firsthand knowledge of Eberron. I would like to point out that they did play their characters well once they were briefed by the DM. We all received a faction specific brief for each faction pair. By the end of Round 1 we had achieved the objective we needed to proceed through round 2, which was mainly to ensure survival of all party members. Round 2. This round began rather dry, but that wasn't helped by the fact that I had gotten no sleep the night before and I found myself suffering for it. The group's obvious alignment differences started to materialize about half way through. My character coveted a piece of loot that one of the CoL party members had, though he wasn't giving it up. My character had claimed nearly all of the found healing magic items and attempted to blackmail the other four opposing faction members for the item in exchange for any further healing. Consiquently, they weren't budging. So, I just healed my CoS companion. This and a few other vocal confrontations made it perfectly clear that a line was drawn across the party. The other four weren't exactly pleased with my character's brutality either. Even though my fellow CoS party member wasn't quite as outwardly malevolent, it was obvious who's side she was on. Just for the record, out of character all the players seemed to be having fun with the confrontations. There was quite a bit of laughter and banter. The tension sort of kept things interesting. Round 3. At this point the characters were barely functioning as a cohesive party. Out of character, I attempted not to get carried away with the evil agenda of my character. I thought that it was important to balance my character's actions with the knowledge that six other people had traveled hundreds of miles the day before to have fun playing a 15-hour game today. Having DM'ed for years myself I could sympathize with our DM's difficult task of keeping the game moving forward despite conflicting alignments. A few hours later, we finally made it to the end-game encounter. That's when things became dicey. Without going into too much spoiler-risking detail, we were faced with a different set of end-game objectives that involved the same subject. One faction ASSUMED they had to act one way towards the subject. Another faction ASSUMED they had to do something with the subject. My faction, you guessed it, KNEW EXACTLY what to do during this encounter. In fact it was ridiculously clear what we were there to do by a fool's reckonning. What happened next was not planned by anyone. The group argued in character. The players tried to explain the rationale of their character's actions. It appeared that there was no compromise, and in order to complete my objective, an obstacle had to be removed from a certain relationship with the subject - the other four opposing faction members. My fellow Teifling Rouge attempted to act with stealth, but before she could carry out her action, she was attacked by one of the CoL members. PvP first blood was drawn. I thought, "oh well, the good guys started it, and the bad guys will finish it. Then we'll do what we have to do. That's the only option we have". The DM called time-out, and spoke to each of the group's faction pairs individually. The CoL members came back, and after a bit of discussion, we agreed that all of our objectives could be met with a single common action. That wasn't to be the case either. The two CC members, because of their good alignment and relationship with the subject, didn't agree with the circumstances of the obejctive. They decided to interfear with the combined CoL and CoS objective effort. PvP broke out once more until finally, three party members where at 0 HP or stabilizied at slightly negative. No one was killed outright. The fighting didn't stop until the CC members capitulated with much hesitation, and left the encounter area - not wishing to be party to our resolve. Technically, the party broke down to four members. Laughably it ended up being CoS and CoL completing our Well of Woes objectives. Why did this happen to our group? Well, from our point of view, the manner in which our objectives were presented to us, along with our interpretations of the objective resolutions forced the party confrontation. During the post mortem with all the party members and the DM, it seems that a mistake in editing in the mod along with the language with which the briefings were written, left too much room for interpretation. Sure, the four faction objectives could TECHNICALLY be achieved in concert. However, variations in character alignment, origin, race, and faction association almost prohibit all players from coming to the same conclusion under the same justification. One group would look at in one way, while another group would be compelled to act in opposition. Our group had spoken with a few other Well of Woes players and only one table we had spoken with achieved the objective without PC confrontation. I think most of that group was Blackwheel, although I don't know if that has much to do with a smooth endgame. One table disintegrated into total PVP with character death - Something I thought was illegal in this campaign. I was lucky to be in the group I was in. Even though there was alot of player character friction, the character of the players and the DM allowed our table to stay safely above PVP-transgressed catastrophe.
Thaelys 08-13-06, 03:58 PM	I would like to mention once more that our table's DM Charles did a fantastic job runnning this MOD. It takes one hell of a DM to run 3 RPGA slots back-to-back with the same group in one day. Between the near-distaster endgame, half his baggage getting lost, 2 "green" eberron players at his table, and me nodding off from lack of sleep around 5 pm, he deserves a medal, or at least a free booster of minis and a hardcover courtesy of RPGA ;) . Thanks again Charles!
ucfjedi 08-13-06, 05:37 PM	Sounds like the Well of Woes was a Well of Woes...I plan on mostly playing with CoC members so this doesn't happen as much. It also seems that playing with other factions depending on if objectives can intersect can cause you to not accomplish your objectives; which in all reality is awesome no easy mods.
Butterface 08-13-06, 08:01 PM	Wow. I can't wait to play this at dragoncon! Thanks for the report. :D
Tabiani 08-14-06, 12:08 AM	Thaelys, I also did the "Well of Woes Marathon" on Thursday. I remember the delay getting started but never heard anything about the requirement to have a mixed faction groups. Indeed, I was never asked what my faction was until the DM got to the table. We did have a mixed group as it turns out. The first 5 were Covenant of Light and were all seated before they found out I was a single and got slid in to fill out the table. I elected to play my Blackwheel character at that time. I really wonder how the event is even being recorded. There was no way to indicate what character I played; just the MoH checkblocks for regular or default. Our DM had no idea about any story objects or the like. I'm pretty new here so I'm clueless, too. I didn't see any journals online before I headed to GenCon so I found out that after I got back. I'm supposed to track everyone I played with? By the way, you can add us to the list of people who had no bloodshed between PCs and both factions were able to complete our objectives. Granted, we had no evil characters. I'm glad, too. For if PvP rears its ugly head at a game I'm in, it will be the last event I play if the Powers That Be fail to come down hard and fast on the issue. Conflict is one thing, encouraging bloodshed is another.
ucfjedi 08-14-06, 12:59 AM	PVP is one thing that would happen in a world where you might adventure with someone once. When you think you will only see someone once in your life you might be alot more willing to attack them if they block your goals.
smerwin29 08-14-06, 08:50 AM	I cannot and will not talk about the contents of adventures that are still open for play, even in the most vague terms. If people who have played or judged (or are about to judge) an adventure have comments or questions, please feel free to contact a Factionmaster offlist. I can be reached at crimsoncodex@hotmail.com. One thing I CAN comment on is this supposed requirement that different factions have to play together in the Expedition adventures (such as Well of Woe). This is NOT the case. In fact, it is strongly suggested that PCs from the same faction play together. Whoever mustered that slot must have been misinformed. As always, comments and questions are always welcome as long as they do not compromise the ability of others to play the adventure without spoilers or any information that might affect their enjoyment of the adventure.
Mark the Hammer 08-14-06, 10:08 AM	This was the same case for me. While I played my 2 CoS and only 2 Well of Woe, the Well of Woe was mixed and I could see the upcoming fight with the objective that we had. I could see a way to perhaps not come to blows but, I can also VERY easily see it! I have no complaints however, I had a blast!
Harliquinn 08-14-06, 10:22 AM	One thing I CAN comment on is this supposed requirement that different factions have to play together in the Expedition adventures (such as Well of Woe). This is NOT the case. In fact, it is strongly suggested that PCs from the same faction play together. Whoever mustered that slot must have been misinformed. I don't recall ever seeing it was required to do the Expeditions with mixed factions; however, it is likely going to be impossible to play these within a faction at cons given there are limited slots to play and the chances of having 24 people, 6 of each faction, with 4 judges in a slot is pretty slim to null. I do think that the adventures need to be written with this in mind. Harliquinn
smerwin29 08-14-06, 10:43 AM	It is understood that at home games, it is likely that all PCs will be from the same faction for Expedition adventures, while in a convention setting it is much less likely. In terms of writing the adventures to take into account the possibility of different factions playing together, it was. Judges who were signed up to run WoW were specifically told how to introduce the goals and run the mod so all goals could be completed without resorting to conflict. Judges were also instructed to clarify to PCs, if there were questions, on how those goals could be mutually inclusive. There are other issues, of course, that people have mentioned, which will be clarified at some point in the future.
Harliquinn 08-14-06, 10:54 AM	Thanks for the update Shawn, it sounds like everything was planned for at least and that's great news for the players. I'm sure the kinks and such will get worked out as more DM's and players get accustomed to the Xen'drik format. Harliquinn
Thaelys 08-14-06, 11:22 AM	My floor Judge (who, by the way, was the costumed black-cloaked gentleman) was the one who stated the requirement for mixed factions. If I would have known at least one table could have been ALL Cabal, that would have made things alot easier. In fact, when we were all mustering, I was calling out for Cabal Players to get together with me for a single faction table. That's when "Mordred the Dark Floor Judge" sauntered over and silenced me. My DM was familiar with the campaign and the method with which to post character advancement on the RPGA online tool. However, he didn't see the adventurer journal at that time. I just happened to print a Journal the night I left for the Con. I had one to show off, and it pretty much clarrified many of the continuity questions my table had. It sounds like just a typical organization pitfall. Officials, DMs and players being given different information. No big loss, I had fun regardless. I just hope my XP gets reported. I've invested over 25 mod-hours into this character. If he's still first level by the next set of mods I'll be p-ssed.
Thaelys 08-14-06, 11:40 AM	MarktheHammer, what happened in our group was that once the endgame condition was clarified after the 1st threat of PVP, the CC pair at our table didn't agree to the circumstances. According to their reckonning, they were compelled by alignment and certain relationship conditions to act a certain way. Some of us really didn't buy that rationale, but I was not going to start an argument about it. That would be uncool. Once again, even though the endgame goal could be percieved as accomplished with one means, I'm certain a minority of players will not play by the book. At that point writers, shall your DM reference this under the "troublesome player" clause, or does said DM go along with the player's actions like ours did? If you want to say it shouldn't have happened, then why did it?
Harliquinn 08-14-06, 12:08 PM	There has been a good question asked, how does the RPGA (or the DM for that matter) know which character (Faction) to apply the Well of Woe experience/treasure? Nowhere on the RPGA sheet they pass around did it have a place for faction, just 'default'.
smerwin29 08-14-06, 12:41 PM	At that point writers, shall your DM reference this under the "troublesome player" clause, or does said DM go along with the player's actions like ours did? If you want to say it shouldn't have happened, then why did it? At that point, it is a matter of a player making in-character choices that are outside the purview of the writer. This is not an issue that is specific to XE. I have seen instances in every RPGA campaign and home games where PCs have conflict over how to handle prisoners, how to divide treasure, how to deal with an infinite number of moral/ethical dilemmas. The players are only "troublesome" in the fact their particular in-character choices are contrary to the wishes of the other players (and perhaps the writers as well). When handled with maturity by a table who realizes that this is just a story being told collectively rather than a life-or-death struggle to make sure not to miss a single experience point or gold piece, this can be some of the most enjoyable role-playing. When encountered by people who thrive on negativity and who look for reasons to be destructive not just in game but out of game as well, it becomes a problem. The person who conceived and partially implemented this system where different factions might have conflicting goals is no longer involved in the campaign. That leaves the people who are still involved to re-evaluate this concept, then go forward with an implementation that takes the maturity (or the lack thereof) of the players into account, weighing it against the potential for a new and different type of campaign where the actions of the PCs truly affect the outcomes of the plots. As has been noted in other threads, some people create and some people destroy. Some people work hard to build the best campaign possible (as players, judges, and administrators), while others seem to revel in sowing discord and sabotaging (whether deliberately or just as a consequence of their personalities). Seeing what I saw and hearing what I heard at GenCon, the campaign is off to a good start. People have brought up good issues, which the factionmasters will in turn work to resolve as quickly as possible with all the tools at our disposal. Shawn Crimson Codex Guy
Thaelys 08-14-06, 12:57 PM	Shawn, I'm glad you feel the campaign is off to a good start. I will agree with you, under the premise that my cisrumstance was a learning expereince and I for one am interested in constructively moving forward. The main reason for me posting this report was to call your collective attention to what had occured without the GenCon rumormill coloring the experience. In retrospect I'm very happy with the recollection of the events, especially since I shared a few drinks and laughs with the Crimson Codex players at the RAM bar after the mod was finished :D My point in my previous reply was to imply the need for some more explicit guidelines with which the DM should handle situations like this, specifically if any further Expeditions will be mixed faction affairs. Keep up the good work, I for one enjoy and appreciate all of it. Considering the loss of such an elemental developer in this series, there is a world of potential for this campaign.
Harliquinn 08-14-06, 01:13 PM	The person who conceived and partially implemented this system where different factions might have conflicting goals is no longer involved in the campaign. That leaves the people who are still involved to re-evaluate this concept, then go forward with an implementation that takes the maturity (or the lack thereof) of the players into account, weighing it against the potential for a new and different type of campaign where the actions of the PCs truly affect the outcomes of the plots. I still contend (and hope) that this original concept can work to some extent. I like the idea of cross-faction adventures and think in general it can bring some good RP to the table. I do think it's important (at least for the Expedition events) that each faction can complete their goals without a direct prevention of another factions goals. This can be done while allowing for some interesting and creative role playing and compromise between the characters and players, without resorting to a a feeling of frustration outside of the game. I agree that overall the campaign was off to a great start, and I am confident that the faction masters, DM's and the players will learn from the show. I do think there needs to be some campaign guidelines on what is and isn't acceptable PvP and conduct at tables. Maybe even a 5-blurb that DM's can/should read before play begins at these cross-faction tables :) In the end, most all of us are in it to have fun and feel as if we've had 5-15 hours of well spent time. Harliquinn
Misroi 08-14-06, 02:50 PM	We also ran into PvP issues in the last round of Well of Woe. My table was made up with four CoL characters (a paladin, a monk, a rogue and my knight), a CoS druid and a CC fastplay wizard. We had a very similar experience to what Thaelys discussed; the Codex member had a radically different agenda to what the other two factions wanted from the final encounter. Up until that moment, we worked as a very cohesive team, but the mission briefings were so diametrically opposed that there could be no compromise. Fortunately, it was the CoL who decided to remove the wizard from the equation, so the monk pummelled him into submission. We even managed to deal with the encounter successfully, with no character deaths! I do think a reexamination and recapitulation of RPGA Floor Rules would be in order for judges sign up to DM Expedition rounds. PvP is taboo, but my DM was under the impression it was OK. I'm not even sure the way we handled it was kosher, even though all the damage the wizard received was subdual (excuse me, nonlethal).
Harliquinn 08-14-06, 03:17 PM	One of the issues at our table was that the GM gave the Covenant of Light characters the Cabal of Shadows mission goal half way through the adventure (Changing it from the original CoL mission). We resolved things out of game at the end though and with a small amount of non-lethal pvp. It was still a very enjoyable 3-rounds of play overall.
Mark the Hammer 08-14-06, 03:20 PM	I played on 4 different occassions with 4 different GMs and I think that each had thier own spin on the PvP issue. I played in CoS and in my first Mod. I was pushed down a shaft and fell 20' because the fighter wanted to move through my square. I was NOT happy. Took 10 points damage, had 10 points. Staggered.. No comments from the GM. Talking with the other 3 GMs, one said he would have removed that player from the game, one said that it was fine, and the other said that they did not know. I will blame it on everything coming out right before the convention and everyone not knowing exactly how to handle things. Thaelys, I agree that there were creative solutions to the final objective. We were evil but, I was not going to get into a direct fight with the other PCs. Evil does not have to equal violence. I was thinking about a sneaky way to make everyone happy for the moment, and us happy in the end without violence. I had a great time being evil! It was fun to be able to do some bad things to people outside of the Cabal. To me it did not mean to do something nasty to my group. All in all, I had a good time, the GMs were good and took lots of effort in running the Mods. Hurray for all!
psgj 08-15-06, 04:09 AM	I will try to avoid spoilers. My understanding as Shawn stated was the mustering was supposed to try to get the same faction at a table. On Friday, I ran a table of only Blackwheel. On Sunday, I ran a mixed table, 3 cabal and 1 each of the other factions. I don't feel that having a mixed table would be unnatural. Remember in Eberron alignment is not a black and white as in other campaign settings. When your CoL boss says to find some adventures in stormreach to help you on this expedition (which by nature of the factions is assentually an undercover expedition) one would not expect that you would easily be able to find people that has the same moral mind set as you. There are different levels of evil. That aura of evil coming from the other characters is not necessarily that strong. When it comes to auras of evil, a Paladin or any CoL member should not have any problem with what CoS does at the end and in fact should be willing to assist CoS (actually I don't see how any of the factions could achieve thier goals without assisting CoS with theirs). It is a basic choice of what is the greater of two evils. Unfortunetly the revision to the objectives and conclusion still had typos in the adventure, but Shawn had posted to the WoW judges yahoo group the correct objectives so unless your judge didn't get that posting there should not have been any confusion on his part. Even knowing how to run the module so that their was no confusion about the objectives, the CoL player still tried to do some PvP in order to stop CoS. Fortunetly I saw Shawn at RPGA HQ and asked him how to handle it. He gave me some ideas on how to judge it so that there would be know doubt in the CoL characters mind that they should be helping CoS attain there goals. If you are going to be judging WoW, I would be willing to share that information in a private email. Round 1 and 2 mods did not come with maps of any kind. If are a WoW judge I am willing to share how I handled that in a private email. psgj
PrinceOfBoredom 08-15-06, 10:46 AM	Ok, guess it's my turn. I have to say that Well of Woe was BY FAR the best experience I had at GEN CON (I played all of the LG, MoH, and Crimson Coedx mods). Definately, a huge amount of this has to do with the players we had at our table. We had a CoS Cleric of 'Dol Dorn' (never told us who he really worshipped), CoS Half-Orc fighter, CoS Half-Orc barbarian, CoS Halfling rogue, CC spked chain tripfighter and my CC Spellscale sorcerer. While we had all signed up for the 15 hour slot on Saturday, it turned out that there was a shortage of judges so we got a different judge for each slot (though they were all awesome, and we even got a faction master for the final section [thanks again August]). One thing that I think may have helped was that we had no good characters at the table, so less conflict there. However we definatley had conflict (not combat) at the end. All of us had played things very close to the vest throughout the adventure, never revealing our factions in character (though it was fairly obvious out of character no one took advantage of that). We worked great as a team until at the end I revealed what our mission was and they revealed theirs. Some tense moments ocurred with the half-orc fighter slowing taking a 5-foot step towards my character and threatening to kill me. We then made a compromise and realized both objectives could be met. Unfortunately, the 2 CC characters were driven to negative hit points in the first round of the final encounter, while the CoS types completed it. Taking advantage of the fortuitous situation, they decided to ensure that we were unable to complete our mission (they later siad that if we had been up they would have let us complete, but the opportunity was too good to pass up). Leaving the 'dungeon' they threw the chainfighter's spiked chain high up into a tree, healed him to 1 hit point, handed him a cure light wounds potion to bring me back, then walked away (all of this ensuring we couldn't follow them and lay waste to them with my mighty sleep spell). Even having failed our mission, the other CC player and I agreed that it was the best table we had played at and had a great time. We also admitted that we would have done the same thing in their place. The DMing was wonderful, the roleplaying was superb, and the conflict at the end was part of what made it fun. I personally think the potential for failure is important, and I like the idea that these groups are working at cross purposes. The reason the CoS guys didn't kill us when we were unconcious was because they respected what we had done to get the party to the end. So, all in all, my personal opinion is conflict (though not necessarily combat) is a good thing, and it only makes sense that the different factions would be working at cross, possibly even mutually exclusive, purposes. God forbid we not all have the opportunity to 'win' every story arc in every adventure. Mythrasak, Spellscale Sorcerer
Harliquinn 08-15-06, 11:04 AM	God forbid we not all have the opportunity to 'win' every story arc in every adventure. Mythasak, Spellscale Sorcerer This is the only statement I disagree with. I believe the 'opportunity' to win every story arc should be there. I don't think the module should be written such that certain factions (either specifically or as a result of another faction's goals in the adventure) cannot complete their goals. If the characters themselves are unable to complete them due to what happened in the game (as happened during your game), that is okay as far as I am concerned. That is how most games work anyways, you might not achieve your objective, but you had the opportunity to do so. Harliquinn
raalynthslair 08-16-06, 02:29 PM	This is the only statement I disagree with. I believe the 'opportunity' to win every story arc should be there. I don't think the module should be written such that certain factions (either specifically or as a result of another faction's goals in the adventure) cannot complete their goals. If the characters themselves are unable to complete them due to what happened in the game (as happened during your game), that is okay as far as I am concerned. That is how most games work anyways, you might not achieve your objective, but you had the opportunity to do so. Harliquinn I agree entirely. No one faction should have an option to win at the expense of the others - because, if for no other reason, of the possibility of a table being more heavily weighted with a single faction's representation by players. There are 6 players per table, SOMEONE will outnumber someone else just by the math of it. That leaves a situation ripe for disaster as the outnumber character(s) may find themselves "tagging along" for the ride as the dominant faction players drag them into the goals of their faction and forcing those players to basically decide to play against the "team" and thus risk PVP action or GM angst by doing so, and of course risk rewards for playing well and getting through the tough parts of the mods, and then there's always the "advancement" of the character by doing things in his/her faction. What happens to the unlucky player that sits at a few tables in some of these situations and never finds him/herself on the dominant side... All those other characters on the other side(s) getting the glory of their faction and possibly rewards thereof and this person is left on the "well if you could have only succeeded in this..." kind of comments from "above"... That is a bad situation for disgruntled characters, and players - and for unneeded frustration in the campaign and among the players.
kiddoc 08-16-06, 02:36 PM	I agree entirely. No one faction should have an option to win at the expense of the others - because, if for no other reason, of the possibility of a table being more heavily weighted with a single faction's representation by players. That is a bad situation for disgruntled characters, and players - and for unneeded frustration in the campaign and among the players. We agreed with these statements--which is why the modules were changed. In the future when we have more time to prepare the expedition module, we need to do a better job communicating the overall atmosphere and purpose to our judges--including any potential errata.
raalynthslair 08-16-06, 02:57 PM	We agreed with these statements--which is why the modules were changed. In the future when we have more time to prepare the expedition module, we need to do a better job communicating the overall atmosphere and purpose to our judges--including any potential errata. That's cool. I was sure it wasn't a problem with the campaign as much as an unexpected hiccup in that module. I am glad to see that the "problem" is already known to y'all and you're already looking at how to prevent it in the future. That's a wonderful sign.