Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Rerednaw 09-06-07, 12:34 PM	One issue that has repeatedly come up is how to ensure the right access for a given character. With the inherent limitation of not being able to focus on one character, will the 'blurbs' for a mod be a bit more descriptive? Or, alternatively will access be granted to a player and not a character? Other solutions (transferable certs)? Thoughts? Cheers.
MatteBlack 09-06-07, 01:01 PM	Aside from an access that might be tied to another mod in the series, I can't say I believe in the concept of a "right access". Sure there might be a cure for a curse in an earlier part of the plot arch but, should we be worried about making sure people have just the "right access" to complete that perfect power build? I'll be the first person to tweak my build to be more effective but, I don't neccessarily believe we have the right to expect all the parts to powergame our characters. Staying in the story and letting it unfold and adapting to it would take precedence over collecting just the "right accesses" in any version of good RP I have heard of. I am fine with more informative blurbs but, probable treasure wouldn't really enter into what I'd add. If what they say is true about 4th Ed., loot should play a less dominant role and most of the character options will likely be core items for the earlier part of the campaign. Lee
jhorred 09-06-07, 05:18 PM	Although I've been "victimized" by the 'right access, wrong character' gremlins before, I think that it should stay 'access by character' and not go to 'access by player'. 'By player' is waaay too metagamy, IMHO.
ankhwearer 09-06-07, 05:41 PM	You might be making a lot of assumptions about how 4e will work that are not accurate. For access, were you talking about items, feats, PrCs or AR-specified favors/powers? Items is the easy part, I would think, but there are already design blogs suggesting that treasure will work different, where you don't get loot from monsters that you sell for half gold. But, the way you've worded your post, it seems like you feel that 4e will have the same structure of player rewards and character advancement that 3.5 has. While feats and PrCs were new to 3.0, there might be another big leap that does advancement in a different manner. If so, Chris Tuluch and the RPGA staff probably have no idea yet how access will be portioned out. In fact, won't they need to have supplimental books to have anything to grant access to? It would be very disappointing if items in the core rule books were marked with some sort of limited access, instead of being initially available. So the issue you raise probably won't be addressed until this time next year. But, when that time comes, I'll be just as interested as you in discovering what sort of things characters or players will earn access to and how this is recorded.
Jonathon_M_Johnson 09-06-07, 10:37 PM	Hello all- So what I am getting out of this is people are talking about letting the access be to the player and not the character that played in that module? If that is the case, then you have got to be kidding me. The aspect of access is being in the right place at the right time. <rolling my eyes even at that thought> But if I am wrong at what I thought, then just drop this into the internet garbage can. Thanks Jonathon M. Johnson Colorado
KarmaInferno 09-06-07, 10:53 PM	I think the old standard of "You get what you find" out of adventures is okay. Might be in the form of certs, ARs, whatever. But put in some sort of accessible market for those purchases that you just can't find on random adventures. This is a magic rich world, they do in fact have wandering merchants selling magic items, even if most are low-level stuff. Toril is the sort of world that if it gets noised around that Bob the Fighter is looking to buy a Big Sword of X, someone might get in contact with Bob to offer it for sale or trade. -karma
Golorious 09-07-07, 12:48 PM	I think that we will see a completely different type of access system. The word is that magic items are changing a good bit in 4e and well at least initially the only stuff that will be available will be the PHB anyway. There is a theoretically a large decrease in the need for magical items in 4e. That doesn't mean there wont be magical weapons and what not but because of this change we may see a completely different access mechanic. I would not be surprised if it is some form of hybrid between the DnD campaigns and LG AR system. We do know that there will be ARs both in paper and online and you can track you character using either or both.
MatteBlack 09-09-07, 12:59 AM	I think the old standard of "You get what you find" out of adventures is okay. Might be in the form of certs, ARs, whatever. But put in some sort of accessible market for those purchases that you just can't find on random adventures. This is a magic rich world, they do in fact have wandering merchants selling magic items, even if most are low-level stuff. Toril is the sort of world that if it gets noised around that Bob the Fighter is looking to buy a Big Sword of X, someone might get in contact with Bob to offer it for sale or trade. -karma With comments on how items will play a less dominant role in a player's effectiveness and rumors of a recent cataclysm of some sort, the world might not be as magic rich.
tapelib3 09-10-07, 09:40 AM	Here's an access issue to think about in Living Forgotten Realms. If a region's module limited access to certain rewards to only PC's of that region, or to PC's belonging to organizations of that region, then playing an out-of-region PC in that module is discouraged, as you faced the same risks, but received fewer rewards. This is basic economics. I saw in LG many regions whose AR's were filled with access, but only if your PC was from the region and a part of this or that metaorg. While I hope that there is far less of this in Living Forgotten Realms, it may not be the case. If the idea is to encourage people to play more modules with just a few PC's, you want to discourage this behavior. If the idea is to encourage people to make a different PC for each region, then you make lots of 'in-region' only access as your reward. This presumes a player may make new PC's from other regions, a condition in LG that has not been verified for Living Forgotten Realms. Which way each region's, and the world, administrators go in this access pendulum will determine how many PC's a player has, and how fast each PC advances. Welcome to a new way of thinking. Ed Tostanoski 841191
Infinitive 09-10-07, 12:02 PM	I do have to interject here, as many people have been noting possible differences between 3.5 and 4.0, in regard specifically to PrCs, favors, and item access. While opening this question is generally a good thing during the planning phase of any long-term adventure organization, I do have to note one thing: Aren't we putting the cart before the horse here? I've been watching the 4E forums, and it's pretty clear that 4th isn't even FINISHED yet. More, they're changing magic items and classes regularly at the moment, in an effort to balance them and add interesting options for PCs. Shouldn't we wait to see what kinds of access we're dealing with before we start having it out over how we actually GET that access?
tombollis 09-10-07, 01:02 PM	Shouldn't we wait to see what kinds of access we're dealing with before we start having it out over how we actually GET that access? No. How we will get access is a separate issue from what acceess will be available, and is a legitimate topic for discussion at this stage. Tom Bollis
ankhwearer 09-10-07, 01:37 PM	No. How we will get access is a separate issue from what acceess will be available, and is a legitimate topic for discussion at this stage. Tom Bollis I disagree. It is very difficult to talk about what makes sense in player rewards for completing an adventure if we have no idea what the standards of 4e are for character rewards. In total, the currents rewards on an AR are: XP (Calculated from the CRs of the monsters fought, plus some small amount of story and roleplaying rewards; capped depending on APL) GP (Calculated from the treasure carried by the monsters fought, plus monetary rewards for finishing missions assigned by patrons; capped depending on APL) Favors (Granted by finishing missions for patrons and by aiding people in the midst of an adventure) Access to non-open PrCs (as per favors) Access to non-open Feats (as per favors) Access to non-open items (Determined by the treasure carried by the monsters fought and as per favors) Granting of items (Determined by the treasure carried by the monsters fought and as per favors; usually something minor or not of immediate use in adventures) Influence with Meta-Orgs (as per favors; always limited to use within the region where the adventure was set) So, to discuss how all of the new accesses are granted, we have to assume some things about 4e that have not be directly stated. Assumptions (listed from rougly most likely to "who knows?") Adventurers will fight monsters as the core part of any adventure Characters will gain XP of some sort Characters will gain monetary treasure of some sort Characters will gain magic items of some sort The amounts of XP and GP will vary from adventure to adventure Players will not be allowed to just pick and choose their magic items, but must find them in the game world in order to acquire them. Some character building options will be withheld by the RPGA for granting to players as rewards Some character building options will require in-game conditions before the player can assign it to the character (example: contact with a friendly outsider to gain Contemplative) As I see it, you have to at least assume that something is given to the characters each time he survives an adventure in order to discuss how that something should be tracked. And obviously, that something needs to vary from adventure to adventure, otherwise you are just tracking the number of adventuers you have played. "Access" is commonly used to refer to magic items and character building options, at least in LG. It seems that some people are not convinced that there will be any need to grant these to players, since the pre-condition is that players do not have access to all of the choices to begin with. So, to me, before we can have the discussion about how access should be granted, we need to discuss whether some choices should be withheld from players in order to have something to grant access to. And that discussion is, as I see it, impossible without knowing what options players are going to have to choose from as they improve their characters.
tapelib3 09-10-07, 03:36 PM	So, to discuss how all of the new accesses are granted, we have to assume some things about 4e that have not be directly stated. Assumptions (listed from rougly most likely to "who knows?") Adventurers will fight monsters as the core part of any adventure Characters will gain XP of some sort Characters will gain monetary treasure of some sort Characters will gain magic items of some sort The amounts of XP and GP will vary from adventure to adventure These reflect core elements of D&D, and can be accepted as part of 4e. Players will not be allowed to just pick and choose their magic items, but must find them in the game world in order to acquire them. Some character building options will be withheld by the RPGA for granting to players as rewards Some character building options will require in-game conditions before the player can assign it to the character (example: contact with a friendly outsider to gain Contemplative) Player's are less likely to have access to any magic they want in a 'non-economic, points-of-light' setting like 4e. This means access to items will be a resource. I submit this resource will be used by the Living Forgotten Realms administration as rewards in some fashion. Access to character build options is up in the air. As I see it, you have to at least assume that something is given to the characters each time he survives an adventure in order to discuss how that something should be tracked. And obviously, that something needs to vary from adventure to adventure, otherwise you are just tracking the number of adventuers you have played. "Access" is commonly used to refer to magic items and character building options, at least in LG. It seems that some people are not convinced that there will be any need to grant these to players, since the pre-condition is that players do not have access to all of the choices to begin with. So, to me, before we can have the discussion about how access should be granted, we need to discuss whether some choices should be withheld from players in order to have something to grant access to. And that discussion is, as I see it, impossible without knowing what options players are going to have to choose from as they improve their characters. Giving everyone access to anything and everything in character creation and purchasing will make Living FR feel more like a MMORPG, not less. Restricting access in-region exclusively to in-region PC's will create twelve seperate, parallel campaigns. I just wonder where along these scales the powers-that-be are thinking for this new campaign. - Ed Tostanoski 841191
ankhwearer 09-11-07, 03:56 PM	Giving everyone access to anything and everything in character creation and purchasing will make Living FR feel more like a MMORPG, not less. An interesting opinion. How do you think this make D&D feel more like an MMORPG? After all, the books don't have any restrictions written into them, so you are suggesting that LFR will be less like an MMORPG than D&D. I guess I don't understand how that would work. Could you elaborate?
tapelib3 09-11-07, 04:32 PM	An interesting opinion. How do you think this make D&D feel more like an MMORPG? After all, the books don't have any restrictions written into them, so you are suggesting that LFR will be less like an MMORPG than D&D. I guess I don't understand how that would work. Could you elaborate? First off, I don't play MMORPG's, so my comments in their regard are second-hand. I do play a computer game called dragonfable. In that game, you can find or buy any item that you want, if you're willing to spend the time. As there is a set of overpowered weapons compared to the others, half of the high-level PC's in that game have the same equipment. Now that I think of it, in LG, half of the high-level fighting types have holy swords. So I guess their access is, in the end, similar. So I don't know how LFR will look if the campaign limits access like they do in LG, or if they just open the DMG and say, "Anything you can afford to buy, buy. Anything you can upgrade, upgrade." I surmise from the 'points-of-light' philosophy that a more restrictive approach to resource access will be taken. Their choice will certainly affect the look and feel of the campaign. Ed Tostanoski - 841191
MichaelAhlf 09-11-07, 08:52 PM	First off, I don't play MMORPG's, so my comments in their regard are second-hand. I do play a computer game called dragonfable. In that game, you can find or buy any item that you want, if you're willing to spend the time. As there is a set of overpowered weapons compared to the others, half of the high-level PC's in that game have the same equipment. That is precisely the problem - and yes, D&D 3.5 (especially with the splatbook stuff) fell into this trap. Look at the number of fighter-characters with Pious Templar levels... look at the number of items considered "essential" to the game. Now that I think of it, in LG, half of the high-level fighting types have holy swords. So I guess their access is, in the end, similar. Part of it is that certain items were commonplace in a LOT of mods (vest of resistance, anyone?). So I don't know how LFR will look if the campaign limits access like they do in LG, or if they just open the DMG and say, "Anything you can afford to buy, buy. Anything you can upgrade, upgrade." I surmise from the 'points-of-light' philosophy that a more restrictive approach to resource access will be taken. It'd be interesting. Until recently, LG was a lot more restrictive. The problem was, the "essential" items were taking up a ton more space on AR's and interesting items being left off for them. I'd love to see 4th edition not having "required" items, but given the other design things they've talked about doing and the inflation of numeric values that they've already shown in design docs, I'm not certain they can manage to make it happen. Their choice will certainly affect the look and feel of the campaign. Indeed. Of course the other thing you have to consider is that this is the Forgotten Realms, where every shopkeeper has a breath weapon and a barrel full of +3 swords in the back just waiting to be purchased, with your choice of energy damage or other enhancement.
UMiskatonic 09-12-07, 12:53 PM	Well, some of that is the items. Just look at the shirt/vest slot. You've got a vest of resistance, a vest of escape, and that's about it in Core books. With only two choices, and one of them clearly better for 10/11 classes in the PHB, I'm not surprised you see a lot of resistance vests. You see more interesting choices when the costs in gold and opportunity are parallel. ------------------------------------ There were a number of shirts in Miniatures Handbook and MIC, but I haven't seen access to them just yet.
mark1978 09-12-07, 04:29 PM	Aside from an access that might be tied to another mod in the series, I can't say I believe in the concept of a "right access". Sure there might be a cure for a curse in an earlier part of the plot arch but, should we be worried about making sure people have just the "right access" to complete that perfect power build? I'll be the first person to tweak my build to be more effective but, I don't neccessarily believe we have the right to expect all the parts to powergame our characters. Staying in the story and letting it unfold and adapting to it would take precedence over collecting just the "right accesses" in any version of good RP I have heard of. I am fine with more informative blurbs but, probable treasure wouldn't really enter into what I'd add. If what they say is true about 4th Ed., loot should play a less dominant role and most of the character options will likely be core items for the earlier part of the campaign. Lee I'm really tired of players throwing around the term 'powergame' out of context. To powergame is to get aid from other players that increases your player level faster than as if you played through like was expected. To have proper access to the NONC material does not powergame anybody, because all items, spells, et cetera that are considered broken will be considered closed or whatever the LFR equivalent of that is. So, in truth, finding the 'right' access for your character ideal, which is subjective, is merely a matter of finding the 'right' modules, meta-orgs, and so on. It is not 'powergaming', it is getting an optimum build within the rules. Players, on the whole, are not looking to cheat or break the game, they merely want a formidable power behind the hood of their primary character. Mark
KarmaInferno 09-12-07, 05:08 PM	I'm really tired of players throwing around the term 'powergame' out of context. To powergame is to get aid from other players that increases your player level faster than as if you played through like was expected. Er, that's powerLEVELING. I've only ever heard powergaming as synonymous with min-maxing. -karma
mark1978 09-12-07, 06:53 PM	Er, that's powerLEVELING. I've only ever heard powergaming as synonymous with min-maxing. -karma I guess, but it seems to me a debate destined to lead to more restrictions on organized play that will simply make the experience more frustrating than fun. LG is a grand example of WAY to many restrictions designed to stop player abuse, that it frustrates me nearly as much as I have fun with it. I do not see the problem with allowing players to know of access to stuff that would best optimize their character, it would make them happier with their build choices rather than frustrated with trying to find access that merely requires more access later to take advantage of what D&D has to offer. Frustration will always remain a part of D&D, but should be mitigated to it's minimum to ensure a successful campaign. And, WotC is trying to do that with a version 4.0 that promises to be an easier, less frustrating, D&D. Mark
delroland 09-13-07, 12:35 AM	Although I've been "victimized" by the 'right access, wrong character' gremlins before, I think that it should stay 'access by character' and not go to 'access by player'. 'By player' is waaay too metagamy, IMHO. I completely agree with this. However, I believe items should be tradeable (though not to characters played by the same member), so that if your mage gets an awesome sword, you can trade it to another player for something that would be more useful for that character. Furthermore, if we use online tracking, each traded item will have a history, thus preventing circular trading. I also believe gold should be transferable, so that players with item creation feats can trade those items to other players for cold, hard cash. Being that character gold is already tracked for D&D Campaigns, I don't forsee this as being terribly difficult.
Mithreinmaethor 09-13-07, 06:17 AM	I completely agree with this. However, I believe items should be tradeable (though not to characters played by the same member), so that if your mage gets an awesome sword, you can trade it to another player for something that would be more useful for that character. Furthermore, if we use online tracking, each traded item will have a history, thus preventing circular trading. I also believe gold should be transferable, so that players with item creation feats can trade those items to other players for cold, hard cash. Being that character gold is already tracked for D&D Campaigns, I don't forsee this as being terribly difficult. Dont expect to see this. It throws the gold piece and items curve of the game way way off. Leave that stuff for the MMORPGs not our Living Campaign
KarmaInferno 09-13-07, 12:09 PM	I'd point out that MMOGs can do this because these days most "lock" magic items to your level, so even if you can afford that gizmo of massive pwnage, you can't actually use it until you are of appropriate power. If 4.0 also does something like this, the amount of gold/treasure a character can have or trade will have much less of an effect on game balance. Arcanis does this already. They limit by gold piece value - if an individual item is too expensive (which can roughly provide a rating of the item's power), a lower level character either can't use it, or it has lesser effect. -karma
aljergensen 09-13-07, 02:20 PM	For simplicity purposes I would like to see access be either open or closed. If it's ok for some people, it should be ok for everyone. It would dramatically reduce the amount of paperwork required and make building/planning a character much easier. IMHO less paperwork is almost always better. I've never really understood the need to have access to purchase an item or take a prestige class but the argument seems to be that access is a reward "it's needed for balance". Whether access as a reward is valid or not is a matter of opinion. To me it isn't, and sounds like a holdover from AD&D or 2.0 when creation of magic items was mysterious. If I wanted random access to items I'd go back to playing Diablo. As for the latter argument that it's "needed for balance" ... how? It's ok if some people have a "broken" item/PrC/feat, but not others? I could still see special rewards coming from NPCs along the lines of free upkeep, or one time casting of a spell, etc. But then the rewards would be truly special, not just "did my fighter finally get access to mithral"? Allen.
catsclaw 09-13-07, 03:07 PM	I'd point out that MMOGs can do this because these days most "lock" magic items to your level, so even if you can afford that gizmo of massive pwnage, you can't actually use it until you are of appropriate power.More to the point, most MMOs also include a lot of items that cannot be traded once picked up or equipped for the first time. That's probably a necessary feature of any access system, if you want to avoid the worst of the merchant-mart phenomenon.
ankhwearer 09-13-07, 04:58 PM	I've never really understood the need to have access to purchase an item or take a prestige class but the argument seems to be that access is a reward "it's needed for balance". I believe that's inaccurate. Closing an item permenantly is for balance. Limiting some things that are not unbalance, but perhaps powerful, gives the campaign some options for rewarding characters aside from gold and xp. Limiting also allows NPCs to have some abilities that quickly get out of control in a player's hands, but does not directly affect combat (such as the permanancy spell.) This, again, is a balance issue. Another reason to have access to items is to provide the similitude that the character found the item (or was offered it by a happy patron) and your character uses his share of the treasure to claim that item, thus "buying" it.
aljergensen 09-13-07, 05:57 PM	I've never really understood the need to have access to purchase an item or take a prestige class but the argument seems to be that access is a reward "it's needed for balance". Limiting some things that are not unbalance, but perhaps powerful, gives the campaign some options for rewarding characters aside from gold and xp. I think we're just going to disagree on this one. I don't think it's necessary, fair or particularly beneficial considering the extra overhead it requires for tracking information and the extra effort it causes. Limiting also allows NPCs to have some abilities that quickly get out of control in a player's hands, but does not directly affect combat (such as the permanancy spell.) This, again, is a balance issue. Time will tell if this is going to be an issue with 4e. But if it is, then have a separate list of "Open to NPCs only". Another reason to have access to items is to provide the similitude that the character found the item (or was offered it by a happy patron) and your character uses his share of the treasure to claim that item, thus "buying" it. If we were trying to provide the similitude that the character found an item, they should be able to purchase the item at half price or add it to their item list at no cost. We don't do that because it would throw the gp/xp curve off. In the old, pre-3.x days this might have made sense. But the rules for crafting imply that in a big enough city I should be able to find somebody to craft an item for me. They may not have a drawer full of Rings of Spell Turning but for enough gold I should be able to have one created. Allen.
KoboldChieftain 09-14-07, 12:09 AM	Let me just toss something out here and see what you guys think. The whole notion of having the wrong character get access as a problem is very valid. I have seen it happen and it is not pretty. I am not a fan of awarding access to a PrC, for example, for performing a certain favor. It can be viewed as Joe is so happy you got his kitten down from the tree he introduces you to the mystic trainer of doom (MToD). My point is that is also seems like the MToD doesn't exist until you get the kitten. That is just silly (imho). It makes more sense to say that PrC X can be learned from MToD but MToD is busy doing some work for Joe. He tells you that he can not train you unless Joe let's him. Now your character is proactively trying to get "favor" from Joe in order to get MToD time. The blurb on the scenario should inform you of who (Joe, in this case) you are helping. Maybe some scenarios have the opportunity to help one of a group of NPCs. This could add some Role-Playing possibilities as character may need different favor. To sum up, access should be moved to a more meta-game system. This will allow players to know how to get access to a certain item, class or fancy ball dress. Further, they should be given sufficant clues as to which of their characters will benefit from a certain scenario more.
tharlan 09-14-07, 12:57 AM	To sum up, access should be moved to a more meta-game system. This will allow players to know how to get access to a certain item, class or fancy ball dress. Further, they should be given sufficant clues as to which of their characters will benefit from a certain scenario more. Heh... with a few notable exceptions, that is exactly how we do it in Living Kingdoms of Kalamar. When we were told to incorporate the Complete Books into the Meta-orgs we put a big ol' list of PClasses from all of them together. We nixed the ones that we did not like, and the rest we attached to various tiers of the 75 or so meta-organizations that we have. Meta-org access works like this. You spend an NAA (non-adventuring activity, you gain one per adventure played) to join the meta-org. Typically you pay 1 NAA per every four or so adventures to remain in the meta-org and gain the bennies. However if you pay more NAA's to the org, you gain favors. Those favors, once you gain enough of them, allow you to rise in rank, which gives you MORE bennies, to include in some cases, PClass access. :-) Non-Adventuring Activities are an incredibly cool concept that Kalamar came up with (not my fault, I just inherited them) and kudos to the person that designed them. They are an incredibly flexible tool that allows the Campaign Management to do some nifty things, all without limiting character play or advancement. Take care, and good gaming!! Troy
JohnduBois 09-14-07, 09:05 AM	Keep in mind that we're currently discussing non-issues. We won't really have non-Core material when the campaign debuts, and we have no CLUE how magic items will work in 4e (and we do know that they will be substantially different as the 4e designers have REPEATEDLY lamented how much 3e PCs were defined by their magic items). 4e may be released, and the item access issue doesn't exist - because there aren't enough magic items to really make an impact in that way...
KoboldChieftain 09-14-07, 03:25 PM	Meta-org access works like this. You spend an NAA (non-adventuring activity, you gain one per adventure played) to join the meta-org. Typically you pay 1 NAA per every four or so adventures to remain in the meta-org and gain the bennies. However if you pay more NAA's to the org, you gain favors. Those favors, once you gain enough of them, allow you to rise in rank, which gives you MORE bennies, to include in some cases, PClass access. :-) Yeah, that sounds pretty cool. My concern is that you dissassociate the scenario from the reward to some degree. Concepts like general fame would help smooth this over but I would still like to see more of a concrete connection. And John, *ALL* debates, conversations, etc about LFR are pretty much all speculation. We are dealing with a new living campaign and a new rule set. All we can do at this point is examine the past campaigns and offer up what we liked and didn't. :)
aljergensen 09-14-07, 03:37 PM	Yeah, that sounds pretty cool. My concern is that you dissassociate the scenario from the reward to some degree. Concepts like general fame would help smooth this over but I would still like to see more of a concrete connection. I like the idea of NAAs. Simple, yet addresses several issues. I also like the idea of a "fame point" system. Just don't make it like the influence points we seemed to gather in LG that never really seemed to matter (at least in my experience). Maybe a person has general fame score and/or a score with specific groups that would be used to modify checks in social situations or to gain access. Allen.