Post/Author/DateTime	Post
labocca337 11-21-07, 07:39 AM	The following conclusions are based on my personal gaming experiences. It could possibly be summed up as regional differences within the RPGA, anyway... One question I always have when DMing an RPGA living game is how much influence the DM should have over controlling character death. Specifically, my question for this forum is: What should the underlying philosophy of character death be in LFR? In a home campaign, as DM you write (or at least buy and edit) the adventure. Your the alpha and omega of your game. There is also no competitive, tournament aspect either. This allows you a great deal of free will. In a living setting, there is a detachment between the writer and DM. There is also a need to run tables in a uniform manner. In some settings (e.g. Living Jungle and Living Force) the philosophy of character death could be summed up as, "PC death should be rare and always dramatically appropriate". It was common for a DM to bump a roll or "softball" a situation for the good of the story. In other settings (e.g. Greyhawk) there is a much more "by the book" philosphy. Character death is a common cost of doing business. The competitive, tournament aspect seems to prevail over the dramatic appropriateness of a "total party kill". There could be several tables playing the same, really hard battle. So it's only fair to run the monsters the same for everyone. So, will LFR have a dramatic setting in which DMs are allowed lattitude in regards to sparing the PC or will DMs be required to stick to their guns when the heroes have their backs to the wall? The answer is probably somewhere in between, but I believe it's important to have a guideline documented somewhere. Hopefully this long-winded question made sense.
Keith53 11-21-07, 01:06 PM	I think this topic falls into the bucket of topics for the campaign staff to deal with, and has not been decided as yet. Every RPGA campaign has had a different perspective on the issue on DM latitude, consistency of gaming experience, etc. Obviously opinions will vary. I have no idea as yet what LFR take will be. I do want to make one comment -- these adventures are not tournaments. They are not competitive events with player winners who receive a prize or declared the best. (See D&D Open in comparison.) When the RPGA stopped doing peer voting and giving a prize for the "winner of the table," the last vestige of that system died for Living campaigns. There is a demand for rigid presentation of an actual tournament IMHO. I also consider the term "softballing" to be a referent with a negative implication that can be a hot button for some gamers. GM latitude to adjust the challenge to fit the specific group of PCs is probably a better expression of the issue. :-) Keith
MatteBlack 11-21-07, 01:16 PM	With various writers and countless combinations of parties, there will always need to be some latitude available to the DM in adjusting for a proper challenge. If the comments on 4th are to believed, scaling should be more accurate, characters more balanced amongst each other individually and sudden "accidental" deaths should be a bit less frequent.
aljergensen 11-21-07, 02:59 PM	Hopefully 4e will be easier to tailor, and judges will have options for adjusting encounters. APL wasn't bad, just not always flexible enough. I've walked away from quite a few adventures feeling like I was never really challenged so it goes both ways. Especially at higher levels, it is very difficult to write a generic adventure that will challenge the majority of tables without wiping out tables that don't have the most optimal mix. On the other hand, if people are doing something stupid or are just really, really unlucky I personally don't like pulling punches ... either as a judge or player. Adventuring should be risky business and if I know there's no chance of failure it's not as fun for me. Allen.
tombollis 11-21-07, 06:52 PM	If PCs advance in a balanced manner, with usable wealth (such as magic items, weapons and armor) appropriate to their roles and levels, and with modules designed for appropriate difficulty, permanent PC death should be rare, and PCs should be raised with appropriate wealth for the level to which they are raised from the dead so that they remain viable characters at their reduced level (assuning they are still raised with a level loss). If the DM believes that a module, as written, is too deadly for the party, he should have guidelines for reasonable alteration to the difficulty so that it is fun for the players, with reasonable options for survival and success. That does not meam "softballing". Tom Bollis
trollbill 11-21-07, 10:11 PM	A good part of the answer to this question will depend on the new 4E rules. It has been stated that they will have a lot of similarities to the new Star Wars rules. If that's the case, character death is likely to be much less frequent. Which, correspondingly means, character raises are probably going to be harder to come by. (No I haven't seen the new rules, yet. I am just hypothosizing.) Overall I think this would be a good thing. Less frequent character deaths means character deaths will tend to be more heroic. Also, DMs will be far less worried about whether or not to softball as the consequences to the players are lessened. Most DMs don't like killing PCs unless the PC really did something to deserve it, since the results of death are severe and sometimes permanent. However, they usually don't mind the mission failing if all it means is lessoning the rewards the PCs get at the end of the mod.
Sieylianna 11-22-07, 10:07 AM	The problem is consistency in judging. I ran a module, APL 2 and one of the bad guys crits with a scorching ray. 8d6 damage, no saving throw, kills most 2nd level characters. Another judge running the same module the same time slot does the same thing (critical scorching ray at APL 2), but he ignores the critical. So one PC lives and one dies, purely dependent on who was the judge. That isn't fair to the players. Ed
Madfox11 11-23-07, 03:33 AM	But regardless of what the campaign management puts on paper would still happen...
trollbill 11-23-07, 03:55 AM	The problem is consistency in judging. I ran a module, APL 2 and one of the bad guys crits with a scorching ray. 8d6 damage, no saving throw, kills most 2nd level characters. Another judge running the same module the same time slot does the same thing (critical scorching ray at APL 2), but he ignores the critical. So one PC lives and one dies, purely dependent on who was the judge. That isn't fair to the players. Ed While I do see your point, there is a couple of problems with this. First, it is only unfair if you consider the one group of players somehow competing with the others (if there is no competition, fairness is moot). Now on a philisophical level there should be no competition here and D&D normally (ignoring things like the D&D Open) is not a competative game. Of course, gamers being gamers, they tend to be competative regardless. So it isn't uncommon for people to at least compete in the form of bragging rights. If such metagaming competition is important to you, then I suppose such non-standardized treatment isn't fair. Second, I am 99% sure the DM that ignored the Crit did so because he didn't think it was 'fair' to the player critted to be killed simply by such bad circumstance. It seems fairness depends a lot on your point of view. Which of the two things was more unfair? How fair was it to the guy that died because of a crit that no one at any of the other tables even got critted by? I had a very similar situation happen to me at GenCon this year. My sorcerer died in the first round of the first encounter of the first Greyhawk Ruins mod due to a crit from a longbow for 23 points of damage. He had to sit out almost the entire paid-for slot not due to any fault of his own (except perhaps calling attention to himself by using his magical abilities), but rather due to several really good dice rolls on the part of the DM. Exactly how fair was that? Should people be upset if the DM had decided to softball it so I could at least get my money's worth out of the slot? Fair is always a relative thing. Which is more unfair: Me living when I shouldn't because someone else might have died due to the same unusual set of circumstances in this mod; or everyone but me getting to finish the mod because they didn't have this bad chain of dice-rolls befall them. (Note: I am not arguing that the DM should have done this for me. His call was legit. He was, afterall, following the rules. My point is should people really be upset if he had decided otherwise.) Regardless, as I noted, if the 4E rules actually make it harder to die, I think you will see a lot more consistancy in table rulings like this as the results of a series of bad dice rolls will have less of an effect of the survival of the character; making this discussion pretty much irrelavant.
TWG_Prometheus 11-29-07, 11:51 AM	This is why I roll my attacks on the table and use easily read dice both as a player and as a Judge. I don't particularly like killing players, but I'd hate it more if I prevented it from happening. That said, the only two player deaths I've caused in RPGA (that come to mind easily at least) was a Mystic Theurge who thought that using Shocking Grasp on a raging Barbarian was a good idea and a Ranger that failed three DC 13 saving throws in a row. The larger problem in my mind isn't the randomness of occaisional deaths (it happens) but the variance in modules. I've seen modules that had ridiculously overpowered encounters and pathetic excuses for placing the EL where it was. I've also seen modules that I really believe I could beat with four level 1 commoners. The modules are far more random than the dice.
MatteBlack 11-29-07, 01:03 PM	The module variation also brings up questions of scaling to normal or optimized characters. Supposedly 4th ed will have better balance across characters and a better scaling mechanisms. If it does, alot of that headache will be solved.
draxynnic 12-02-07, 08:56 PM	That would certainly help. One thing that usually makes me want to softball a mod is when, through circumstances outside their control, the players are forced to play with a highly unbalanced party. To make an extreme example, two 12th-level rogues and two 11th-level rogues going into a module with no traps or sneak attack opportunities may technically be an APL12 party, but are they really? Another thing that might help is to get rid of the "you MUST play at this difficulty level" mechanism (when determining APL or the equivalent, if not necassarily whether individual characters are "in APL"). If the people who get bad luck with table balance want to play it safe in exchange for lower rewards, they should have that option (which means DMs don't need to feel guilty about wiping them out if they don't take it). On the other hand, if the hardcore rules-munch players always had the option to play up, that would give them an opportunity to seek a greater challenge without punishing the less optimised characters. (I'm sure that 4E will be more balanced - if you include Complete Cheese, after all, that won't exactly be hard - but I'm willing to lay money that people will find ways to break the system. Hopefully they'll fix spiked chains at the very least.)
Vamroc 12-02-07, 09:50 PM	That would certainly help. One thing that usually makes me want to softball a mod is when, through circumstances outside their control, the players are forced to play with a highly unbalanced party. To make an extreme example, two 12th-level rogues and two 11th-level rogues going into a module with no traps or sneak attack opportunities may technically be an APL12 party, but are they really? Another thing that might help is to get rid of the "you MUST play at this difficulty level" mechanism (when determining APL or the equivalent, if not necessarily whether individual characters are "in APL"). If the people who get bad luck with table balance want to play it safe in exchange for lower rewards, they should have that option (which means DMs don't need to feel guilty about wiping them out if they don't take it). On the other hand, if the hardcore rules-munch players always had the option to play up, that would give them an opportunity to seek a greater challenge without punishing the less optimized characters. (I'm sure that 4E will be more balanced - if you include Complete Cheese, after all, that won't exactly be hard - but I'm willing to lay money that people will find ways to break the system. Hopefully they'll fix spiked chains at the very least.) I whole heartedly agree with that last statement it never fails. Give a player a crack and a chisel and in an hour I'll show you a door way
Newpaintbrush 01-16-08, 06:12 PM	There are a few things to keep in mind. 1. Regardless of party composition, if the players have decided to play at an APL, they have decided to play at that APL. If you, as the DM, think it is a Bad Idea that the players play at that APL, I think it is all right to advise them (but if they insist, well, they insist) 2. Player characters will die. As a DM, you have an obligation to the rest of the campaign NOT to softball, that is, not to whiff rolls or "forget" crits. Players get used to that sort of preferential treatment, and that is very bad, even for you, because your players will expect YOU to do the same next time. 3. That said - honestly, in a heated combat, do the PCs stop to kill wounded enemy NPCs? No. Similarly, NPCs will probably not stop to kill PCs in the heat of combat. Although mods often do not specifically state that NPCs will offer PCs a chance to surrender, I think that in MANY cases, it is reasonable and appropriate to offer PCs a way out. (Of course, the PCs won't get treasure or XP for winning that encounter, but PCs that are about to die probably won't complain). There are some exceptions to that last, of course; undead whose motivation is hatred of the living should not stop attacking until one side or the other is destroyed; some particularly motivated groups will not surrender. In brief, I think it is appropriate not to OBVIOUSLY softball encounters, but I think the DM has some leeway as to not rabidly going for the throat. Heaven knows, I could have killed my share of PCs at tables if I wanted, but it hasn't happened yet.
trollbill 01-16-08, 08:22 PM	There are a few things to keep in mind. 1. Regardless of party composition, if the players have decided to play at an APL, they have decided to play at that APL. If you, as the DM, think it is a Bad Idea that the players play at that APL, I think it is all right to advise them (but if they insist, well, they insist) In LG players don't usually get to decide. They have to play at whatever the APL calculation comes up to. They only get to decide if the APL rounds to an odd number. Otherwise they have no choice. A party of 2 5th and 2 6th level rogues MUST play "Haunted Tomb of the Construct Loving Ooze-lord" at APL 6 whether they'd rather play it at 4 or not.
Puggle Halfwine 01-17-08, 12:29 AM	I really like the idea that players can choose their APL irrespective of who's playing. The only two (minor) concerns with this are: 1) Players bringing significantly higher level characters to low level games to make the game all about them. 2) Players abusing this system to play significantly higher level modules with a GM they know will just let them live. Of course, while these are legitimate concerns, I would refute them with the following: 1) These kinds of players are probably in the minority, and probably do other things to make themselves unpopular. Outside of cons: Don't play with this person again. In a convention situation: Senior GMs shouldn't permit this to occur and players should complain to the senior GM if there's a situation like this. IMHO: An unlikely scenario which punishes the (vast) majority for the actions of a (vast) minority who would otherwise probably just **** everyone off in some other way. 2) If players are going to do this then they're probably just going to cheat anyway, no matter what the rules say. So why bother only punishing people who are going to obey the rules? P.S. All hail Britt!
pedr 01-17-08, 02:24 AM	I'm not sure if it's completely relevant to this discussion, but Wizards Presents: Worlds and Monsters has a little snippet about how death works in 4E (at least, how it worked in the September 2007 iteration of the rules):Death Matters Differently: It's generally harder to die than in previous editions, particularly at low level. When a heroic-tier player character dies, the player creates a new character. A paragon PC can come back from the dead at a significant cost. For epic-tier characters, death is a speed bump. So whereas in LG you could usually raise a 2nd level character from the dead - particularly if you had a table full of players happy to contribute to the cost - it looks like it will be much harder in LFR, if it follows the core rules. Having a 9th or 10th level PC in LFR (even if that is equivalent to about a 6th level 3E PC) who cannot be raised if it dies might require some re-thinking about how a 'Living' campaign works - after all in a home game most GMs would allow you to create a new 9th or 10th level character (or perhaps one a level or two lower). I know that a lot of LG players are very reluctant to endorse anything which gives you levels you've not 'earned', but this could cause significant problems in mustering at conventions and (particularly) allowing small local groups to play LFR effectively: if you have four regular players and one of them now only has a 1st or 2nd level PC the three players with 8th level PCs are going to find it hard to carry on playing!
draxynnic 01-17-08, 06:29 AM	Ironically, if you assumed the levels meant roughly the same as they did now, that actually fairly well describes the situation if the PCs can't get the assistance of higher-level characters. Raise dead becomes available at level 9, at the cost of a level. At level 17, true resurrection comes in, and while expensive, it's affordable enough for an epic character to be a speed hump, especially of the cost is split. Still, hopefully the 'heroic characters don't come back from the dead' isn't going to LFR policy, or if it is there'll be some compensation. Otherwise, having a character die just before they reach the Paragon tier and having to start again from the bottom will be frustrating in the extreme... (EDIT: If they translate that into LFR, it could be adjudicated by allowing the new character to be made... using the AR stack (or equivalent) of the deceased. One could even justify favours and the like being 'inherited' if the new character is assumed to be related in some way to the original. Still, unless it turns out that I'd really messed up the build, I'd rather have the character I'd already built a personality for than a new one, even if the new one does have an inbuilt vengeance-for-so-and-so hook...)
WolfStar76 01-17-08, 12:10 PM	Ironically, if you assumed the levels meant roughly the same as they did now, that actually fairly well describes the situation if the PCs can't get the assistance of higher-level characters. Raise dead becomes available at level 9, at the cost of a level. At level 17, true resurrection comes in, and while expensive, it's affordable enough for an epic character to be a speed hump, especially of the cost is split. Still, hopefully the 'heroic characters don't come back from the dead' isn't going to LFR policy, or if it is there'll be some compensation. Otherwise, having a character die just before they reach the Paragon tier and having to start again from the bottom will be frustrating in the extreme... (EDIT: If they translate that into LFR, it could be adjudicated by allowing the new character to be made... using the AR stack (or equivalent) of the deceased. One could even justify favours and the like being 'inherited' if the new character is assumed to be related in some way to the original. Still, unless it turns out that I'd really messed up the build, I'd rather have the character I'd already built a personality for than a new one, even if the new one does have an inbuilt vengeance-for-so-and-so hook...) Hmmm. . . did I just make a spot check against a hidden playtester?
TetsujinOni 01-17-08, 05:18 PM	Hmmm. . . did I just make a spot check against a hidden playtester? nah, those levels sound like 3.5's level 5 cleric and level 9 cleric spells at full spell progression.
cetiken 01-20-08, 09:19 AM	In LG players don't usually get to decide. They have to play at whatever the APL calculation comes up to. They only get to decide if the APL rounds to an odd number. Otherwise they have no choice. A party of 2 5th and 2 6th level rogues MUST play "Haunted Tomb of the Construct Loving Ooze-lord" at APL 6 whether they'd rather play it at 4 or not. Not true. They can always walk away and go eat a pie or play Munchkin or whatever. When your DM is strongly questioning the wisdom of proceeding then doing something else may be more fun. As a side note a group of 4 rouges may have more options to bypass encounters than is normally found and if they are playing smart may achive unexpected success.
draxynnic 01-25-08, 12:05 AM	nah, those levels sound like 3.5's level 5 cleric and level 9 cleric spells at full spell progression. Correct. Not true. They can always walk away and go eat a pie or play Munchkin or whatever. When your DM is strongly questioning the wisdom of proceeding then doing something else may be more fun. Technically true, but it's not really fair if people have spent hundreds or thousands of dollars to get to the con and have already paid for that individual slot seperately to be told "your party isn't suitable for that mod, maybe you should go take a long lunch instead?" It's always something that makes me a little nervous going to cons. Often it does come out in the wash, but every so often it doesn't. Personally, I think at the very least there should be some loosening of the rules for conventions, at the senior GM's discretion.
cetiken 01-28-08, 08:00 PM	It's always something that makes me a little nervous going to cons. Often it does come out in the wash, but every so often it doesn't. Personally, I think at the very least there should be some loosening of the rules for conventions, at the senior GM's discretion. Personally, I don't think that you should be able to 'buy' a full xp/gp on an AR on the basis of how far you travel or how much you choose to spend. Actually, it boggles my mind to think of spending thousands of dollars to go play a mod especially if your flying solo without at least a few friends to round out your table. I could possibly see shelling out a couple of Gs to go to gencon or PAX, but you can be sure I'd do more than hang out at the RPGA room.
draxynnic 01-28-08, 11:19 PM	Personally, I don't think that you should be able to 'buy' a full xp/gp on an AR on the basis of how far you travel or how much you choose to spend. Actually, it boggles my mind to think of spending thousands of dollars to go play a mod especially if your flying solo without at least a few friends to round out your table. I could possibly see shelling out a couple of Gs to go to gencon or PAX, but you can be sure I'd do more than hang out at the RPGA room. Full rewards, no. Actually being able to play the slot you paid for, yes. Besides, if you're choosing to play down, it's not as if you're getting the full reward for the module even if you get the max for the APL you do play - you're getting directly penalised by having lower caps through playing at a lower APL. A group of level 6 rogues in Tomb of the Construct-Loving Ooze Lord at APL4 isn't exactly going to get 900/900 each, are they? (Unless it's a two-rounder or a module with an extended play option, of course, but then they'd be being penalised even more for the lower APL.) There's already a system in place for penalising play at lower APLs. I don't see how giving the choice to play at a lower APL then you would normally be expected to can be worse than people not playing at all because they can't get a viable party and walking away feeling as if they've been cheated.
Surgebuster 01-28-08, 11:55 PM	It seems to me that much of the desire to softball and/or accomodate travellers at conventions comes from an innate cynicism surrounding the flaws of 3e or LG, such as the "group of level 6 rogues in Tomb of the Construct-Loving Ooze Lord at APL4 isn't exactly going to get 900/900 each, are they?" comment as much as it does the ability to get an appropriate organised play table together. While I applaud efforts to discuss the issue and present ideas, my gut feeling is that the very fabric of the new edition and LFR will be different to 3e and LG - much of the 'what if' scenarios that see people championing three or seven player LG tables may no longer be relevant. A convention I attended last year had more seven player tables than legal ones and the unhappiness and chaos it caused permeated throughout the three days. Slots running over time, player complaints at the lack of challenge or opportunity to contribute, DMs being unable to manage that many players at once and facilitate enjoyment....there were a myriad of reasons explaining why I *never* want to see seven player tables at a convention again. :weep: That's also the problem with Senior DM's discretion, 'just this once' over time turns into an common exemption, turns into expected, turns into planned for... Joe
Reneshat 01-29-08, 12:35 AM	A convention I attended last year had more seven player tables than legal ones and the unhappiness and chaos it caused permeated throughout the three days. Slots running over time, player complaints at the lack of challenge or opportunity to contribute, DMs being unable to manage that many players at once and facilitate enjoyment....there were a myriad of reasons explaining why I *never* want to see seven player tables at a convention again. :weep: I however have seen multiple 7 player table go off beautifully, where the mod was still a challenge, and everyone had a great time. In these cases however, usually everyone knew each other, so it probably operated differently than it would at the normal convention.
labocca337 02-17-08, 12:17 PM	Yeah... seven player tables is another HUGE issue with me (this is a rant for an entirely different thread, but I guess it kind of relates to PC survival). I'm really torn because I hate telling someone, "sorry, too slow, should have signed up sooner". But at the same time, APLs are designed for a max of six players (and ELs are set up for four). I agree that what started as occasional exceptions made by kind-hearted organizers has resluted in the player base assuming that you'll always let that seventh player in. That in turn leads to laziness in regards to signing up for games and just showing up on game night. Another slippery slope is, "hey, an eighth player just showed up and we only have one judge..." ad nauseum. Again, this is a rant so feel free to chastise me, sorry in advance.
Reneshat 02-17-08, 11:47 PM	I agree it is too common. However, the balance issue becomes less of one if you have multiple characters that are either useless or a danger to the rest of the party. You have to give a balance wave to the guy who walks so far ahead of the party, and is so oblivious, he gets attacked by a two headed polar bear, from behind.
TWG_Prometheus 02-22-08, 11:24 AM	But at the same time, APLs are designed for a max of six players (and ELs are set up for four). APL's aren't really designed at all. I like LG and I still play it, but the balance of the game is a freakish monster. I've seen games that I could walk over with level 1 commoners and games that are all but guaranteed to kill the whole party regardless of the choices they make, and each encounter is "APL appropriate". Half of the burden for that is on 3rd edition itself. I've been saying that I can't wait for 4th edition a lot lately. The other half of the burden, however, is on the module authors and editors that think a caster level 10 Empowered Fireball has any place in an APL 6 game even if they can manage to squeeze it onto a CR 9 creature. Just don't try to pretend that the game is balanced at all.
MatteBlack 02-27-08, 12:26 PM	It seems to me that much of the desire to softball and/or accomodate travellers at conventions comes from an innate cynicism surrounding the flaws of 3e or LG, such as the "group of level 6 rogues in Tomb of the Construct-Loving Ooze Lord at APL4 isn't exactly going to get 900/900 each, are they?" comment as much as it does the ability to get an appropriate organised play table together. While I applaud efforts to discuss the issue and present ideas, my gut feeling is that the very fabric of the new edition and LFR will be different to 3e and LG - much of the 'what if' scenarios that see people championing three or seven player LG tables may no longer be relevant. A convention I attended last year had more seven player tables than legal ones and the unhappiness and chaos it caused permeated throughout the three days. Slots running over time, player complaints at the lack of challenge or opportunity to contribute, DMs being unable to manage that many players at once and facilitate enjoyment....there were a myriad of reasons explaining why I *never* want to see seven player tables at a convention again. :weep: That's also the problem with Senior DM's discretion, 'just this once' over time turns into an common exemption, turns into expected, turns into planned for... Joe If you have to run multiple seven person tables that is a sure sign that your gaming community has taken the practice for granted. Players need to be a little more accomodating to playing up or down, with other characters or in another adventure. As long as you keep opening up that 7th seat, they have little reason to bother adjusting to avoid sitting out. I think maybe one 7-person table per slot (or fewer) is forgivable unless you have a really big con.
Rerednaw 02-29-08, 10:09 AM	I agree. That being said. I've several of my characters die. Who hasn't? As I tend to DM more than I play, every death is quite a loss for me. In fact it is exacerbating the situation as the rest of the players are now 4 APLs above him. So if I want to play I'm stuck playing, way, way, up...which gets him killed, etc... Reading this thread has made me reconsider though. I run games the way I like to play. Dramatic deaths in character don't bother me much. And stupidity should be rewarded appropriately. Getting hit by 20 dice of fireballs before my first action on round 1 at level 4 wasn't dramatic at all. It was more "Hey look what I can do to your character when I have 6 levels more than you do to play with!" Likewise I've seen a new player who's never played LG or D&D make 3 characters in a row, because he was killed in each intro. After the third death he swore off off LG, RPGs and D&D. He did not play stupidly, had nice character concepts, and was pretty good at picking up the system. Each time the death was really not his fault. Nevertheless, it happens. I'm looking forward to the changes in 4E, if even half the claims about it are true. I just hope that LFR is a good implementation as well. M2 I think this topic falls into the bucket of topics for the campaign staff to deal with, and has not been decided as yet. Every RPGA campaign has had a different perspective on the issue on DM latitude, consistency of gaming experience, etc. Obviously opinions will vary. I have no idea as yet what LFR take will be. I also consider the term "softballing" to be a referent with a negative implication that can be a hot button for some gamers. GM latitude to adjust the challenge to fit the specific group of PCs is probably a better expression of the issue. :-) Keith