Post/Author/DateTime	Post
cetiken 09-12-07, 10:18 PM	And instiute a TU system. ... Seriously, If anyone has a good purpose for Time Units i'd like to hear it. Here's some of the reason I think they might be valid and my responses. Simulationist/ even playing field - If we didn't instituie TUs people will progress faster than we can write mods for them. I say that if people are too high level for mods they don't get to play. Isn't that how it works in greyhawk now and I have zero intrest in maintaing some sort of continuality about the numer of days in the year. As my character plays the seansons change like a spinning thingy. I try to conseptualize it not as a linear narative, but more an oral history of campfire tales as told in the order my character remembers them. As someone else commented it won't stop those guys who only come to the con with a 12th level barabarian and demand a table be provided for them. Crime and Punishment - In the BK we learned there were much more effective penalities than simple TUs. This was especially useful as PCs were mostly expected to fight the establishment. It really dons't make sence with the kind of wealth that mid to high level PCs will throw around that they've landed in the first incorruptible judiciary. And to take a literary cue, the fact that a Supervillan has been incarcerated never stops them from making an appearance if the narrative calls for them. And if you really wana smack someone down, then hit 'm where it hurts - the coin purse. In conclusion, I think that TUs are a legacy of Living City and some baggage the RPGA needs to shed.
ankhwearer 09-13-07, 05:11 PM	A system with TUs doesn't prevent me from playing. I just have to use a different character. My opportunites to play are not limited.
catsclaw 09-13-07, 05:17 PM	... TUs are a legacy of Living City and some baggage the RPGA needs to shed.For that matter, why burden the players with the complexity of tracking gold and xp? Just have the campaign track the current level of all the players, and the gold they have available to spend. You could then periodically advance (or "bump") the level and gold of everybody at once. It would really simplify audits, as well. Living campaigns have a very, very limited number of ways to reward or punish players. There's gold, xp, TUs, and access. TUs are the only resource that isn't directly tied to character power. That alone makes it valuable to campaigns.
tharlan 09-13-07, 09:29 PM	In conclusion, I think that TUs are a legacy of Living City and some baggage the RPGA needs to shed. :) Hi! My name is Troy Daniels and if you check way way way way (yes, I mean WAY) back, you will see that my name is on the article that introduced Time Units way way back in the days of Living City. Yep, that's me. Robert Wiese and I invented time units. Now, you ask what time units are for. Well I can tell you what they WERE for. Back in the day of 2nd Edition we had people asking to use those pesky non-weapon proficiencies to do silly things like make armor, craft swords, heck, craft pots and pans and horseshoes for that matter. Well we really did not have a system that worked. As a matter of fact we did not have squat. I was checking out the latest "Can I train my animal" email request when it hit me that there was all of this time BETWEEN adventures that we were not using. So why not create a system so that people could use that time? Poofta. Time Units were born. Robert and I passed emails back and forth at a frantic pace and we came up with something that we thought would work. If I am not mistaken (I am currently serving in the Army and am away from my Poly back issues) we did not originally charge time units to play events. Time units were given at the beginning of a year and were used to do Non-Adventuring activities like crafting or perhaps join a Meta-Organization. Now, I don't play a whole lot of LG (five total events I think) but I see how they use the time unit system and wonder if we should have started charging for LC Events. It certainly would have limited how many times X character could play in a year. And wow, that would have limited leveling of a character. Cause you know... in the Living City campaign, you could start a first level character on January 1st of a given year, and play non-stop once a weekend. 52 events. At the end of that year you had on average a 10th level character. We did not have a limit on how fast people advanced.. and to be honest, in hindshight we should have. When you are so busy cranking out events because you have players that are ranging from 1st through 18th level and the campaign staff before you and before them and before them never, ever, ever, to my mind though of "What would happen if... "... Does Living Forgotten Realms need a time unit system? Probably not. There are other, better ways to limit how characters advance through a Campaign. We have learned hard lessons, and it is my hope that using a time unit system, scenario based level limit system, or some other mechanism will prevent what happened to Ravens Bluff. Last I heard, it was in Ruins. Take care, and good gaming, Troy (blame me for Time Units) Daniels
LGMoses 09-13-07, 10:49 PM	Thank you for the Time Units Troy ;)
cetiken 09-14-07, 12:41 AM	Wow. Thanks for the coherent reply and history lesson Troy. I'm finding myself not having any problem with using such things for outside adventuring opportunities. Humm... It seems to me that the main goal of limiting player advancement can best be done by simply writing mods of a particular range. IE if no adventures above APL 8 (or the equivalent) come out in year one then cleraly you can't advance higher than level 12. After all at level 12 you won't be able to play that character any more (not to mention that unless you're a player who hates to be challenged, you won't be having much fun). Now for non adventuring activities, I could really care less. All that stuff is optional and will be changing significantly in 4E. Confirmed by reliable sources is the fact that Magic Item creation won't cost a feat or XP. BTW punishing players should never be a campaign goal IMHO.
MatteBlack 09-14-07, 09:36 AM	I like TUs because of the following reasons: They are able to limit advancement which I believe is good for a camapign. They help populate the lower ranks of the game with secondary characters to better facilitate entry into the campaign. They provide a meaningful cost/consequence for character choices and actions. They provide a sense of time and travel within the campaign. I can live with what I consider the system's minor warts. The bookkeeping is a non factor to me and they basically, only limit what mods I can play with a character not me. The few incidents where they might actually limit my play really only occur due to minmum APLs which could be addressed in other ways. Show me a way toprovide the things in the above list in a better fashion and you have my ear, until then let's leave them alone.
RedKnightofKet 09-14-07, 11:31 AM	If TUs are taken away, then they should take away the ability to play down. I've already noticed since the beginning of the month that lots of people are more willing to play down with the TUs gone. If you don't have a limited number of play opportunity, why wouldn't you want to play down? Less challenge, less reward, but hey: if you're going to end up being capped anyway, why not make everything easier on yourself?
MatteBlack 09-14-07, 11:40 AM	If TUs are taken away, then they should take away the ability to play down. I've already noticed since the beginning of the month that lots of people are more willing to play down with the TUs gone. If you don't have a limited number of play opportunity, why wouldn't you want to play down? Less challenge, less reward, but hey: if you're going to end up being capped anyway, why not make everything easier on yourself? I am not quite sure how you would mean to disallow playing down but, the ability to do so is a great way to accomodate powergamer and non-powergamer alike. It allows players who make "soft" build choices to find a challenge level they are comfortable with without making the standard APL to easy for those who do powergame their builds.
Ecalsneerg 09-14-07, 01:18 PM	Another reason I've seen in campaigns for TUs is realism. If you have one TU per day in a year, then it simulates your travelling to module locations, participating in modules, crafting... just to give you a realisitc timescale to work to.
RedKnightofKet 09-14-07, 01:28 PM	I am not quite sure how you would mean to disallow playing down but, the ability to do so is a great way to accomodate powergamer and non-powergamer alike. It allows players who make "soft" build choices to find a challenge level they are comfortable with without making the standard APL to easy for those who do powergame their builds. I specifically meant playing down at a penalty. There is no real cost for a 7th level character to play APL 4 without TUs. This isn't about powergamer vs non-power gamer. This is about play opportunities, and the OP's sarcastic comments on those limits. Without play limits, Everyone might as well play down for half, since they then have a stronger assurance of survival (which some few players aim for), or the ability to stomp all over the combats (which a far number more players aim for). I don't care how "soft" you character is, but you shouldn't have any challenge playing down by three levels...
MatteBlack 09-14-07, 03:47 PM	I specifically meant playing down at a penalty. There is no real cost for a 7th level character to play APL 4 without TUs. This isn't about powergamer vs non-power gamer. This is about play opportunities, and the OP's sarcastic comments on those limits. Without play limits, Everyone might as well play down for half, since they then have a stronger assurance of survival (which some few players aim for), or the ability to stomp all over the combats (which a far number more players aim for). I don't care how "soft" you character is, but you shouldn't have any challenge playing down by three levels... It's tough balancing act. it's nice to be able to adjust the challenge to suit your group but, it can be tough when there is a mixed group of players and any sense of danger is removed because a single character can defeat the entire encounter.
tombollis 09-14-07, 03:47 PM	I like TUs because of the following reasons: They are able to limit advancement which I believe is good for a camapign. They help populate the lower ranks of the game with secondary characters to better facilitate entry into the campaign. They provide a meaningful cost/consequence for character choices and actions. They provide a sense of time and travel within the campaign. As LG used TUs, I disagree with all these points. I don't see artificially limiting advancement as inherently good for a campaign. I think the lower ranks would be well enough populated without TUs. They don't always provide meaningful cost/consequence for character choices and actions. They don't provode a meaningful sense of time and travel within LG. TUs (or DUs [Day Units] as originally used in LC) make more sense for their original purpose, allocating game world time for activities outside of adventures, such as crafting items and meta-org activities. FR has 10 day weeks, about 36 a year, so 52 TU per year makes no sense in the game world. Travel time between scenes can vary from nothing to months, depending on distance, terrain, and means of transportation, so travel is poorly modeled via TUs. Tom Bollis
aljergensen 09-14-07, 04:58 PM	I like TUs because of the following reasons: They are able to limit advancement which I believe is good for a camapign. I can see a need to limit max character level for the first year or so. After that why does it matter? They help populate the lower ranks of the game with secondary characters to better facilitate entry into the campaign. Interesting adventures with a low apl limit will also do this. So will gamers who like to try out different characters every once in a while, or who want flexibility to play at cons. Secondary characters are not necessary for those who only play with the same group of people. Nothing about a TU limit system forces this. If I'm limited to 30 adventures per character per year, I could have played 2 characters ... and each has 30 played adventures. They provide a meaningful cost/consequence for character choices and actions. There are easier ways such as Non Adventure Access limits. They provide a sense of time and travel within the campaign. So? That may be important to some people, but certainly not everyone.
MatteBlack 09-14-07, 09:47 PM	Obviously, some of you disagree with my reasons for liking TUs but, how would removing them from the game improve the campaign as a whole? It has yet to be proven that a player playing every mod with one character would be a good thing? What is the response when he claims he has run out of content or appropriately levelled party members? Sure it is great to do what you like but, expanding the range of levels within a campaign more only makes for party composition that is more varied by level. Perhaps, 4th Ed. will handle level disparities amongst a party better but, few games handle it well. Some MMOs, which are similar to an organized campaign in many ways, suffer from a situation where finding a party can be tough until you hit some particular level because the majority of players have raced up in level with their primary character. TUs cause players to direct their gaming energies into other characters and even DMing. Many Players will have a stable of characters to choose from. This means that the overall level spread is smaller and their are more characters and DMs available to populate tables more appropriate in composition and better manned overall. It also means that veteran players sit along aside newbies instead of seperate from them at higher level tables which helps make for a tighter knit and more knowlegeable player base. As mentioned, they also add some realism in distance and time some appreciate and help player/character's respect the in-game laws and dangers by providing a meaningful risk/consequence beyond tinkering with the gold to xp/level curve. Given the option of strengthening the play experience of the campaign as a whole or playing my primary everytime possible at tables with wide level ranges and imbalanced compoasition, I'll take the TUs every time. Again, how will removing TUs make LFR better?
tombollis 09-14-07, 11:24 PM	Obviously, some of you disagree with my reasons for liking TUs but, how would removing them from the game improve the campaign as a whole? Invalid premise. We don't know that TUs are in. They are unlikely to be part of the core 4e rules. The onus is on justifying their addition to LFR. It has yet to be proven that a player playing every mod with one character would be a good thing? What is the response when he claims he has run out of content or appropriately levelled party members? Sure it is great to do what you like but, expanding the range of levels within a campaign more only makes for party composition that is more varied by level. Perhaps, 4th Ed. will handle level disparities amongst a party better but, few games handle it well. As has been indicated, TUs aren't needed to postpone expanding the range of levels supported - just don't give in to pressure from a small minority of rapidly advanced PCs. (If they aren't a small minority, it is a sign that the members want higher levels, and the campaign should supply what they want.) Level disparities within parties are usually resolved by the players, choosing PCs of compatible levels; don't allow PC level ranges at a table that the module can't farely support. Playing Living campaigns at cons sing LC started, I've never experienced a situation where tables couldent be mustered due to level range - enough players had alternate pCs of different levels, and I don't credi it to TUs. TUs cause players to direct their gaming energies into other characters and even DMing. I don't believe TUs have had much to do with this. As mentioned, they also add some realism in distance and time some appreciate and help player/character's respect the in-game laws and dangers by providing a meaningful risk/consequence beyond tinkering with the gold to xp/level curve. I also don't believe this. The TUs per adventure in LG aren't at all realistic re distance and time. I haven't seen inprisonment TUs affect player choice of PC actions re laws, though I assume it does affect some players. Most players base actions on PC personalitird and player accessment of the situation, Some form of negative ingluence in-game from prison time, rather than TU cost would be more appropriate and, possibly, more effective. Given the option of strengthening the play experience of the campaign as a whole or playing my primary everytime possible at tables with wide level ranges and imbalanced compoasition, I'll take the TUs every time. I've never used up TUs with any PC, but maintain PCs at different levels to avoid wide level ranges. It can easily be managed by the players without TUs. I see no need to add TUs to the new campaigh for limiting play of PCs, encouraging secondary PCs, adding "realism" re travel, or enforcing in-game laws. Keep it simple and leace out TUs, unless they serve an actual useful purpose re out-of-adventure character activities. Tom Bollis
aljergensen 09-14-07, 11:27 PM	Obviously, some of you disagree with my reasons for liking TUs but, how would removing them from the game improve the campaign as a whole? IMHO the fewer unnecessary restrictions we have, the more likely people are to join and stay with the campaign. We should be encouraging people to get into role-playing and having fun with a character, not telling them they can't play a preferred character. Isn't the whole point of the game to have fun? Limiting TUs forces some people to have multiple characters. It does not force anyone (after the first year or so) to have low level characters. It should help people just starting out catch up to their higher level friends more quickly. I agree that if LG supports up to level 30, finding a table with the correct level may become more difficult. That's simple math. But if you want to encourage people to have low level characters, write interesting and fun mods that are only playable by low level characters. Or don't worry about it because most gamers I play with will probably have multiple characters simply to cover more APLs so they are more likely to guarantee a seat at the table. We need restrictions ... it's just a question of which ones. Allen.
Mithreinmaethor 09-15-07, 05:58 AM	We have to limit a single characters per year play time otherwise within a year you could go from 1st to 15th or 20th or something. Think about it 12 Regions with each region putting out 6 to 8 modules a year. Thats 72 to 96 modules you can play. They have stated ther will be core modules so lets say 8 to 14 of those to bring the total to 80 to 110 modules per year you can play.
cetiken 09-15-07, 09:34 AM	We have to limit a single characters per year play time otherwise within a year you could go from 1st to 15th or 20th or something. I'm still waiting for why thats bad.
aljergensen 09-15-07, 10:27 AM	We have to limit a single characters per year play time otherwise within a year you could go from 1st to 15th or 20th or something. Why is this is a problem after the first year or so? Allen.
KoboldChieftain 09-15-07, 11:49 AM	I'm still waiting for why thats bad. It, in it's self, is not bad. The main problem is creating gameplay for those characters. I think it is safe to say that the limitations of real life, peer pressure and the like will suffice in keeping most players "with the herd" in terms of advancement. In fact, if left completely alone the system would advance at a natural pace and really there should be no issue. But... One problem with this is that the "squeeky wheel" could be the same person who plays a ton. If some triad without proper discipline allowed themselves to be swayed to put out higher level stuff just for that guy it impacts the majority of players by limiting their content. Another issue is that the natural progression may be too fast for the campaign staff to react to the new ruleset and implement changes. For example, if they needed to nerf some 5th level thing but your character was already level 10, that might mean some pretty siginifcant changes on your part. You would not be happy. Both of these problems, and in fact most of the problems limiting character advancement are meant to solve are administrational. There are more reasons to limit character play but I will save those for later. Over time, as we all learn the system, these artifical limitation might be reduced or even eliminated. Only time will tell.
aljergensen 09-15-07, 02:09 PM	It, in it's self, is not bad. The main problem is creating gameplay for those characters. ... Another issue is that the natural progression may be too fast for the campaign staff to react to the new ruleset and implement changes. ... Over time, as we all learn the system, these artifical limitation might be reduced or even eliminated. Only time will tell. I think the problem that I, and a few other posters have is that we see TUs justified by problems that can be handled in a simpler fashion. Want to limit advancement the first year? State that the maximum PC level supported is 10 for the first year. Year 2 supports up to 20. Year 3 we go up to 30. And I could repeat all the other arguments for all of the other justifications, but I can't think of anything new to add. Allen.
amysrevenge 09-15-07, 06:43 PM	Exactly. I'm convinced that the optimal solution would be a combination of annually increasing hard level caps (chosen as the admins see fit, could be 10/20/30, or 6/12/18/24/30, or something else) and Kalamar-style non-adventuring-activity monitoring (for optional stuff like metagaming and crafting). Big Mike
KoboldChieftain 09-15-07, 08:58 PM	Exactly. I'm convinced that the optimal solution would be a combination of annually increasing hard level caps (chosen as the admins see fit, could be 10/20/30, or 6/12/18/24/30, or something else) and Kalamar-style non-adventuring-activity monitoring (for optional stuff like metagaming and crafting). Big Mike I am liking the NAA stuff. It seems like a good idea and might have merit. The powers that be should investigate that in depth. The problem with hard caps is that is creates an artifical thinking that the campaign is limited. I don't know, maybe it is just me but I feel that people will max out their characters and then just stop playing. I guess I have a bad taste for hard caps from DDO. :) I'll think about this further. I think the best solution would be to produce scenarios that encourage the type of play the campaign wants. More dense at low level and mid (10-15) levels but more sparse as you go up into the 20s. The problem here is you need a VERY disciplined administration. That is tough to expect from volunteers.
amysrevenge 09-16-07, 12:26 AM	I guess I have a bad taste for hard caps from DDO. :) I'll think about this further. I find myself thinking about DDO when it comes to hard caps as well. Only difference is that here we would be halting play at the cap, while in DDO you keep playing and increasing your loot totals while at the cap. I think the best solution would be to produce scenarios that encourage the type of play the campaign wants. More dense at low level and mid (10-15) levels but more sparse as you go up into the 20s. The problem here is you need a VERY disciplined administration. That is tough to expect from volunteers. It is especially hard when the first instinct of the staff tends toward "I have this writer with a great idea for a mod, can we fit it in" rather than "We need a APL9-15 mod, can we find someone to write something to put there". It amounts to whether you are thinking story first, APL management second or APL management first, story second. I know that in the past I have a) submitted a module proposal with APLs already suggested and b) been asked to write a module covering specific APLs. As a writer I preferred the first case. Big Mike
gomeztoo 09-16-07, 08:06 AM	I like a slower progression simply because it makes more sense. It simply strikes me as odd that a PC advances to 10th level in a year (especially as, generally, the NPCs don't). I mean, how many adventures can you have in a year? I realize it is all make-believe, but there is a sort of suspension of disbelief that I like to see in a game. I like the idea that if something takes time, that it REALLY takes time in the gameworld. TUs are a way to achieve this. But I hardly ever ran out of TU's completely. I don't play that often.
Genghis Cohen 09-16-07, 12:03 PM	Anyone who wants the ability to rapidly advance should be willing to sacrifice playing opportunities to author mods. Its easy to make demands. Its not so easy to fulfill them. LFR will need time to ramp up. LG, which has a full blown volunteer structure, made the decision this year to lower the APL limit on core mods from 16 to 14. We were told that authoring APL16 was too time intensive, particularly in light of how many people were playing it. Every additional supported APL tier requires more work. If you want that tier, volunteer to do the work.
aljergensen 09-16-07, 06:32 PM	Anyone who wants the ability to rapidly advance should be willing to sacrifice playing opportunities to author mods. Its easy to make demands. Its not so easy to fulfill them. LFR will need time to ramp up. LG, which has a full blown volunteer structure, made the decision this year to lower the APL limit on core mods from 16 to 14. We were told that authoring APL16 was too time intensive, particularly in light of how many people were playing it. Every additional supported APL tier requires more work. If you want that tier, volunteer to do the work. I don't think anyone proposing getting rid of TUs has disagreed with limiting max PC levels for the first year or two. So until authors are ready to support higher levels, put a cap on max character level. BTW, I judge quite a bit and was starting to write my first LG mod before everything changed. When we are ready, I will volunteer to do the work. Allen.
Reneshat 09-16-07, 09:33 PM	I actually believe in limiting play opportunities. I like the TU system, partially for that reason. As someone who has maxed out as many as 3 characters in a year TU wise (had a 4th close), I don't see the downside to TUs. I see a lot of benefits, but I don't understand the complaints. If we moved to a more complicated, that's right more complicated, system of hard level caps, Out of adventure opportunities, and xp/gold penalties for things that are currently dealt with using TUs, we would then see these boards flooded with people complaining that they were too complicated, did not affect people evenly, limited play opportunities, and other general issues that would have validity. The same problems you have with TUs, is the problem you would have with whatever system replaced it, unless we did not have a system to replace them with. Removing the ability to handle things in the ways that TUs were handling them would create a whole new host of problems that I think would have a more serious impact on the game. In short, I'm not saying there is a better system than TUs to deal with these problems, there is simply not one that I've seen or heard of on these boards. If you can come up with a truly better system, I hope they implement it. Until you do however, I think we should all understand that every system has problems, but the administrative (and other) benefits of the TUs outweigh the problems, and there is no readily available better system to put into place. P.S. I think it's important to note a lot of these disagreements stem from different philosophies. I see a major problem in a character in a giant communal game like LG raising 15 to 20 levels in a year. Perhaps a lot of it is simply the way I view the game.
bitznarf 09-18-07, 06:19 PM	P.S. I think it's important to note a lot of these disagreements stem from different philosophies. I see a major problem in a character in a giant communal game like LG raising 15 to 20 levels in a year. Perhaps a lot of it is simply the way I view the game. To be honest I'm not sure what the problem is with having a PC go up 15 to 20 levels. Sure for the first few years there may be problems with support up to that level, but that is something that that player has brought upon themselves. What is the harm in allowing PCs to advance in levels rapidly? Where is the downside?
tharlan 09-18-07, 07:53 PM	To be honest I'm not sure what the problem is with having a PC go up 15 to 20 levels. Sure for the first few years there may be problems with support up to that level, but that is something that that player has brought upon themselves. What is the harm in allowing PCs to advance in levels rapidly? Where is the downside? The biggest problem is going to be the players. Not the ones that play here and there. It is going to be the uber players that have played every event, and then are screaming for more. You can tell them in advance "Year one we are going to build adventures for average character levels of 1st through 6th!" However the moment that someone who has been playing everything that is coming out everywhere hits sixth and is on the cusp of seventh cannot play anything anymore he / she is going to start screaming... "Make 7th level adventures NOW!"... And the hooplah will begin. The lists will explode with people who are yelling at "The Man" for holding back thier characters, and that there should be more than enough resources to go ahead and start writing seventh level adventures six months early. Don't believe me? Look at the Living Greyhawk lists. :-) Look at the old Living City lists. :-) Whenever a campaign begins "holding its players back because of balance issues" the players begin to scream. Now, as to why we should not allow PCs to willy nilly level up. It is basically two issues. Campaign Balance/Planning and Resources. Campaign Balance and Planning - Lets say that our Core Scenarios for Year one are going to be about an Orc Invasion. They are going to be tiered for levels 1 through 6. In year one this is fine. We can do some low level stuff and get away with it. However we have to plan for higher level stuff as the campaign goes on. Year Two we have to begin looking at those 7th through 14th level adventures. Ect, ect, ect. We have to plan a campaign so that we can have a balanced play experience for everyone... not just the people that are going to play every single event from every single region who's adventures are in a language that they speak. Resources - Honestly, there ARE a finite number of writers out there. Now don't get me wrong.. I bet if I was a regional writer guy and I put out the call I would (especially in year one) get 50 people screaming.. "I wanna write!". So... knowing my basic story/plot that I want, I send out a bit of information and cast my net. I cast it not only for good ideas, but coherent writers. You would be amazed at what I get back. :-) Resources have to be balanced for the campaign staff too. If we get overloaded, we are going to burn out.... so I cannot ask my regionals (If I was a global) to crank out 12 events a year if I don't think that they can do it. Why is it bad for players to rise to 15th or 20th level in a very very short time? Simply put, because a fledgling campaign, no matter how well manned, how well supported, or how well organized it may be, would not be able to support it. Take care and good gaming! Troy Daniels Been here.. done this.. got the TShirt.
aljergensen 09-19-07, 02:00 PM	I'm trying to understand the concern. The biggest problem is going to be the players. Not the ones that play here and there. It is going to be the uber players that have played every event, and then are screaming for more. If we set a max apl/pc level for the first year I agree that some people will scream. They will also be screaming because they can't do [insert random topic here]. If we state the policy up front and why I think it will be pretty minimal. Besides ... what else can you do? Why is it bad for players to rise to 15th or 20th level in a very very short time? Simply put, because a fledgling campaign, no matter how well manned, how well supported, or how well organized it may be, would not be able to support it. Take care and good gaming! Troy Daniels Been here.. done this.. got the TShirt. But I don't think the issue is the fledgling campaign. I (and I think most other people posting here) agree we need pretty tight controls for the first year (or two or three) and we need to set expectations. It's just how it happens. After we have an established campaign, it's another story. Are there ever going to be enough games for some people? Probably not. But I don't think slowing how quickly somebody advances in a year is going to change that. The real question is: why does it matter if someone advances a PC quickly after we have an established campaign? Allen.
MatteBlack 09-19-07, 04:44 PM	I'm trying to understand the concern. If we set a max apl/pc level for the first year I agree that some people will scream. They will also be screaming because they can't do [insert random topic here]. If we state the policy up front and why I think it will be pretty minimal. Besides ... what else can you do? But I don't think the issue is the fledgling campaign. I (and I think most other people posting here) agree we need pretty tight controls for the first year (or two or three) and we need to set expectations. It's just how it happens. After we have an established campaign, it's another story. Are there ever going to be enough games for some people? Probably not. But I don't think slowing how quickly somebody advances in a year is going to change that. The real question is: why does it matter if someone advances a PC quickly after we have an established campaign? Allen. I don't think I actually buy this as a good reason for limiting how much you can advance in a year but, I have heard some argue that unlimited advancement in later years devalues the accomplishments of those who have been loyal players since the beginning because what they have can be "easily" acquired. I have seen people leave other similar activities over this type of sleight to their egos. The population of lower and mid levels and the squeezing of the overall level range are still the strongest arguments for some sort of TU system to me.
aljergensen 09-19-07, 05:16 PM	The population of lower and mid levels and the squeezing of the overall level range are still the strongest arguments for some sort of TU system to me. I see just that problem now in LG. Except that it's the fact that it's hard to find an APL 14 table around here. It's been my experience that there are plenty of games forming in the low-to-mid level and few forming at the high end. Allen.
Sieylianna 09-19-07, 05:58 PM	I see just that problem now in LG. Except that it's the fact that it's hard to find an APL 14 table around here. It's been my experience that there are plenty of games forming in the low-to-mid level and few forming at the high end. That's because a lot of high level PCs retired years ago. Ed
aljergensen 09-19-07, 06:36 PM	That's because a lot of high level PCs retired years ago. Ed Why would that matter? People are constantly creating characters. I have no problem getting tables up to level 8, it starts to slow down at 10+. So you're saying people retire their PCs when they get to 12? Or that people are not leveling up? I'm not following that logic. My experience is that it seems like people get tired of playing characters after a few years, meaning that there have always been and always will be low-to-mid-level characters. Allen.
amysrevenge 09-20-07, 12:46 AM	Why is it bad for players to rise to 15th or 20th level in a very very short time? Simply put, because a fledgling campaign, no matter how well manned, how well supported, or how well organized it may be, would not be able to support it. Which is why that would be a bad thing in year 1, or year 2. But in year 5, when there are already plenty of PCs and modules at that level, I don't see a reason why a player leveling a PC from 1 to 15 in a single year is a bad thing. It's not like the PC is getting free XP, or ANYTHING for free - the player is playing the same number of modules as someone leveling over 5 years. They are just played closer together in (RL) time. I keep saying this - we MUST limit PC advancement in the beginning of the campaign, for a number of well described campaign management reasons. It has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction that TUs are the only possible way to do this (escalating hard caps could meet the same goal), but if that is the decision that is made I'll be OK with it. However, we gain nothing beyond a small amount of verisimilitude by limiting things later on, once the campaign is fully matured. Big Mike
Keith53 09-20-07, 07:09 AM	Trying to remember back to the situation in LC when Robert proposed the use of TU (actually, I think we started with Day Units, counting from 360 for FR calender), the concern was mainly over the multiple options for meta-org involvement and down time activities, not limiting adventure play. As best as I recall, we even offer the option initially, if your PC did not participate in any of the down time activities, you did not have to track DU. If you did not play in LC, then you may not be aware of the extreme richness and depth of the meta-orgs, which was driven by LC could not spread out horizonally, just "vertically" in its location. I doubt we will see that kind of diverse opportunities in LFR. As the first LC Temples (Clerical Circle) guy, I created the LC mechanism for the divine casters to create magic items, (in 2E, even tried creating original spells, which proved too hard to sustain), and elaborate tiers of benefits to temple membership. Paying DU for membership was a way to balance benefits and opportunities. Most gamers did not like the idea of a PC who was a member of everything, as well as went on every adventure; we could not suspend disbelief that far. We felt that some choices needed to be made. I don't see much merit in arbitrary limitaion of number of adventures a PC plays. I do see a concern about writing/editing adventures which could only be played by a few PCs/players due to high level nature. As a campaign, you don't really want to cater to a select cadre. Keith
Skerrit 09-20-07, 09:08 AM	Well, I think the issue is one of support and continuity. With no limits on advancement, PCs will out pace the levels supported by mods which are likely to be written for the average pace. 1) PCs that rocket up in levels in the first half of the year by playing every mod from every region they can get, they will find they have out paced the supported levels of many mods in the later half. Some of those players will likely be quite vocal about demanding support for their level of PC. Since it is clear it is possible to be that level, there should be mods for them to play. 2) If your play in the first half year and out level the supported levels of modules, you will likely not play all the mods in a series, or might end up starting a different PC, so now you loose continuity.
MatteBlack 09-20-07, 09:38 AM	Which is why that would be a bad thing in year 1, or year 2. But in year 5, when there are already plenty of PCs and modules at that level, I don't see a reason why a player leveling a PC from 1 to 15 in a single year is a bad thing. It's not like the PC is getting free XP, or ANYTHING for free - the player is playing the same number of modules as someone leveling over 5 years. They are just played closer together in (RL) time. I keep saying this - we MUST limit PC advancement in the beginning of the campaign, for a number of well described campaign management reasons. It has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction that TUs are the only possible way to do this (escalating hard caps could meet the same goal), but if that is the decision that is made I'll be OK with it. However, we gain nothing beyond a small amount of verisimilitude by limiting things later on, once the campaign is fully matured. Big Mike It almost sounds like TUs would be good but we should be allowed more of them each year as the campaign progresses.
Golorious 09-20-07, 02:24 PM	Here is a Quote that I find is interesting and leads into this discussion. I agree. The rate at which characters advance is completely in the hands of the DM. This is a D&D truism. The default 4th Edition setting will assume roughly 10 encounters per level, but the DMG will point out that the rate of level advancement is under the DM's control, and that a DM can forestall level advancement by reducing XP awards by half, a third, or whatever. With our current system of 52 TUS. The average person who uses all of their TUs likely plays about 26-32 scenarios in a year. Currently there are 3 encounters in a module, per the math above that means that 32 scenarios is 9th level almost 10th level. Which is crazy fast. In LG if you play your first 52 TUS playing up and you also include 3 regional intro mods in the mix it is possible to get to 7th level if you are really lucky. It takes 35 mods all playing up to go from 1 to 7. (adaptables and 2 round modules of course alter that figure). Though it should be noted that the average person does not use all of their time units. Some because they don't play much others because they split the mods between multiple characters. So maybe on average a person plays 20 mods per active character. (I have no idea what the average amount of play is, because I play a lot) So for 4e I think that we will have to have a new module plan for exp, and a new play opportunity plan. Which I know that Tulach has stated he is working on. Either there will need to be less encounters per module, less xp given per encounter or less modules to play if there is going to be any control of level gain. If there are 3 encounters per module still at normal default XP of 4e and 20 play opportunities per character then we will have about the same curve of going from 1 to 6 in one year. However, if we change the encounter format per module that may change. Maybe there will only be 2 encounters per module, then on average it would take 5 modules to Level. Getting us closer to where we are now. Combat is changing in ways that will effect this discussion, they have suggested that bad guys wont be one hit wonders or have an entire combat only last 2 rounds. I often find that longer combats are more satisfying, then wham bam done. If the average combat becomes more of a consistent challenge then having only 2 combat encounters in a module might work out well. We will have to wait and see after the game is released to really see how it is going to work. Also with the inclusion of social encounters and social challenges there will need to be a model to issue xp for those as well. While not appropriate in every module there will be many modules where the social challenges will be critical. There will likely be modules that have all social challenges and no combat challenges. Sorry for rambling, but I think that we are looking at enough differences to the way EXP is portioned out per encounter and how much exp it takes to level that we cannot make a lot of assumptions from the 52 TU model on how to manage play opportunities and level curves. We will need a new system on that likely will have play opportunities separate from crafting, meta-orgs etc... but that is just my opinion.
MatteBlack 09-20-07, 04:13 PM	With our current system of 52 TUS. The average person who uses all of their TUs likely plays about 26-32 scenarios in a year. Currently there are 3 encounters in a module, per the math above that means that 32 scenarios is 9th level almost 10th level. Which is crazy fast. In LG if you play your first 52 TUS playing up and you also include 3 regional intro mods in the mix it is possible to get to 7th level if you are really lucky. It takes 35 mods all playing up to go from 1 to 7. (adaptables and 2 round modules of course alter that figure). Keep in mind that there will be 30 levels where there were once 20 so, that 9th level 4th ed. character may well be the equivalent of a current 6th level one. I also question whether they expect to continue that same advancement rate through all levels since most games have a built-in slow down as the levels get higher. 10 encounters per level sounds a bi tquick to me through the upper levels but, we'll see.
mlund 09-20-07, 04:28 PM	If Magic Item Creation, Crafting, and Professions in Living Forgotten Realms work anything like they do in Living Greyhawk, we'll need to have some sort of TU-management system to represent the amount of time it costs to gain a GP advantage through such activities. - Marty Lund
tombollis 09-20-07, 05:54 PM	If Magic Item Creation, Crafting, and Professions in Living Forgotten Realms work anything like they do in Living Greyhawk, we'll need to have some sort of TU-management system to represent the amount of time it costs to gain a GP advantage through such activities. - Marty Lund If they give a gp advantage in 4e, they will need some form of cost or regulation, but nothing yet indicates they will give a significant advantage. The rules are changing, but we don't know how much. Tom Bollis
Sieylianna 09-20-07, 06:23 PM	Why would that matter? People are constantly creating characters. I have no problem getting tables up to level 8, it starts to slow down at 10+. So you're saying people retire their PCs when they get to 12? Or that people are not leveling up? I'm not following that logic. What I'm saying is that a lot of people "raced to retirement" and retired characters around year 5. Since they already had a high level character, they didn't have the same drive to get to retirement, so they were more likely to play multiple PCs. And a lot of regions restarted with low level plot arcs in year 6, which limited high level play and encouraged new PCs. The number of high level modules (above APL 8) available in years 6/7 was significantly less than were available in years 3/4/5 (based on the handful of regions that I regularly visit). Ed
cetiken 09-20-07, 09:45 PM	What I'm saying is that a lot of people "raced to retirement" and retired characters around year 5. Since they already had a high level character, they didn't have the same drive to get to retirement, so they were more likely to play multiple PCs. And a lot of regions restarted with low level plot arcs in year 6, which limited high level play and encouraged new PCs. The number of high level modules (above APL 8) available in years 6/7 was significantly less than were available in years 3/4/5 (based on the handful of regions that I regularly visit). Ed I'm not sure I'm following how you think TUs (or lack thereof) will solve this percived 'problem.' Some number of players will race to retirement then stop no matter what the system. Some players will hit the cap (wheter its a hard level cap or a 'soft' TU cap) and start demanding more content for their favored character. Some people no matter how many incintives you offer won't play a secondary character. Thats not how they have fun. Similarly some people (no matter how advantageous it might be) won't stick to just one character thats how they play the game. I don't see how having or not having TUs will (or even if its desired to) inhibit any of the above behavior. This is really a matter more of play style than of campaign administration. That said, I still don't like the idea of arbitrary limitations on how many opportunities there are to have fun. I find real life plenty limiting and while envious of those who could use up a full 52 TUs I don't begrudge them that option.
aljergensen 09-20-07, 11:02 PM	What I'm saying is that a lot of people "raced to retirement" and retired characters around year 5. Since they already had a high level character, they didn't have the same drive to get to retirement, so they were more likely to play multiple PCs. And a lot of regions restarted with low level plot arcs in year 6, which limited high level play and encouraged new PCs. The number of high level modules (above APL 8) available in years 6/7 was significantly less than were available in years 3/4/5 (based on the handful of regions that I regularly visit). Ed I started playing RPGA after a hiatus (becuase of location) at the end of year 4/start of 5. Getting a low level table was never a problem ... and the distribution of character levels being played seemed about the same. If time units (or some other limiting factor) was a problem, shouldn't I have had a hard time getting a game in that time frame? As far as people starting up new characters to follow a story arc with year 6 ... well that's kind of been my point. We don't need to try to force people to create new characters, we just have to dangle "new story arc that starts at APL 2" and plenty of new characters will suddenly appear. Allen.
Madfox11 09-21-07, 07:46 AM	For many people I know TUs are a mechanism that helps dealing with the suspension of disbelief about characters doing all adventures in one day. I don't care as much about it and of course, TU still does not solve the issue that outside of one adventure the PCs do not need to make a choice between rescueing the princes from the red dragon (adventure X) or saving the prince from the witch (adventure Y). They simply do both. It is the last that caused me some grieve a couple of months ago when a couple of players litterally demanded that we should write high APLs for a regional special, complaining that the government would have hired the higher level characters if they were available. I was almost on the very of declaring an important battle lost automatically because all high level characters were dealing with common bandits in another part of the country, then I just shruged and ignored their nagging. Ultimately TUs do not solve these issues, and players will complain no matter what. For me TUs help with two things: > Managing activities outside combat (which is quiet important in 3E) > Give the players and triads a great tool in setting up multiple-year plot lines and estimating how much an average character would level in that period and through that deciding what adventures to play with what characters.
MatteBlack 09-21-07, 09:20 AM	Not that this is happening regularly but, I have definitely met those that would attempt it. A group of players could decide to set up a homegroup that merely lists, downloads and records ARs that it doesn't play. I am sure there have been incidents of this going on for tables that have fallen through at the last minute or other situations and the ARs have been rewarded without play. While TUs wouldn't prevent this on a small scale, it does prevent it on a larger scale. With TUs you could only advance the character so far because of the integral advancement limit and you would have largely given up on being able to play the trumped up character until the end of the year. Yes, it could still be planned out using near expired Adventures towards the end of the year but, I'd rather underhanded groups not be able to do this largely at the drop of the hat with no consequence for it and no limit to how many levels it would gain them. Again, this would probably be the rare occurance but, it would seriously damage what value players see in their accomplishment. The TUs at least puts some stops on this possibility. It wouldn't be the sole reason to adopt TUs to LFR but, it is one more inmany reasons to do so.
LordGolem 09-21-07, 10:11 AM	Not that this is happening regularly but, I have definitely met those that would attempt it. A group of players could decide to set up a homegroup that merely lists, downloads and records ARs that it doesn't play. I am sure there have been incidents of this going on for tables that have fallen through at the last minute or other situations and the ARs have been rewarded without play. While TUs wouldn't prevent this on a small scale, it does prevent it on a larger scale. With TUs you could only advance the character so far because of the integral advancement limit and you would have largely given up on being able to play the trumped up character until the end of the year. Yes, it could still be planned out using near expired Adventures towards the end of the year but, I'd rather underhanded groups not be able to do this largely at the drop of the hat with no consequence for it and no limit to how many levels it would gain them. Again, this would probably be the rare occurance but, it would seriously damage what value players see in their accomplishment. The TUs at least puts some stops on this possibility. It wouldn't be the sole reason to adopt TUs to LFR but, it is one more inmany reasons to do so. I know people who do this....drives me crazy. Any limit on people like this is a good thing. Maximum effort must be made to minimize cheating. Even if it reduces play opportunities. And TU's don't limit your play opportunties, they just limit your opportunity to play that one character..... well even adventurers can only do so much in a year! I think an RPGA campaign needs lots of limits...though many of you will disagree. The structure of LG is what attracted me to it. At a con I have a good chance of sitting down with a group of players who didn't cheat or cheese their way to getting that hoy sword or rod of sculpt spell... people who earned it the hard way. And if I meet a 10th level guy I know he had spent 2-3 years getting there, which meant something to me. It's a sense of accomplishment (and realism!) that my high level guy took me years to build. Or get rid of any limits...just play any race, use any class/feat, you want from any book any time and play all you want with no checks and balances or attempt at overall campaign balance. You want to play a minotaur sorcerer? Go ahead! I wouldn't want to reduce your fun! Play him 100 mods a year, whatever! You wouldn't see me playing a campaign like that.... If you want a campaign with few restrictions play a home game...an RPGA campaign should err on the side of MORE restrictions. IMHO
amysrevenge 09-21-07, 12:25 PM	I think an RPGA campaign needs lots of limits...though many of you will disagree. The structure of LG is what attracted me to it. At a con I have a good chance of sitting down with a group of players who didn't cheat or cheese their way to getting that hoy sword or rod of sculpt spell... people who earned it the hard way. And if I meet a 10th level guy I know he had spent 2-3 years getting there, which meant something to me. It's a sense of accomplishment (and realism!) that my high level guy took me years to build. Not that I support cheating, but it affects my own play by exactly ZERO whether the dude next to me got his rod of sculpt spell the "hard way" or some "easy way". Either way, there's a dude next to me with a rod. Similarly, it has ZERO effect on my own game experience if the 10th level guy next to me took 1, 2, or 5 years to get to level 10. Big Mike
smerwin29 09-21-07, 12:43 PM	Not talking directly about Big Mike here, but his post made me chuckle: Working in the XE campaign, I have talked to people who refuse to play it because of the level bumps. They say that they feel cheated when they have to play the adventures to reach a certain level, but then anyone can just come sit down with a character who didn't "earn" the levels. If this really is their reason for refusing to even consider the XE campaign, they actually might feel the same way about a campaign where they play for several years to get to a certain level, and someone can join the campaign and play for just a few months to reach the same level. Or where it is easy to just claim infinite play for a character to reach a certain level, as described above. I'm not saying I share this feeling, but it is something campaign admins would have to take into consideration if it would adversely affect participation. Like Big Mike, I just enjoy the playing of the game and don't worry about the other players, but it is not smart to ignore how players react to the campaign.
amysrevenge 09-21-07, 06:27 PM	That is a good point. Mike
cetiken 09-22-07, 09:44 AM	1. Nothing will stop cheating (but by not reporting it, you too can encourage it). 2. I think people that manage to play 150 mods in a year earned whatever level the get. 3. Some rumors say that you should be able to play a minotaur and be balanced with other adventurers. Check the blog entry on the 9/20 (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=13850918#post13850918). Though really that seems like the kind of thing I'd expect to be on a campaign card. 4. I think the biggest problem with level bumps is the continually break it provides. Suddenly you go from slogging it for months at level 3 (because the local event coordinator really seems to have better things to do than input event results). Suddenly you're level 5. Bam! continuity break incidentally you should rebuy all his gear and reallocate all feats and skill points to be optimal because playing an organic character who evolves is not encouraged. But we already know we don't have them in LFR so thats a relief.
smerwin29 09-22-07, 10:07 AM	1. Nothing will stop cheating, but measures can be put into place to make cheating easier to see and less likely to occur. 2. If they do so legally, true. If not, no.
aljergensen 09-22-07, 07:39 PM	1. Nothing will stop cheating, but measures can be put into place to make cheating easier to see and less likely to occur. Wow, you want to make cheating easier! ;) If you have an idea of how to make cheating more difficult, let's here it. Because I don't think limiting TUs makes much of a difference. Somebody who downloads ARs could just backdate them. Or create phony ones. Audits are incredibly rare in my experience, and as long as the previous AR looks good, fake ARs would probably never be noticed. This is assuming of course that we have ARs. If it's computerized (which I doubt) there would be ways of detecting cheating. Online game time could easily be logged and recorded. If we keep the adventure record simple enough by not tracking TUs, item access, crafting, etc you might be able to have multiple game records on a single page which would make it easier to detect cheating at a glance. Short of that, I don't think there's much we could do. Allen.
smerwin29 09-22-07, 08:31 PM	I have already been over them in two or three different threads. I think this horse is well flogged.
MatteBlack 09-23-07, 12:39 AM	Wow, you want to make cheating easier! ;) If you have an idea of how to make cheating more difficult, let's here it. Because I don't think limiting TUs makes much of a difference. Somebody who downloads ARs could just backdate them. Or create phony ones. Audits are incredibly rare in my experience, and as long as the previous AR looks good, fake ARs would probably never be noticed. This is assuming of course that we have ARs. If it's computerized (which I doubt) there would be ways of detecting cheating. Online game time could easily be logged and recorded. If we keep the adventure record simple enough by not tracking TUs, item access, crafting, etc you might be able to have multiple game records on a single page which would make it easier to detect cheating at a glance. Short of that, I don't think there's much we could do. Allen. Read that quote again, Allen. "Easier to see"! The TUs wouldn't make cheating more difficult, it would just make certain you could do less of it and have to trade play opportunites for the ability to do it.