Post/Author/DateTime	Post
control freak 08-31-07, 04:40 PM	This is for those of you that want to post what you think the greatest things from individual RPGA campaigns and what you would like to see in Living Forgotten Realms mine are 1: The AR system from living greyhawk, it works well, its like trophys, and it can be easly checked keep it please and also the whole "you got favor X" 2: series from all campaigns- these make living campaigns hum, people love to see the NPCs over and over again and get cumulative rewards from them 3: keep it highly regulated- do not allow broken things and close it off fast as LG did
AlfredWAB 09-05-07, 08:48 PM	I agree with your points above. But the number one issue for me is what alignments they allow for the PCs. I simply do not care to play in an "evil" campaign. With everything being converted to a single campaign, that may mean I'll be leaving the RPGA. I don't care for player vs player conflict. And I can't role-play a Paladin "correctly" (from my perspective anyway) with an Anti-Paladin in the same party. If I want to compete with another player, I can play miniatures and plenty of other games. I prefer cooperative play with others for my role--play adventures. I don't care for "secrets" between players and prefer to operate as a team. That's just my 2 cents. And if that doesn't happen, I'll find a place to play the way I prefer. Alfred Anderson
jhorred 09-05-07, 09:11 PM	I agree with your points above. But the number one issue for me is what alignments they allow for the PCs. I simply do not care to play in an "evil" campaign. With everything being converted to a single campaign, that may mean I'll be leaving the RPGA. I don't care for player vs player conflict. And I can't role-play a Paladin "correctly" (from my perspective anyway) with an Anti-Paladin in the same party. If I want to compete with another player, I can play miniatures and plenty of other games. I prefer cooperative play with others for my role--play adventures. I don't care for "secrets" between players and prefer to operate as a team. That's just my 2 cents. And if that doesn't happen, I'll find a place to play the way I prefer. Alfred Anderson I second Alfred's stance here. I play DnD because of it's cooperative nature. There's enough competition in the game sometimes with people trying to kill the monsters first. IMHO, There was a great many things that LG got right. I hope that the new campaign borrows heavily from the LGCS. I think the biggest point of contention with the LGCS is access to PrCs, etc. I don't see this as a problem with the LGCS, I see that as a problem with the PrCs. Some didn't fit the campaign, some were of questionable balance. (I'd rather have things that might be unbalanced be removed from the campaign than have something horrible slip through and make a mess of things.) Of course there are different points of view so rarely will there be a large consensus on whats balanced and what isn't. With the campaign starting over at 1st, I would think that there would be few things that would appear on any banned list. (Though I would hope that drow and warforged would be on the list if the are in the core books.) This should help with the access problem and hopefully things get examined more closely by WotC prior to publication to avoid having the campaign staff have to do it. I know Chris has stated a dislike for TUs but I like them. I see them as another resource to manage, especially with my wizard and his crafting. (Until the zero TU adventure thing.) Granted crafting will very likely be a different beast in 4.0, so the point may be moot. I understand that they are seen as a obstacle to play, I see that as one of the reasons that they are used. They slow character progression. I'd like to see some mechanism do the same thing in the new campaign, though there will be twice as many levels to progress through, progression will have to quicker in the new campaign. Maybe there will be a mechanism limiting the number of regions each PC can play. This would encourage multiple PCs without needing a TU type resource.
Skerrit 09-06-07, 12:12 PM	I agree with your points above. But the number one issue for me is what alignments they allow for the PCs. I simply do not care to play in an "evil" campaign. With everything being converted to a single campaign, that may mean I'll be leaving the RPGA. I'm not sure what you mean by "everything being converted to a single campaign" since the RPGA is going to continue to have more than one campaign. From announcements by Chris we know there will be some D&D campaign (like XE is now) and LFR, and from what I understand they also haven't closed the door on having more campaigns than just that. So it looks like there will be at least two, and possible more RPGA campaigns. In addition, when asked about if LFR was an evil-based campaign, Chris has announced that LFR is a heroic game emphasizing heroic PCs, or at the very worst a few mercenary PCs. Working together is definately a component of LFR.
gizmonster 09-12-07, 11:39 AM	[QUOTE=jhorred;13680392] IMHO, There was a great many things that LG got right. I hope that the new campaign borrows heavily from the LGCS. I think the biggest point of contention with the LGCS is access to PrCs, etc. I don't see this as a problem with the LGCS, I see that as a problem with the PrCs. Some didn't fit the campaign, some were of questionable balance. (I'd rather have things that might be unbalanced be removed from the campaign than have something horrible slip through and make a mess of things.) Of course there are different points of view so rarely will there be a large consensus on whats balanced and what isn't. [QUOTE] I agree, I like the LGCS but we do dissagree about access. I'd restrict access to items. I don't have a problem with access to prestiege classes unless there is a balance problem, then, by all means break out the red ink and forbid it. Item access should be very limited, D&D for me isn't about the items, it's about my character. My character is not the sum of his items. Magic items, especially powerful ones should be VERY rare. I liked LG in the early days of the campaign, people were bragging that they had a masterwork mace! Think of LOTR, how many magic items were there in all of the books, not many, rings aside, there was Narsil, Sting, the mithril shirt, and that's about it. Most common people had NEVER seen a magic item. That's good fantasy in my opinion. When I first started playing 3rd edition I played it much the way I did second edition, item's weren't as important back then, so I didn't put much stock in them, I remember when I ran across my first cheese weasel. I was stunned that someone relied so heavily on items.
GeorgeFHarris 09-12-07, 12:23 PM	Item access should be very limited, D&D for me isn't about the items, it's about my character. My character is not the sum of his items. Magic items, especially powerful ones should be VERY rare. I liked LG in the early days of the campaign, people were bragging that they had a masterwork mace! Think of LOTR, how many magic items were there in all of the books, not many, rings aside, there was Narsil, Sting, the mithril shirt, and that's about it. Most common people had NEVER seen a magic item. That's good fantasy in my opinion. I don't know. Let's go throught he fellowship: 1. They all had a Cloak of Elvenkind Frodo: Sting, Mithral Shirt, Ring Sam: Dagger (from the Barrow Wights); Animated Rope Merry: Dagger (from the Barrow Wights); Pippin: Dagger (from the Barrow Wights); Gandalf: Sword, Staff, Special Mount Boromir: Horn & Belt (Movie, I think the Armor, Sword, and Bracers) Aragorn: Narsil Gimli: (Book: Nothing comes to mind; As with Boromir, probably Axe & Armor) Legolas: Two swords & Bow We just don't know the full power of a lot of the items. But then again, LotR would have been a low magic setting. Compare this to FR. It seems like Drizzt has a magic item for every single slot. GH
UMiskatonic 09-12-07, 12:36 PM	Actually, the Fellowship had Elven waybread as well, and a Palantir. Gandalf had one of the three rings of the Elves too, if Memory serves.
UMiskatonic 09-12-07, 12:46 PM	I don't care for player vs player conflict. And I can't role-play a Paladin "correctly" (from my perspective anyway) with an Anti-Paladin in the same party. Alfred Anderson I've seen a lot of people who feel this way. I don't think it's a roleplaying problem, I think it's a mechanics problem. If the combat system was SO simple that players said "I hit" and the DM said "No you didn't" until someone gave up, we'd all hate combat too. And, because there are no rules to allow a character to convince another character of anything at all, in-character arguments become shouting matches, BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO RESOLVE THEM. I can see some very good role-playing coming out of Alfred's scenario above. "We'll work together until the hostage is safely returned" "Agreed, but you'll be the one looking after her" "Agreed, but when we get to the castle, you'll hold off the guards long enough for me to rescue the hostage" "Agreed, but the fate of those guards is my problem to deal with" "No, they are innocent dupes". "If you want my help with this, then I'll deal with the guards, in my own way." "I don't like it, but the hostage is the greater good. All right." Some game mechanics for in-character debate would be really nice.
KoboldChieftain 09-12-07, 10:48 PM	I can see some very good role-playing coming out of Alfred's scenario above. "We'll work together until the hostage is safely returned" "Agreed, but you'll be the one looking after her" "Agreed, but when we get to the castle, you'll hold off the guards long enough for me to rescue the hostage" "Agreed, but the fate of those guards is my problem to deal with" "No, they are innocent dupes". "If you want my help with this, then I'll deal with the guards, in my own way." "I don't like it, but the hostage is the greater good. All right." Some game mechanics for in-character debate would be really nice. Actually, the anti-paladin should say "Yeah, I suppose you're right, I'll just tie them up." and then kill them. THEN tell the Paladin all about it. That's role-playing! :)
delroland 09-12-07, 11:48 PM	Here's a thought: D&D is a game about cooperation, not competition. So how about we just ban evil alignments altogether? It's worked for the last twenty years. Edit: I have heard a rumor that tieflings will be in the Core PHB. If this were true, I would allow them in the campaign as, just because they have a tendency to be evil, player characters can, and should be, the exception. Conflicted characters (good/neutral with evil background) make for a lot of fun to play as well. In fact, I would be very hesitant in axing anything from the PHB right off the bat. Let players have a chance to test it out first, and if it is overpowered, then we can remove it from the campaign. /edit I would suggest a virtual cert system as opposed to AR's or certs. Mundane items (+1 swords and the like) would not require tracking, but more powerful items should have a serial number and be tracked online through the membership page. This would allow for item trading and prevent cheating where it would really matter, at least as much as cheating can be prevented. This would be simple to implement, as any mod with a "tracked" item could simply have a checkbox to fill in on the mod reporting page, assigning the item to a particular player and character. Since the mod reporting will need to be coded anyways, might as well add this functionality while we are at it. Members could also print out their items, just like with how they print out their character info for D&D Campaigns. All other items should be "passed out" at the table or sold for half value, the gold being split up evenly. In case of dispute, let the table decide what to do (roll off, w/e), or if conflict breaks out, the item gets sold by the GM. This also removes the whole "sell at half, immediately buy back for full" mechanic of LG, one which, IMO, horrendously skews the suspension of disbelief. Since this is Forgotten Realms, and the players are relatively assumed to be the good guys, I would suggest the Harper organization grant much easier access than in Living City. In LC, the Harpers were pretty much an exclusive club of select players who rarely let others into their fold. In LFR, I suggest we empower our players by giving them many opportunities within the mods to join, while still keeping the leadership of the organization a secret. Obviously, this would require significant work, most likely by one specific person acting as the Harper POC, but I think the payoff could potentially be well worth it in adding to player enjoyment of the campaign. Secret metaorgs are fun. Secret metaorgs that no one gets into are not. Edit 2: URK! I didn't answer the OP, so here goes: 1. Use online tracking. It's the way of the future, and it helps track power levels in the campaign as well as helps prevent cheating. This means eliminating the AR system, which IMO is a good thing (see point #3). 2. Empower the players. Let them be the heroes. Let them join the cool metaorgs. Let them have the rewards from their efforts instead of forcing them to sell those items for half their value (or less, if it is over cap) and then never be able to buy them back. If we don't want players getting the uber sword of awesomeness, DON'T GIVE IT TO THE BBEG. Otherwise we ruin the suspension of disbelief, and our members have less fun. We also want to avoid situations like this: "Hey, you guys are doing FR? Cool! Hey, can I be a Harper?" "No. You can only join the Harpers if you play with one of the six specific players amongst all ten thousand members that are already Harpers." "Well, who are they?" "I can't tell you that. Besides, they are spread out all over the world, and so you would probably only get a chance to play with them if they live in your area." "So I pretty much only have a six in ten thousand chance of playing with one of these guys?" "Yup. Guess you don't get to be a Harper." 3. Streamline the paperwork at the end of the module. There is nothing more frustrating than wasting 15% of your game time doing paperwork. A simple system, similar to D&D campaigns, whereas the GM fills out a questionnaire, then posts it online, is what LFR needs.