Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Puggle Halfwine 12-22-07, 12:00 PM	Disclaimer: I am a nobody. My opinion doesn't matter. These are my suggestions. Some are directly stolen from other mailing lists/forums/etc. 0) Some people will cheat. This cannot be avoided. Do not (overly) publish the majority to punish the minority. 1) Listen to your players, but not too much. Sometimes say no, but more often say "yes, I love it." 2) Call for player review of modules they have played (a simple "out of five stars" rating will suffice). Give authors who write four or five star modules more opportunities to write if they wish. Discover what made those modules a success and how they can be improved. Similarly, query authors who write one or two star modules, determine what went wrong and how they can improve. Don't dismiss them out of hand, but work with them to improve the quality of their work. 3) Reward your authors and your GMs who eat modules. I suggest half EXP/GP, and no access, for any module a GM or writer eats. 4) Keep as much 4th edition stuff "core" as possible. It makes things a LOT simpler to say, "You can use everything from books X, Y, Z" than say, "You can use SOME of the stuff from books A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K and L. Here's a massive, multi page tiny font list of what you CAN have. 5) Encouragment from "upon high" for players go get into regional flavour. Encourage PCs to have their characters tailored to regional flavour, but don't FORCE them. 6) Simple plots make the best modules. Lord of the Rings can be summarized as: "The party stumble upon an artifact of great power. Counciled by a meeting of great leaders, they struggle through hardship to destroy the artifact. APLs 4-8." 7) Trilogies work. However, six year intricate plot arcs work for your existing player base, but often alienate new players who must absorb six years worth of information before they can play. Most of the existing player base probably doesn't understand either. 8) Do not encourage an Author vs PC arms race "AKA wankfest" or GM vs PC competition. Do not write tactics that (effectively or literally) say: "Do your best to kill the PCs". Do not write (or approve) modules which feature unrealistic monsters (half-dragon warbeast elite displacer beasts, for example) simply because it makes the monster more powerful. Similarly, do not write flimsy excuses for the same. 9) Have more of the major plot developments occur in interactives, and less in regionals. A popular solution in Australia: Reuse interactives for a short time. Allow a modified version (such as the infamous and amazing The March Of The Hollows) to be played as a standard game with a short "shelf life". Ideally, something region changing should be public knowledge within one or two months. Tops. The shelf-life of this information should be well known and made clear to all participants. 10) Give regional triads significant freedoms when it comes to running their physical, real world location. For instance, in America everyone can travel to conventions much easier because the distances involved are less. In the Asia-Pacific region and European regions, which span a much larger area, this is a problem. Therefore, allow such regions the freedom to implement solutions that work for them (such as point #9 above). 11) No pop culture references.
aljergensen 12-23-07, 11:40 AM	Well said. I think the RPGA should be designed using the fundamental design principle KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid. Don't complicate things any more than absolutely necessary. And yes, I'm talking about things like "open", "closed" and "the status that shall not be named" access. Or the extra math we have to go through for upkeep costs that, in the long run, are just a test of our math skills. The rules for creating/running a character should fit on a single sheet of paper. Before adding a rule, ask "is this really necessary or am I enforcing a personal preference?". Allen.
ankhwearer 12-23-07, 03:13 PM	6) Simple plots make the best modules. Lord of the Rings can be summarized as: "The party stumble upon an artifact of great power. Counciled by a meeting of great leaders, they struggle through hardship to destroy the artifact. APLs 4-8." Perhaps not the best example. Lord of the Rings can also be summerized as: "Due to forces greater than the PCs, multiple wars take place in multiple countries, while a three-way struggle for power places the fate of all freefolk in jeopardy. During these titanic events, a player accepts his hidden destiny to become king, while love stories play out for several NPCs. In the end, an NPC saves the day where a hero fails." Starting to sound like a six-year story arc... :P Now the movie Willow is a simple storyline.
ankhwearer 12-23-07, 03:24 PM	The rules for creating/running a character should fit on a single sheet of paper. I think you may be over simplifying the situation. The D&D rules for characters span 20 books, with dozens of class, PrC and race options, and hundreds of feats. Those rules do not fit on a single sheet of paper, why should the campaign rules for which options are allowed? The simplist derivation of character advancement would eliminate access all together, but gaining accesses by successfully completing mods has been a significant factor in making LG successful; but it's impossible to grant access to things unless you marked them as some sort of restricted item beforehand. Further, the complications, inadvertant synergies and "broken" elements creep in over time (seven years in the case of 3E). You have no need to worry about Red Light items that are forbidden at the start of the game (except options for evilness, perhaps), but experience shows that by year two, a few elements have to be restricted in order to keep the gameplay fun (for both the DM and for the players). So, if you are saying "please don't start with a list of restricted and limited items", I'd say that your request is a reaction to how LG went, but not a request that makes sense for LFR; there is nothing to restrict yet, but something has to be limited or there will be no mod access to grant.
aljergensen 12-23-07, 07:02 PM	So, if you are saying "please don't start with a list of restricted and limited items", I'd say that your request is a reaction to how LG went, but not a request that makes sense for LFR; there is nothing to restrict yet, but something has to be limited or there will be no mod access to grant. I disagree. We don't need anything limited, nor do we need to grant access. I think the campaign would be simpler, and easier to run/judge/retain people/introduce new people/etc if we just say "use books x, y and z. Here's the system we use to build stats". Rewards should be just that. Rewards. Something extra, not just extra book-keeping and meticulous records just to play what many people would consider a "standard" game. I don't think we should punish everyone just so that we can reward a few. But ultimately somebody else will be making the decision. I could trot out my entire list of arguements ... but ... meh. I don't have the energy at the moment. Allen.
Surgebuster 12-23-07, 09:35 PM	0) Some people will cheat. This cannot be avoided. Do not (overly) publish the majority to punish the minority.. I think it is an issue of checks and balances. I have a group of friends that will only play home games because they believe the majority of RPGA players are too competitive. A system which helps curtail the worst of this behaviour can only be beneficial to the campaign as a whole methinks. 2) Call for player review of modules they have played (a simple "out of five stars" rating will suffice). Give authors who write four or five star modules more opportunities to write if they wish. Discover what made those modules a success and how they can be improved. Similarly, query authors who write one or two star modules, determine what went wrong and how they can improve. Don't dismiss them out of hand, but work with them to improve the quality of their work.. Ah, but as you very well know, beauty is in the eye of the BEEholder. If you got that joke, then you have played the OP's Perrenland mini-mission, which ironically some people loved and others hated. Remember that the vast, vast majority of the player base do not visit these boards, or even regional websites, so any sample is unlikely to reflect what the majority of (casual) gamers like or dislike. 3) Reward your authors and your GMs who eat modules. I suggest half EXP/GP, and no access, for any module a GM or writer eats.. I completely disagree with this. If someone has to be bribed with in-game rewards to write or GM an adventure, they have their priorities backwards. The motivation to write or run a game should be to provide a positive play experience for others, not to promote one of your own PCs with rewards they did not earn. I like to discourage this kind of competitive gaming as much as possible. 4) Keep as much 4th edition stuff "core" as possible. It makes things a LOT simpler to say, "You can use everything from books X, Y, Z" than say, "You can use SOME of the stuff from books A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K and L. Here's a massive, multi page tiny font list of what you CAN have.. I don't imagine this will happen for a number of years in 4th edition. It was one of the major reasons new players found it hard to get into LG in my local area. Remember also, that most people find it 'cool' to earn access from people they have helped. It helps establish that their actions have meaning. In real life, item access translates to "it's not what you know but who you know". If James Bond were a PC, why would he need to join an metaorg (MI6) and play by their rules if every single other PC had their own personal 'Q', giving them the latest and greatest in high-tech gadgets? Much of what makes James Bond is the metaorg that gave him a licence to kill and that he has cool toys to play with from a benefactor. That's real-world metorgs and AR favours... I like the mechanic! :P 5) Encouragment from "upon high" for players go get into regional flavour. Encourage PCs to have their characters tailored to regional flavour, but don't FORCE them.. Not sure what you mean here. Are you advocating special benefits for PCs living in the real world location of the region? 6) Simple plots make the best modules. The problem with this is that simple plots can also very easily feel 'been there done that', especially with 30 years of D&D and the explosion of fantasy literature and films in recent years. "The butler did it" is a bad cliche for a reason, after all. 8) Do not encourage an Author vs PC arms race "AKA wankfest" or GM vs PC competition. Do not write tactics that (effectively or literally) say: "Do your best to kill the PCs". Do not write (or approve) modules which feature unrealistic monsters (half-dragon warbeast elite displacer beasts, for example) simply because it makes the monster more powerful. Similarly, do not write flimsy excuses for the same.. Again, checks and balances. I believe this is more a reflection of 3.5 than rpga authors. "This weapon/spell bypasses this DR/resistance" begat PCs who had a counter to anything standard monsters threw at them. Thus, templated monsters that countered the PCs counters came into play etc. etc. I have faith that the WotC designers took note of this and it willl be much less of an issue in LFR. Also, there has only ever been one LG mod that I feel was written to kill PCs, almost every other complaint I heard could be put down to a GM that had not prepped the adventure properly or an incorrect interpretation of the rules/editing oversight. 9) Have more of the major plot developments occur in interactives, and less in regionals. <snip>Ideally, something region changing should be public knowledge within one or two months. Tops. The shelf-life of this information should be well known and made clear to all participants.. This seems to fly in the face of everyone emotionally buying into a region, regardless of where they live. A very few of us can afford to travel to conventions outside our local area (I am lucky in that respect) and making major plot developments less accessible to casual gamers is counterproductive to growing the campaign IMHO. Also, the result of major plot developments are likely to spoil current adventures of which many gamers will not have played at the time. 10) Give regional triads significant freedoms when it comes to running their physical, real world location. For instance, in America everyone can travel to conventions much easier because the distances involved are less. In the Asia-Pacific region and European regions, which span a much larger area, this is a problem. Therefore, allow such regions the freedom to implement solutions that work for them (such as point #9 above).. ALL regions are much, much bigger now than in LG (one of the European regions crosses 11 or 12 time zones). I'd rather not have rules for one region that do not apply to others, at the very least that makes the campaign standards document bigger again. 11) No pop culture references. Amen to that. The aforementioned 'keep all plots simple' suggestion, however, would increase the chance of players at a table saying 'this reminds of that movie/book/previous adventure' which would also contribute to breaking the fourth wall. Cheers, Joe
ankhwearer 12-26-07, 01:02 AM	I disagree. We don't need anything limited, nor do we need to grant access. I apologize. I was attempting to put emphasis on the causality, not the desirability of limited rules/granting access. I do believe that some rules for character development should have requirements (whether in the rules, or in the campaign setting). For instance, kinda hard to imagine a pirate captain without a ship; just as I believe it is okay to require certain character options to require in-game training. But, the emphasis I wanted to place was not on this belief. Rather I meant to point out that to offer the unlocking of rules options in campaign, that requires that some rules be restricted. Currently the system has been that brand new rules options are not yet open in the campaign standard, often requiring AR access from a mod released shortly after the book. The next year, some of these items are opened for everyone to use, others are restricted because of game balance within the context of how LG mods are created. (Some rules do great in playtest, but would not fit the campaign structure of LG's organized play; others are considered too untested to add to the game, such as Reserve Spell feats.) I would state that it is a valid complaint that too many items are left limited. What I think is an over-reaction is insisting that such a system should be entirely thrown out. We don't even know how the rules structure character options yet. There might not be anything to use as reward except rules options. For instance, your treasure might be entirely abstracted at the end of any encounter in 4E. You might have total reign, according to the core rules, on what you use your loot to buy. The lists of powers for any class might never be expanded in the PHB series; your Ranger powers might always be what is listed in the PHB I, so there is nothing that comes out in the future to mark as "limited". But, to restate the point I finished my last post with: There is nothing to restrict yet. None of the rule books have been published yet, and I think it is expected that every single PHB-I option is allowed, so what could you possibly be worried about being placed on the restricted/limited list at this date? That's why I think this comment is a reaction to the current state of LG, and not a serious concern at this point in time for LFR. When the current LFRCS is incomplete, its too early to be making suggestions or requirements to the staff on how the LFRCS in the following year should be structured.
aljergensen 12-26-07, 09:34 AM	I would agree that it is probably too early to get worked up about any possible restrictions. I guess my response is caused by the justification for limitations given by folks in LG that say that we need restrictions so that we have rewards. It reminds me of the joke: A man is walking down the street. He sees another man hitting himself on the head with a hammer. The first man asks the second "Why are you hitting yourself?" The man with the hammer replies "Because it feels so good when I stop!". Allen.
gomeztoo 12-27-07, 03:55 AM	Having something to give as a reward (aside from a favor) IS a nice thing. If everything is always available everywhere, it never becomes special. Maybe you can equip your character exactly how you desire, but I, personally, like to find a sword in an adventure and use that sword to continue fighting, rather than buying it off the rack. But that is not the main reason to restrict stuff. Sometimes things are unbalanced, do not fit the campaign, or do not fit heroic characters (and LFR is, I am told, to be more heroic than LG). Especially when character options exponentially expand (which I fear will happen in a year or two), and there is no way to keep track of game balance otherwise. So yes, expect the Evil-Knife-of-Gruesome-Disemboweling to be restricted, along with the Warforged-Helmet-of-the-City-of-Spires and the Wand-of-Auto-Killing. And expect items to not be directly available when they come out, until campaign staff has a chance to look at it.
aljergensen 12-27-07, 08:00 PM	Maybe you can equip your character exactly how you desire, but I, personally, like to find a sword in an adventure and use that sword to continue fighting, rather than buying it off the rack. Personally, I don't like to think of my characters as being scavengers looting dead bodies for shiny new toys. To each his own. In addition, the vast majority of items my current LG characters own did not come from enemies I defeated but rather from some merchant contact. It always seemed kind of arbitrary and random. What makes my character special is how he's built, how I play him, how I've interacted with others. And expect items to not be directly available when they come out, until campaign staff has a chance to look at it. Which adds a ton of complexity ... like I had mentioned with the Spell Compendium. In my experience, it's one of the biggest single barriers to bringing new people into LG and retaining existing players. I can see banning things on general flavor - LFR may not be appropriate for WarForged characters for example - but beyond that I don't think anything else is necessary. Allen.
Surgebuster 12-27-07, 08:31 PM	Personally, I don't like to think of my characters as being scavengers looting dead bodies for shiny new toys. To each his own. That seems to be fairly intrinsic to what it means to be an adventurer though, doesn't it? :P In addition, the vast majority of items my current LG characters own did not come from enemies I defeated but rather from some merchant contact. It always seemed kind of arbitrary and random. Allen. Alongside metaorgs, LG item/feat access through merchants or people of influence help define my character's place within the 'world of greyhawk'. There's the rare winged boots that my friend Terdella sent her contacts out to purchase on my behalf, the unusual magical spells that Lord Rary allowed me to scribe from his personal library (what an honour!), not to mention the staff of power Tenser offered me after assisting him in a mission of great importance. Heck, Gildor Arcanix even taught me how to be a dragonfriend and I hope to take him up on an offer of a dragon cohort when I am powerful enough. All of these access favours help immerse my characters in the 'living' world and also afford me a sense that their actions have meaning. That gets taken away if every item and rules option is available for everyone by anyone... Joe
Dempster 12-28-07, 01:51 AM	If the people who run" RPGA Living Games" are so great at adjudicating proper game balance then why aren't they the ones who are making the new game system? A complex game like D&D is inherently unbalanced. Every time you remove one element from a game system to balance it you end up unbalancing many more elements. Then you end up with 72 page creation documents and 400+ pages of errata. I really wish they people who are forcing us to change game editions would force the RPGA to stick to the core system and not let the RPGA folks fiddle with it. If R&D really wants D&D to be simple and fun and to attract new players for RPGA they should think about tightening the leash on the people running RPGA and not let them monkey with the game. Huge creation documents do not attract new players. I think the rules for character generation should be no more than one page. They should be something like 1. Use the rules found in the players handbook character generation chapter and the Forgotten Realms campaign setting character generation chapter to make a first level character using X point buy . 2. Access should be "you have access to any item(spell, feat,power, etc.) from the PHB, MM, DMG or FRCS. All other items require access from certificates (ARs)". Do we need anything else? If there is one thing Bill S from R&D said over and over about the new edition and the old one it is that extra restrictions, rules, and complications are not fun and should be removed. THE GAME SHOULD BE THE MOTIVATION TO PLAY THE GAME!! I agree that access is a motivator for some people but in many games I have been in people only play for access, the game has become incidental. I have seen many tables walk 15 days instead of teleporting for fear of losing access. I have seen countless groups kill a monster instead of avoiding it or role playing with it just so they would not lose access. Access drives game play decisions in LG. It shouldn't but it does. The motivation for playing RPGA should be the adventure, gold, and XP. Gold and XP lead to new character levels and powers and if those powers are cool( which R&D tells us they will be in 4th edition) they should be motivation enough to play the game.
gomeztoo 12-28-07, 04:45 AM	If the people who run" RPGA Living Games" are so great at adjudicating proper game balance then why aren't they the ones who are making the new game system? In a way they are. By playing it, and then finding things that don't work in the campaign - which they then remove. Or, as we learned after several years, by using something only after deciding we want to use it. R&D are not ominpotent, they have all kinds of ideas and some may turn out to be poorly though out. As to what Bill said: Dream on. WotC has to sell books. Hence, within two years, we'll have six expansions with extra restrictions, rules, and complications. It is, imo, inevitable. We will have to deal with that, as I expect that we are to promote new material, and imo, letting things inside the campaign blindly has proven to unbalance the game. If you don't like house rules, you should probably only play your own games. Imo, we will need houserules in the LFR campaign.
aljergensen 12-28-07, 01:20 PM	Huge creation documents do not attract new players. THE GAME SHOULD BE THE MOTIVATION TO PLAY THE GAME!! I agree. imo, letting things inside the campaign blindly has proven to unbalance the game. If you don't like house rules, you should probably only play your own games. Imo, we will need houserules in the LFR campaign. I think this thread has come down to a matter of opinions ... and without details about what will happen with 4e there are no specific examples to discuss. I just think it's odd that you think that "we will need" restrictions. LG had far, far more restrictions than any home campaign I ever played, ran or personally heard about. I don't think it was a good thing. D&D is intimidating enough without twisting it more than necessary. The Eberron campaigns seem to work well without all of the overhead. I sincerely hope we don't punish the majority of players because a handful might come up with effective characters or tactics. I would rather see a system for DMs to "fine tune" an adventure for the party than a repeat of the major headaches LG caused. Allen.
gomeztoo 12-28-07, 03:25 PM	I don't think LG has more restrictions than a home game. But in a home game, the restrictions are in the fact that a small group of people play a game that *they* like, using elements of the game that they like, and with a DM that can tailor his game to those likes. That is a huge restriction right there. That opposed to a LG campaign were a lot of people play a game and tailoring is not really a possibility. Hence you need house rules. Few at first, but the game will grow more complex and there will be more options and some of those won't fit or turn out to be off. I really don't need to see 4th ed. to predict that, It has happened every single time with every system, and it will again. Now, LG went through various phases. We had the 'every thing goes', the 'everything is described in minute detail' and the 'let's only describe what everybody has access to'. The last version was pretty concise, given the enormity of rules variations, options, and campaign-specific issues out there. I do hope we can keep the rules simple. But I really think a RPGA Living Campaign will, at some point, need restrictions, to keep a balance, and, you may be surprised, to keep it fun.
Keith53 12-28-07, 04:55 PM	This thread is leaning pretty far forward into the future. Might be fun for some but could also be confusing for others. The LFR campaign guidelines for the core D&D and FRCS (which are months away) have not been developed and published, yet folks are speculating on the impact of hypothetical rule books which might be years in the future and unknown content. From a goals perspective, I certainly want as simple as possible for the LFR campaign game rules. No offense to LG fans/staff, but when LG rules started approaching, then exceeded 100 pages, I was dismayed as a player and a GM. However, I was not on the LG staff and not privy to their deliberations so I don't know if that was their best course of action. Maybe it was the lessor Evil. I am aware that shared world campaigns do introduce unique aspects for implementation of game rules which will have to be addressed. How one does that is often the problem and I will try to propose innovative solutions to overcome challenges. That does not mean I will advocate my preferred changes to D&D games rules, even if I think the game designers blew it. I suspect that WotC Brand will want "as much as possible" included in LFR to help drive sales. Will that probably introduce headaches in the long term? Probably. How that will be solved is a matter of opinion and speculation at this point. <shrug> Keith Hoffman LFR USA-NC Co-Writing Director
Sieylianna 12-28-07, 05:06 PM	I just think it's odd that you think that "we will need" restrictions. LG had far, far more restrictions than any home campaign I ever played, ran or personally heard about. I don't think it was a good thing. D&D is intimidating enough without twisting it more than necessary. The Eberron campaigns seem to work well without all of the overhead. I can't comment on your home games, but the majority of the home games I've been involved with have had far more restrictions than LG. Generally, you get the magic items that you find as treasure and that's it. Buying magic items is not allowed in any shape or form. If you're lucky, the DM will tailor items for the PCs, but others just use whatever items are listed in a module or randomly rolled. There has also been a lot of home game DM overload and I've seen all the complete and races books disallowed in more than one home campaign. Ed
amysrevenge 12-29-07, 12:51 PM	I completely disagree with this. If someone has to be bribed with in-game rewards to write or GM an adventure, they have their priorities backwards. The motivation to write or run a game should be to provide a positive play experience for others, not to promote one of your own PCs with rewards they did not earn. I like to discourage this kind of competitive gaming as much as possible. There's a world of difference between "should be" and "is". There should be no reason to reward people for eating modules. However, it is VERY difficult to find people willing to do it - a reward of some sort would help a lot. (I find it less of an issue as far as writing goes, in my experience people find writing to be its own reward, like it should be.) Whether or not we like it, the vast majority of our judging pool (in any of the three locales I have lived in nearly approaching 100%), has their priorities backwards as you suggest. Big Mike Calgary
Lobotaru 12-29-07, 01:31 PM	I definitely agree with the punishment part. Putting into effect regulations that punish everyone based on the actions of a few can hamper gameplay at a plethora of levels.
gomeztoo 12-29-07, 02:23 PM	I don't see why people are insisting that a restriction for the sake of balance or atmosphere is a punishment?
Herrbard 12-29-07, 03:52 PM	Whether or not we like it, the vast majority of our judging pool (in any of the three locales I have lived in nearly approaching 100%), has their priorities backwards as you suggest. So the first comment would be, "then you should judge more". ;) OK, smarmy comment mode off now. Who exactly are you suggesting should eat all those modules for the benefit of other players? It seems you are suggesting that anyone who judges should be doing it for the good of the community so everyone else can get character benefits. :confused: I don't know too many people who are that detached from their own playing experience that they don't want the same chance at things that their friends get. When you go to a Convention with friends and you can't play at their table because you ran everything "back home" and are not at their levels, it is a bit of a downer. (Note: I am playing devil's advocate here. Anyone who knows me knows I eat mods on a six-run to one-played basis (at least), and I'm always happy to do it. I do not support judge rewards, just keeping the discussion interesting.) :D
amysrevenge 12-29-07, 04:41 PM	You get me wrong. I think that there should be rewards for module eaters. It would be great to encourage folks to take turns with the task, rather than relying on the same few volunteers (such as you and me apparently) each time. In a perfect world, we would all be selfless and there would be no shortage of people who cared nothing for material rewards and instead played purely for the love of the game. We'd have folks arguing over who gets to eat the next mod, rather than who has to, lol. However, in this real world in which we live, people do care about being materially rewarded for their efforts. Even a pittance would be a big step forward. Big Mike Calgary
bitznarf 12-29-07, 06:16 PM	Whether or not we like it, the vast majority of our judging pool (in any of the three locales I have lived in nearly approaching 100%), has their priorities backwards as you suggest. Big Mike Calgary I see nothing wrong with wanting to have the opportunity to play a mod before running it. I see nothing backwards about having such priorities. I enjoy running games for people, but I would rather have the chance to play a mod before I run it and have lost the opportunity to play it. -Dale M Grande Prairie
aljergensen 12-30-07, 03:22 PM	I can't comment on your home games, but the majority of the home games I've been involved with have had far more restrictions than LG. Generally, you get the magic items that you find as treasure and that's it. Buying magic items is not allowed in any shape or form. If you're lucky, the DM will tailor items for the PCs, but others just use whatever items are listed in a module or randomly rolled. There has also been a lot of home game DM overload and I've seen all the complete and races books disallowed in more than one home campaign. Ed Most home campaigns I've been involved in could have the rules explained in under 2 minutes. As in "we use books x, y and z. These are the allowed races", etc. When books/rules were banned it was mostly because of flavor (which I don't have a problem with). Nearly a decade ago I decided to allow people to buy anything they wanted. And you know what? The system didn't implode, PCs didn't run amok, the campaign went on. People were happier with the shiny toys they thought fit their character best and as long as overall wealth was controlled it didn't cause a problem. But different people see different things in D&D. Me? I think it's silly that my LG character can purchase a stat bump item worth 36,000 GP but can't buy (or commission) an Everful Mug for 200 GP. Or that LG banned Divine Insight because someone, somewhere decided it infringed on the role of skill monkeys. But if LFR issupposed to be (at least in part) an advertising arm of D&D, it should show off all of the system ... warts and all. That means not trying to "balance things out" or "fix" the system. Let it play out with as few restrictions as practical while maintaining a FR feel and see how it works. If it's that bad, we can always change it when we have to start a new campaign because 5e is released. ;) Allen.
gomeztoo 12-31-07, 03:08 AM	You have a point. Unfortunately there is a suspension of disbelief when you deal with worldwide campaigns. Rules are there for reasons of flavor (no Thayan wizards in GRethawk, bo Warfored in the Realms), balance (things stacking to do ridiculous amounts of damage), unforeseen consequences (Divine Insight does not only kill the need for one class, but also makes it hard to include challenges based on skill), fun (Destruction means say goodbye to your PC), or party interaction (berserker classes that kill their own party members). In a home game, you can selectively exclude those elements through play, or count on your fellow players to not screw around. In a world wide campaign that is not really possible. People cheat, people whine, people get upset over the slightest thing (especially rules). Most rules have a reason. Some may seem restrictive, but you have to ask yourself: can you really not do without it? Is the game that much un-fun if you cannot use every single item or power in the game? As to the marketing: I, as a voluntere, am not here to push FR, 4th Ed, Wizards, or anything you can tag a price on. I am here to make a fun game. In doing so, I don't mind that WotC uses that game as a way to promote itself. But this is a game that should be fun. Unfortunately that may mean rules and restrictions. We can only hope that 4th ed plays out such that we do not actually need a whole lot of them.
aljergensen 01-01-08, 11:37 AM	You have a point. Thanks. :) Unfortunately there is a suspension of disbelief when you deal with worldwide campaigns. Rules are there for reasons of flavor (no Thayan wizards in GRethawk, bo Warfored in the Realms), Which I agree with. balance (things stacking to do ridiculous amounts of damage), Right ... like my 8th level fighter that regularly does more than 100 pts of damage in a round - especially against relatively low AC opponents. Hmmm ... except that all the feats are from the PHB other than oversized two weapon fighting. Oversized two weapon fighting is broken! unforeseen consequences (Divine Insight does not only kill the need for one class, but also makes it hard to include challenges based on skill), And the 10th level bard I judged the other day doing Diplomacy/Perform checks in the 50's doesn't make it hard to set up skill checks? If the cleric is casting Divine Insight, there's a whole host of other spells they aren't casting. And they still won't touch the higher DCs a dedicated skill monkey can hit. fun (Destruction means say goodbye to your PC), I've seen mods where the PCs get caught in an avalanche if they happen to take the wrong path. In a home campaign, a giant hand came out of the wall, grabbed the PC and disappeared. I played an interactive recently where a Balor cast the evil version of Holy Word (I forget what it is) and the entire party (all level 15) were paralyzed for 10 minutes. It would have been an irrevocable TPK if it hadn't been for multiple favors. I would rather see a writer's guideline say something along the line of "don't use autokill/nerf the PC tactics". or party interaction (berserker classes that kill their own party members). Which would happen exactly once ... after which the berserker would be removed from play as an evil character for killing a party member (unless he was dominated into going berserk). Or how about this spell? It's a 20 ft radius - anyone caught needs to make a reflex save. If they don't make save they're immobile. Even if they do make the save they have to make a full round move and a DC 20 strength or DC 25 escape artist check ... to move 5 ft. What kind of broken, munchkin spell is that? Web. My point is that there are a lot of spell/feats/combos that could be called "broken". But there are better, simpler ways to deal with it. I would rather see the people running LFR focus on the campaign, story lines, interesting NPCs and organizations rather than trying to "balance" the game by second-guessing rules established by WOTC. Some people will dislike some of the D&D rules or think they are unbalanced. They are free to play another "better balanced" game. Hopefully 4e will be that better balanced game. But even if it isn't, I'd still rather play D&D, broken rules and all. Allen.
JamesMaissen 01-01-08, 12:01 PM	This thread is leaning pretty far forward into the future. Well I think its essential to fully plan ahead. Even though the campaign will start off at 1st level and it may take time to approach higher level play (depending on whatever advancement curve there is game-wise and campaign-wise) tabling it for later is a mistake. Things like the ever shifting forms of metaorgs during LG's life is a testament to this. While ostensibly they were to add flavor and in-game verisimilitude, that they changed so, so many times robbed them of that more than anything. The second thing (and LG's main failing, imho) is lack of organizer structure. In LG you had (hopefully) a 3 man triad, then you added a circle member over each metaregion (essentially dividing the campaign in many ways) and finally you at least added an assistant to each Circle member to help handle the metaregional modules. When volunteers would find strain in their position they had very little to fall back upon, so either had to strain things further or remove themselves from the position. Delegating authority over more volunteers and spreading out this kind of burden is the solution. When a volunteer finds real life pressing on their time, it should be feasible for them to scale back the degree of their contributions and still have the job get done. If you have the minimum people in each position then you don't have this option and will burn through volunteers. -James
Sieylianna 01-01-08, 06:26 PM	Things like the ever shifting forms of metaorgs during LG's life is a testament to this. While ostensibly they were to add flavor and in-game verisimilitude, that they changed so, so many times robbed them of that more than anything. The problems with metaorgs in LG was not due to a lack of planning, but due to changes in the RPGA staff who oversaw the campaign. I was working with Cisco Lopez Fresquet (original Circle) on templates for regional meta-orgs (based on what we had seen in living city) when the campaign was getting off the ground. However, SRM taking control and subsequent events meant that there were a variety of problems with regional differences until the Circle cracked down. So it took about 4-5 years to get back to what we were planning to implement at the beginning. Ed
JamesMaissen 01-01-08, 07:20 PM	So it took about 4-5 years to get back to what we were planning to implement at the beginning. Ed All I know is that it metaorgs changed more often than one could change regions... there was no stability to them whatsoever...
draxynnic 01-09-08, 12:48 AM	I have seen countless groups kill a monster instead of avoiding it or role playing with it just so they would not lose access. That's actually another one of the OP's pet hates that he doesn't list there: There should be rewards for not killing everything in sight more often. There are modules out there where you can lose access for not beating up and looting celestial creatures - while you don't lose anything or have anything bad happen to you if you do. On the general concept of access: I think anything that requires access should be something that is reasonable to simply pick up when you gain access. In 3.5 terms, items fit in this category, as well as feats and prestige classes with relatively low prerequisites. Anything that requires you to build for - feats at the end of long prerequisite chains or prestige classes that are difficult to get into - however, should either be in and relatively reliable to get into or out entirely - there should never be a situation where a particular piece of access is only useful to someone who gambled on the hope they'd get it. That said, with what we're seeing of 4E so far it looks like the long prerequisite chains are likely to be a thing of the past, but the principle still stands: If by the time you get access it's probably already too late to use it, it probably shouldn't require access.
Puggle Halfwine 01-12-08, 10:44 AM	That's actually another one of the OP's pet hates that he doesn't list there: There should be rewards for not killing everything in sight more often. THANK YOU, Drax. I can't believe I forgot this one. I'm a bad person. Very interesting thread- I'm reading, but I don't think I can really add further comments. :) I'll agree tho', good module writing IS in the eye of the BEEholder... (that made me actually laugh!)
Puggle Halfwine 01-12-08, 11:14 AM	Sorry for the double post, but I thought I'd expand upon the above... I like ARs where you don't get everything and not all consequences are good. That's why they're consequences... excluding the "You did something really, really dumb" consequences, there should be alternate and different outcomes from making choices in modules, each with tangible benefits. If the PCs are forced to make a choice, they should make it as a *purely in-character decision*- not one that is influenced by thinking such as... "Well, these guys look like they'll give me a really broken favour..." If anyone's played Past Debts there was a cool example of this in that module. You made a choice, either one could be considered "right" or "wrong", and both had their own consequences, good and bad. Not broken or overpowered, but definitely high on the "Oh woah, cool!" scale.
bronzmonkee 01-16-08, 03:13 PM	My opinion on the subject: 3) Reward your authors and your GMs who eat modules. I suggest half EXP/GP, and no access, for any module a GM or writer eats. As a module writer, this looks reasonable to me. In order to write a coherent story, I have eaten an entire plot arc's worth of modules, many not written by myself. It would have been nice to level up for my troubles :) 8) Do not encourage an Author vs PC arms race "AKA wankfest" or GM vs PC competition. Do not write tactics that (effectively or literally) say: "Do your best to kill the PCs". Do not write (or approve) modules which feature unrealistic monsters (half-dragon warbeast elite displacer beasts, for example) simply because it makes the monster more powerful. Similarly, do not write flimsy excuses for the same. I heartily agree. A resonable baseline needs to be established about how "effective" characters need to be in order to succeed. Personally, I would prefer it if average, "iconic" characters can complete the module. Also someone mentioned getting XP for non-combat solutions to problems. I agree. There should be an even distribution of combat, diplomacy, stealth and creative problem-solving. None should be dominant, nor should any be sub-optimal. Thoughts?