Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Dempster 03-12-08, 01:32 PM	How do you want the access system to be handled in LFR? One of the main goals of 4th edition was allowing players to make their characters the way they wanted by not limiting their options. Magic items are now found in the players handbook. One of the most confusing parts of the LGCS was access and keeping track of what was in and out. Should access to these be fully open? How would you like the LFR campaign document to handle access? I say open completely for all PHBs and the FRCS. Once a new PHB comes out it becomes legal in 3 months. That should be enough time for people to have become familiar with it. Things outside the PHB should be handled by a set policy rather than on a case by case basis that ends up generating a huge confusing and capricious open/ closed access list.
Mithreinmaethor 03-12-08, 07:25 PM	It already appears that magic items are restricted by level from the get go. So that will fit into LFR much better. The only time to worry about access and restrictions is when the fluff books and PHB 2 etc come out.
WolfStar76 03-13-08, 08:00 AM	It already appears that magic items are restricted by level from the get go. So that will fit into LFR much better. The only time to worry about access and restrictions is when the fluff books and PHB 2 etc come out. Aside from rings being restricted to Level 11 for one and 21 for two, no magic items are restricted. Instead they have a "suggested" level for balance and pricing guidelines. (LFR rules may, of course, vary)
Mithreinmaethor 03-14-08, 06:08 AM	Aside from rings being restricted to Level 11 for one and 21 for two, no magic items are restricted. Instead they have a "suggested" level for balance and pricing guidelines. (LFR rules may, of course, vary) The recommended levels on the items would be very convienent for LFR to restrict things etc
Puggle Halfwine 03-14-08, 09:42 AM	I'm hoping that gold is set like it is in Living Greyhawk (you usually know how much gold you are getting from a module before you play it), but access is opened up a lot (IE magic mart). I'm not a big fan of the "access lottery", because all it does is punish honest players and reward dishonest players.
Rerednaw 03-14-08, 09:42 AM	The recommended levels on the items would be very convienent for LFR to restrict things etc Without details on how magic items are revised it makes it difficult to draw any conclusions....but then speculating is half the fun. My basic rule of thumb is that a permanent item > charged item > spell. So I would rank items by tiers. I suppose one restriction would be: The tier after you gain access to a spell, you gain access to a charged version of the spell. The tier after you gain access to a charged version of the spell, you gain access to the permanent version of the spell. i.e. So a first level spell is available as a scroll or potion at 3rd level and a permanent item at 5th. A rough equivalent would be a +1 atk/+1 dam spell. Magic Weapon is available at first. Scroll or Oils of Magic Weapon would be available at 3rd. Finally, +1 weapons would be accessible at 5th. Or maybe a variation in that 'access' = can use. So maybe you buy the +1 weapon at 4th level but you cannot wield it as a +1 weapon until you hit 5th level. Bah, sounds like too much bookkeeping and more rules. Let's keep the LFRCS short, say oh...10 pages. :p
aljergensen 03-14-08, 10:50 AM	I'd like to see open access, based on approved books. Everything in the PHB and DMG should be open for example, while an Eberron specific book may not be appropriate for an FR campaign. Limiting magic items to the suggested level might be a good idea given the nature of the campaign. But other than that, we should have as few "meta-game" rules as practical. Allen.
smerwin29 03-14-08, 10:54 AM	Speaking only for myself and my personal preferences, my hope is that LFR can find a way to enable and enact what the designers of 4e D&D envision as the "typical and best D&D play experience." Other than allowing people in a worldwide organized play campaign to come together and play D&D, I want to get out of the business of telling people HOW to play or creating a dizzying amount of extra campaign documentation. Obviously, there is some gray area of reality within that black-and-white idealism. There are always decisions, no matter how large or small a campaign, that the DM must make. And the campaign staff is going to have to make and enforce those decisions. But the closer we can get to simply saying, "Just play the game using the published rules," the better. Shawn Global Admin - Living Forgotten Realms
TWG_Prometheus 03-14-08, 04:25 PM	I've been seeing a lot of calls for opening up access, and..that's great and all, but I don't like what those suggestions would seem to do to the reward structure of the game. In Living Greyhawk, for instance, completing an adventure could grant access rules items. In my opinion, this was a great way of giving players something more for an adventure than just a pack of gold and experience points. I've had some of the ARs that basically granted nothing to anyone, and that never feels good. Now, that isn't to say that there aren't better ways to reward players out there. The favors that gave free upkeep or a special ability that you could use a certain number of times (free one-shot Time Stop!) were great. Meta-org related favors could also be great. I even have a favor or two that raise my character's abilities inherently, although those are understandably rare. I prefer the second category of rewards, but I think that they can only take you so far. Not every adventure record (or the LFR equivalent) can have that sort of thing, I think. It would start feeling silly after a while if it did, anyway. I also disagree that limiting access to items and other rules options rewards cheaters and punishes honest players. I don't worry about what the cheaters are doing...they're not playing the same game that I am. In terms of what limiting access (appropriately) does for the honest players, I feel that it makes a better game because there are things to win out there. I wouldn't like the game as much if I could get absolutely any rules option I wanted and the only thing I ever needed was experience and gold. I guess some people hate the access hunt, but it'd be a lesser game for me without. The near-constant agony of never being able to find the right items is part of the fun in Living Greyhawk for me...especially if it's occaisionally accompanied by finding something I've been wanting for a long time. My Spellsword finally got Twilight armor access! Obviously there needs to be a balance. Withholding all access until the right items are found can be overly restrictive just as much as granting all access removes the access reward structure completely. I thought that the year 7 LGCS did a good job in this area...there were plenty of basic items to fit the overall needs of almost every character, but there were still lots of items to seek out. In the end, I think that some sort of Closed list is almost inevitable. Restrictions against rules items that don't belong in the Realms or against evil-aligned material is something I'm assuming at the moment, and power balancing will need to occur at some point down the road. Hopefully the Closed list can be kept relatively small, however.
iskurthi 03-14-08, 04:50 PM	Obviously there needs to be a balance. Withholding all access until the right items are found can be overly restrictive just as much as granting all access removes the access reward structure completely. I thought that the year 7 LGCS did a good job in this area...there were plenty of basic items to fit the overall needs of almost every character, but there were still lots of items to seek out. I've always thought that a good compromise would be to shamelessly steal something from the Eberron campaigns - the idea of expansion slots. Every X levels, pick any Limited rules item and it becomes Open for that character. If X is set at the right point, then you still can't have everything you want without found access, but you can be assured of getting the things you really want, and you're not totally hosed because you missed that one mod written by an author who agrees with you about what things are cool to have access to.
Keith53 03-14-08, 05:17 PM	My personal preference is very similar to Shawn's, try to use the published rules and just the published rules as much as possible. Keep campaign standards short and to the point. From what the WotC R&D people said at DDXP, they really seem to want RPGA to use the game rules as is, without a lot of not allowing stuff or changing stuff or limited access. I think many players may be pleasantly surprised. Still, one never knows what future publications might come out and what they might contain. Later publications often include R&D experiments, where they want to try something out. <shrug> I daresay the campaign will deal with those future curve balls as they come. I can't say that I am personally in favor of setting RIGID (and publicly announced) standards for how much gp, xp you will gain in a standard adventure. That just seems so mechanic to me. 4E will guide us regarding gp, xp and magic items, but I am not personally adverse to having a few adventures being a little easier with lighter rewards and a few adventures being a little tougher with more generous rewards. If kept in balance, it would average out. All of the above were personal viewpoints, which may or may not reflect final LFR policy. Keith
rschaefer_1 03-14-08, 05:22 PM	What I'd like to see opened up is what I can play online. My local group I play with weekly doesn't want to run RPGA or play RPGA games. The local RPGA group doesn't play at times or locations that is conducive to me attending. That is just my problem because I live away from the city and have small children. They seemed to complain alot about thier LG going away and were saying I'm not going to play those new campaigns. I'm not sure if that is still the dominant feeling because no one has brought it up recently. Thus even if I do get more time once I move into the city this summer it still may not help me. On the other hand I have online friends that I play Xen'drik Expeditions with once a month or two. I only have one or two modules to choose from because you cannot play cores online. We have never run out of things to do because of the limited play time but I've also never experienced the core storyline either. Once LFR comes out I'd like to talk the online group into switching to that and going from the start. It is strange to see me type this since I love the Ebberon setting. However I cannot find anyone to run it for me to play. Thus I'm always running when I have a lot more fun playing then GMing. Since I'm the only one GMing right now I may have enough pull to get this going. However if I'm going to get stuck only experiencing one set of the story because of some prejudice against online play I'd be really disappointed. Another thing I'd like to see is a database tracker for story objects and character information. One where the information is typed in and then you could print out ARs. Even better you wouldn't need them anymore because the information is stored in a database somewhere and you can just print out a summery of what you have done. That would be awesome. I'd pay to have that ability.
Keith53 03-14-08, 05:25 PM	If the DDI tools work as advertised, with LFR, I think those who want to play on-line with friends around the world will be much pleased.
rschaefer_1 03-14-08, 05:26 PM	My personal preference is very similar to Shawn's, try to use the published rules and just the published rules as much as possible. Keep campaign standards short and to the point. From what the WotC R&D people said at DDXP, they really seem to want RPGA to use the game rules as is, without a lot of not allowing stuff or changing stuff or limited access. I think many players may be pleasantly surprised. From what I could gleem from youtube it sounded like this idea is very useful. I'm guessing that most of the experiments will be in the form of DDI magazine content and not books. Once it hits a book it sounded like it was going to be set way for doing things. That may be an optimistic view of the situation but I can dream.
kenobi65 03-14-08, 05:42 PM	Another thing I'd like to see is a database tracker for story objects and character information. One where the information is typed in and then you could print out ARs. Even better you wouldn't need them anymore because the information is stored in a database somewhere and you can just print out a summery of what you have done. That would be awesome. I'd pay to have that ability. If it could be counted on to work reliably... RPGA has been using the online character tracker for the D&D Campaigns since 2003, and there continues to be issues with it. Yes, paper ARs are more cumbersome, but at least, if my character's records are wrong, I only have myself to blame.
bhale187 03-16-08, 03:38 PM	If it could be counted on to work reliably... RPGA has been using the online character tracker for the D&D Campaigns since 2003, and there continues to be issues with it. Yes, paper ARs are more cumbersome, but at least, if my character's records are wrong, I only have myself to blame. I agree. I don't want to have to count on the DB system working correctly, or have to count on a DM or a convention organizer getting the info recorded correctly online after the fact. If you are at the table and get handed the AR you at least have a minute to reveiw it, and make sure it's right. There is too much that can and does go wrong with an online database.
rschaefer_1 03-16-08, 04:32 PM	What I worry more about is losing them. I've got a giant stack for my wife's Xen'drik stuff right now and we don't even play very often. I would hope with the new database that the DDI is using there should be a reliable way to store the information that is contained on the ARs. I guess one way would be to have the paper ARs but also track it online would solve my problem but if there is an error you can revert back to the sheets. Anyway I'm sure they have something in mind that will work.
The_Jester 03-17-08, 10:59 AM	The best way would be ARs that are printed and handed-out post-game but also virtual ARs on the website. When the event is reported the DM checks off what favours you have. If you lose your ARs you can print them. If you're traveling you can just take print-out copies or go online. They might even have a "resize" option so you can only include text that applies to you (favours you have, item access you got) and print the sheet out half-size on a 8.5x11 sheet allowing you to have 2 ARs per page. 4 if you double-side. You can imagine the benefits of quartering your stack of ARs. Access though... I'd like a more realistic method where you had to divide-up treasure opposed to the method of "everyone sells everything and then you buy it back at regular market price". It might be better to dump item access and just have everything done through favours. With items being less important to balance of NPCs there's less reason to have found items.
Rerednaw 03-17-08, 11:06 AM	If it could be counted on to work reliably... RPGA has been using the online character tracker for the D&D Campaigns since 2003, and there continues to be issues with it. Yes, paper ARs are more cumbersome, but at least, if my character's records are wrong, I only have myself to blame. Really? Where is it? I'd like to check it out.
kenobi65 03-17-08, 01:23 PM	Really? Where is it? I'd like to check it out. Sign into your RPGA account, and click on the "Character Tracker" link. Unless you actually play Xen'drik (or played MoH or LotGR), there won't be a whole lot to see, but you can create a PC.
kenobi65 03-17-08, 01:29 PM	Access though... I'd like a more realistic method where you had to divide-up treasure opposed to the method of "everyone sells everything and then you buy it back at regular market price". Well, that was the "cert" system that Living City and other campaigns used, and that LG used at first. The problem with it is that it leads to (a) squabbling between players, (b) uneven wealth distribution between PCs, and (c) higher-level PCs that can "trick out" the new PC of one of their friends by giving that new PC a bunch of certs that they don't need anymore. Maybe there's a way to do it that doesn't lead to those problems. I'm just not aware of it.
iskurthi 03-17-08, 02:43 PM	The best way would be ARs that are printed and handed-out post-game but also virtual ARs on the website. When the event is reported the DM checks off what favours you have. If you lose your ARs you can print them. If you're traveling you can just take print-out copies or go online. They might even have a "resize" option so you can only include text that applies to you (favours you have, item access you got) and print the sheet out half-size on a 8.5x11 sheet allowing you to have 2 ARs per page. 4 if you double-side. You can imagine the benefits of quartering your stack of ARs. I have a hard time getting people to reliably report the games I play in now when it's comparatively simple to do. Even a slight complexity bump seems to pose most people an impossible roadblock - I think about half the Xen'drik tables I've played in have had reporting problems. If it weren't for the fact that it won't work, your idea is great. It will admittedly quarter your stack of ARs, since you'll be missing so many of them.
rschaefer_1 03-17-08, 02:58 PM	I have a hard time getting people to reliably report the games I play in now when it's comparatively simple to do. Even a slight complexity bump seems to pose most people an impossible roadblock - I think about half the Xen'drik tables I've played in have had reporting problems. If it weren't for the fact that it won't work, your idea is great. It will admittedly quarter your stack of ARs, since you'll be missing so many of them. I'm sorry you have problems with the reporting. I'm not sure why that would be. The online part is so simple. I do it as soon as the game ends. It takes about 5 minutes tops. My problem is sorting out all the adventure journals. No one has them done right or on time when they show up. Then there is my recording on them. That is where the pain is on my game. Of course we are playing at my house. I'm sure if I was at a store playing the reporting would take longer due to me not sitting there with the computer on while running.
Dempster 03-17-08, 02:58 PM	In the end, I think that some sort of Closed list is almost inevitable. Restrictions against rules items that don't belong in the Realms or against evil-aligned material is something I'm assuming at the moment. Well, we wouldn't want to stop players from playing evil characters or silly dragonborn that just suddenly appear out of no where in the realms. Thats what 4th edition is all about. Tiefilings, dragonborn, evil paladins and demon worshiping warlocks.-jk....I hope I am hoping that a clear "no evil" policy will still be around. I have run enough games to know that all evil friendly campaigns self destruct. With alignment gone it will be a more complicated policy to enforce. They will have to make a laundry list of what exactly is evil and what isn't. Hopefully access can be dealt with in a simple way. Really no matter what you have access to you can't become too broken because there are only so many body slots and each character only has a set amount of money. I am more worried about the rules being simple so new players don't get scared away than I am about "game balance".
The_Jester 03-18-08, 10:41 AM	Well, that was the "cert" system that Living City and other campaigns used, and that LG used at first. The problem with it is that it leads to (a) squabbling between players, (b) uneven wealth distribution between PCs, and (c) higher-level PCs that can "trick out" the new PC of one of their friends by giving that new PC a bunch of certs that they don't need anymore. Maybe there's a way to do it that doesn't lead to those problems. I'm just not aware of it. Yeah, that's why I said "like" in italics. It might work if certs were non-transferable. And if there were always 6 items per table and everyone got one. But not every mod would have certs and not every table would work with people getting certs. But this might be offset by gold. Take the cert and get a discounted item or ignore and get more gold. But probably wouldn't work in practice. I have a hard time getting people to reliably report the games I play in now when it's comparatively simple to do. Even a slight complexity bump seems to pose most people an impossible roadblock - I think about half the Xen'drik tables I've played in have had reporting problems. If it weren't for the fact that it won't work, your idea is great. It will admittedly quarter your stack of ARs, since you'll be missing so many of them. Yeah that is a problem, but mostly with local DMs. Just need to encourage people to report and remind them of the Reward points and such. But with a hard copy after the game it removes this problem, the online would be a back-up. And the system could be easy (it'd have to be simple and graphics lite for WotC to do it). Just a series of check boxes. This favour, check. Not this favour, blank. Mods could come with a record sheet at the back for DMs to record who got what. Nice and simple. If you can order a pizza online you can report a mod.
iskurthi 03-18-08, 11:42 AM	Yeah, that's why I said "like" in italics. It might work if certs were non-transferable. And if there were always 6 items per table and everyone got one. But not every mod would have certs and not every table would work with people getting certs. But this might be offset by gold. Take the cert and get a discounted item or ignore and get more gold. But probably wouldn't work in practice. If everyone gets one - why have certs at all (as seperate from the AR). Yeah that is a problem, but mostly with local DMs. Just need to encourage people to report and remind them of the Reward points and such. But with a hard copy after the game it removes this problem, the online would be a back-up. And the system could be easy (it'd have to be simple and graphics lite for WotC to do it). Just a series of check boxes. This favour, check. Not this favour, blank. Mods could come with a record sheet at the back for DMs to record who got what. Nice and simple. If you can order a pizza online you can report a mod. I don't know if you've ever reported a Xen'drik Expeditions event, but those aren't that complex. I certainly have never had any trouble accurately reporting XE events I've run... played in is another matter entirely. The thing of it is, an online backup is only good if it's an actual backup. If it's known to be unreliable, then that's a cascading problem. If nobody ever relies on it then people are going to care less about reporting quality, which means the system will be unreliable, and... The only way to get it even close to quality would be to actually have consequences for conventions that screw up or don't post results in a timely manner. And that seems vanishingly unlikely.
tombollis 03-18-08, 04:51 PM	I want to see access to core features and items as open as possible, with restrictions only appkied to new stuff introduced via modules, or to expansion material that might not be appropriate to the campaign. Let treasure be gold and resalable items (at full price, or close to it), with standard items, and ones accessed via modules, freely buyable. Let restrictions on gold available be the limit on what can be purchased. Even rings should be buyavle at low level - they just won't function if the character's level is too low. There should be little need for tracking. items and access. Interesting treasure would be roleplaying items - named weapons and items with histories, favors, well bred mounts, etc., not unusually powerful items. The player should be able to freely develop character concewpts; modules should reward with items that link the PC to his adventure history and supply him with the wealth to advance his PC in the direction of the player's choice. Tom Bollis
The_Jester 03-19-08, 09:59 AM	If everyone gets one - why have certs at all (as seperate from the AR). Well, I was thinking everyone gets a different item. There are seven or eight different items in the mod and each person picks one but no doubles.
tombollis 03-19-08, 12:57 PM	Well, I was thinking everyone gets a different item. There are seven or eight different items in the mod and each person picks one but no doubles. There has been too much inter-player conflict at the tables when such have been divided up in the past, and ill will towards the players who consistently got the better items. And it lead to unbalanced wealth. With characters from different tables getting the same items and playing together later, it is simpler, fairer, and nearly as realistic to allow PCs to duplicate the choices of others at the table - just assign a total value to each PC and indicate what they find available to take and/or purchase from. Specific items should be less important for unusual game mechanics in the new system (wands, rings, etc. should be more generic, augmenting character abilities, rather than being used for specific magic effects). Tom Bollis
RanielK 03-19-08, 01:09 PM	I want to see access to core features and items as open as possible, with restrictions only appkied to new stuff introduced via modules, or to expansion material that might not be appropriate to the campaign. Let treasure be gold and resalable items (at full price, or close to it), with standard items, and ones accessed via modules, freely buyable. Let restrictions on gold available be the limit on what can be purchased. Even rings should be buyavle at low level - they just won't function if the character's level is too low. There should be little need for tracking. items and access. Interesting treasure would be roleplaying items - named weapons and items with histories, favors, well bred mounts, etc., not unusually powerful items. The player should be able to freely develop character concewpts; modules should reward with items that link the PC to his adventure history and supply him with the wealth to advance his PC in the direction of the player's choice. Tom Bollis Yeah, this would work well. As a few of the Admins have pointed out, the more it can be "read the Core books" the better. The only things I see as needing special access are those that need adjudication. Say some special access (not sure what is going to replace PClasses) that needs you to have "Done a grand service to the elves." You've gotta document that somewhere before you can run around gaining the benefits of Ruathar (for instance). If someone were cracked enough to offer access to a moonblade to an elf, this would be another example needing very careful adjudication. Don't won't the player "accidentally" transfering access to the moonblade from his human cleric of Bahamut to his elven fighter who just happens to be from the correct family.
TheBlackFlail 03-19-08, 08:10 PM	Well, I was thinking everyone gets a different item. There are seven or eight different items in the mod and each person picks one but no doubles. Isn't that basically just asking for everything BAD about certs to be implemented, and everything good about them be removed? Kind of a worst of both worlds deal?
PhyAimless 03-20-08, 12:16 AM	Well, that was the "cert" system that Living City and other campaigns used, and that LG used at first. The problem with it is that it leads to (a) squabbling between players, (b) uneven wealth distribution between PCs, and (c) higher-level PCs that can "trick out" the new PC of one of their friends by giving that new PC a bunch of certs that they don't need anymore. Maybe there's a way to do it that doesn't lead to those problems. I'm just not aware of it. One way to do it would be to have a "loot" section (akin to the items purchased section) on each AR, which specified exactly which item(s) that PC was taking from the adventure (and initialed by the DM). This would solve problem C, since the loot would be tied to the ARs and thus character specific. Problem B, as far as I'm concerned, isn't a problem; in the long run the distribution of wealth will average out. Some characters may get lucky or unlucky, but the same is true for everything else regarding the game, so I don't particularly see why it's important that everyone get equal shares from each adventure. Last time I looked, D&D wasn't communist. ;) Problem A is the real issue, and I don't see a way around it, other than hoping that the player base is mature enough to realize that this is a game (yes, it's a vain hope, I know). The only possible ruling here is that the DM is the final arbiter as to who walks away with what, but even that is only a half solution, and would merely change the target of the player's ire. That said, I would still prefer a loot based system rather than an "access" based system. "Access" should refer specifically to items which can be readily purchased in major cities, and thus available to everyone. Beyond that, favors and loot should make up the bulk of the spoils from any given mod.
amysrevenge 03-20-08, 01:31 AM	Problem B, as far as I'm concerned, isn't a problem; in the long run the distribution of wealth will average out. Some characters may get lucky or unlucky, but the same is true for everything else regarding the game, so I don't particularly see why it's important that everyone get equal shares from each adventure. Last time I looked, D&D wasn't communist. ;) No, it won't even out over time. Players who are more insistent/outgoing will accumulate more loot on their characters, and players who are more shy/willing to compromise (or back down to avoid confrontation) will accumulate less loot on their characters. The divide will get worse over time, not better. I saw it at almost every table in LC, and in the first year of LG. The only way to prevent it, on a case-by-case basis, is to have a person of the first type (such as me) who believes in fairness first - who will battle toe-to-toe with the "gimme"s out there to make sure the quiet guy gets the item that he deserves. And you can't count on that happening very often. :P Where loot does even out is in a home game, where a DM will be monitoring the whole works the whole time. Mike
tombollis 03-20-08, 01:46 AM	(a) squabbling between players, (b) uneven wealth distribution between PCs, and (c) higher-level PCs that can "trick out" the new PC of one of their friends by giving that new PC a bunch of certs that they don't need anymore. One way to do it would be to have a "loot" section (akin to the items purchased section) on each AR, which specified exactly which item(s) that PC was taking from the adventure (and initialed by the DM). This would solve problem C, since the loot would be tied to the ARs and thus character specific. This is still a tracking problem, and the PC with the extra items can still lend them to the other PC when they adventure together. It's the tracking that's the main inconvenience here. Problem B, as far as I'm concerned, isn't a problem; in the long run the distribution of wealth will average out. Some characters may get lucky or unlucky, but the same is true for everything else regarding the game, so I don't particularly see why it's important that everyone get equal shares from each adventure. Last time I looked, D&D wasn't communist. ;) Highly unlikely that modules will consistently have distinct loot of the same value for each PC. What happens if some loot is missed? What happens if some items are desirable to multiple PCs, while others are just wealth, not useful to most? The experience with years of such systems in the past was that 1) distribution of value did not average out, and 2) distribution of useful items not only did not average out, but many got items for which they had no use, and did not get the items that were available that were very useful for them. Problem A is the real issue, and I don't see a way around it, other than hoping that the player base is mature enough to realize that this is a game (yes, it's a vain hope, I know). The only possible ruling here is that the DM is the final arbiter as to who walks away with what, but even that is only a half solution, and would merely change the target of the player's ire. Experience shows that all ways of dividing the items are flawed. Random distribution, player vote, DM choice, auction, and other methods and combinations have been tried. That said, I would still prefer a loot based system rather than an "access" based system. "Access" should refer specifically to items which can be readily purchased in major cities, and thus available to everyone. Beyond that, favors and loot should make up the bulk of the spoils from any given mod. The fairest system is for the PCs to get equal shares by value and to be allowed to take that value in treasure (and use existing wealth) to take what they want from what is available, allowing duplication between PCs at the table, just as it is allowed with PCs from different tables. Consistent history between pCs is impossible if they don't always play together, so don't worry about it. Where players get something distinct, it should be from individual actions within the module, such as winning a competition, where there is no decission required as to who gets it after play, and the PC's share of the loot should be adjusted accordingly if it has much monitary value. Unusual items that become available through the module should be equally available to all ("access" in LG terms), but standard items should not require access. Totaling the wealth obtained from modules and comparing it to the total value of possessions shoild be sufficient tracking of most of a PC's possessions. Any change that doesn't significantly change net worth shouldn't matter, except for roleplaying items, like favors, prizes, memberships, etc. Tom Bollis
PhyAimless 03-20-08, 02:46 AM	Players who are more insistent/outgoing will accumulate more loot on their characters, and players who are more shy/willing to compromise (or back down to avoid confrontation) will accumulate less loot on their characters. The divide will get worse over time, not better. I saw it at almost every table in LC, and in the first year of LG. This is not a "Problem B" issue but rather a "Problem A" issue. That is, the imbalance is a result of squabbling. Eliminate the squabbling (by fiat! :D ) and this goes away. This is still a tracking problem, and the PC with the extra items can still lend them to the other PC when they adventure together. It's the tracking that's the main inconvenience here. Lending happens now; the idea here was to tie the items to a specific character to prevent someone from *giving* them away, as was possible with certs. Highly unlikely that modules will consistently have distinct loot of the same value for each PC. What happens if some loot is missed? What happens if some items are desirable to multiple PCs, while others are just wealth, not useful to most? The experience with years of such systems in the past was that 1) distribution of value did not average out, and 2) distribution of useful items not only did not average out, but many got items for which they had no use, and did not get the items that were available that were very useful for them. Experience shows that all ways of dividing the items are flawed. Random distribution, player vote, DM choice, auction, and other methods and combinations have been tried. The fairest system is for the PCs to get equal shares by value and to be allowed to take that value in treasure (and use existing wealth) to take what they want from what is available, allowing duplication between PCs at the table, just as it is allowed with PCs from different tables. Consistent history between pCs is impossible if they don't always play together, so don't worry about it. Ideally, the items undesired would be sold, and a shares system such as the one you mentioned would be used to divide the remaining loot. From a paperwork/adjudication standpoint this is /hard/, and I cannot off the top of my head think of a good workaround, but that would be the idea. Unfortunately, I really dislike duplication. I've never really bought into the "6 bozos" theory of Living Campaigns, preferring to view the story as the collective actions of many many actors; as such, the duplication of items (even key plot items) and the access rules from LG are breaches of the 4th wall, and if possible I would like to find a way to do without them. Where players get something distinct, it should be from individual actions within the module, such as winning a competition, where there is no decission required as to who gets it after play, and the PC's share of the loot should be adjusted accordingly if it has much monitary value. I, for one, would like to see a greater incidence of "unique" items (items available to only a single player) in the campaign. One of my major gripes with the access rules from LG was that, in the end, things boiled down to an AR hunt in order to get the access you wanted. This, really, is the crux of my wish for some kind of more realistic loot rules - I'd like to be able to feel that the items my character owned resulted from barging into some NPC's lair and taking said item by force. I guess what it all comes down to is that I'm a simulationist type gamer, and thus would like the loot distribution to more accurately reflect that, instead of trying for some sort of "fair" system ("fair" in scare-quotes because there really is no such thing). If I really had a choice in the matter, I would say that division of items must be handled /in-character/, up to and including blows to deal with differences of opinion regarding who gets what. The powers that be, though, having decided (rightly) that my tolerance for (and, indeed, fondness of) party in-fighting places me in the minority, and that allowing such would detract from the experience of the game, have (probably for the better) ruled out any such system. This does not, however, mean that approximations of that system cannot be found; certainly there are some better than LG's rather clunky system, even if I do not know what they are.
tombollis 03-20-08, 06:33 AM	Unfortunately, I really dislike duplication. I've never really bought into the "6 bozos" theory of Living Campaigns, preferring to view the story as the collective actions of many many actors; as such, the duplication of items (even key plot items) and the access rules from LG are breaches of the 4th wall, and if possible I would like to find a way to do without them. Unfortunately for you, your preference does not correspond with reality. Every table of a module is a different enactment of a story element, with each player, the DM, and the module text having different versions of what has gone before, and each player taking away a different version of the outcome. If someone gains a "unique" item at one table, another gains it at another table, and no one does at a 3rd, while some players have not yet experienced the insident. A table forms for another module with multiple copies of the unique item, someone who says the item was never found, and someone who won't encoubter it until later. There is no simple, unique flow of history. You can only avoid duplocation and other 4th wall complications by always playing with the same PCs in modules that assume identical outcomes as you remember, which is not how Living campaigns are expected to go. Duplication exists. Contradictory character histories exist. Accept it. I, for one, would like to see a greater incidence of "unique" items (items available to only a single player) in the campaign. I want to see no unique items in a Living campaign that comes from standard adventures - every player should have a chance at the same rewards, without being in competition with every other player in the campaign, not knowing the outcome of an adventure until it is determined who gets the unique item (or it only going out to the players of a single table at a single con). Anything truly unique would have to be a special benefit for a special event, not a reward for a standard module. I guess what it all comes down to is that I'm a simulationist type gamer, and thus would like the loot distribution to more accurately reflect that, instead of trying for some sort of "fair" system ("fair" in scare-quotes because there really is no such thing). Their is such a thing as a fair system. There is no way of implimenting your unique simulation ideal in a Living campaign - it requires an independent stand-alone simulation unaffected by what others do at other tables, and having no effect on others. Tom Bollis
LOE_Frey 03-20-08, 10:40 AM	I agree with Shawn and RanielK. It should be easy...follow the core rules is simple and easy. Where RPGA might diverge a bit is in the "special" rewards. Benefits from actions possibly specific items that unless you go through an RPGA adventure you won't see or possibly need, yet something that makes playing LFR enjoyable and a bit unique in its items/benefits/"favors". There was something that always appealed to me about an opportunity such as...you have the "Reward Well." You can buy a well in X town and have free water and possibly charge others to use it. (Simple example in this case.) My concern with open however is the town size issue. While I am lucky enough to be around Waterdeep, what of those people in the Dales or some small POL. Will they get the same access to equipment (likely they should) but is that how it works based on the basic rules? Until I see the Core books, it will be hard to tell...maybe its as simple as you get basic items and anyone anywhere can get up too X (enchantment) but other magic, etc. might have a different requirement. Simple is great. I would like to see those special rewards/favors continue. That is where a good record would be useful.
Dempster 03-20-08, 02:00 PM	It is remarkable how much The Black Flails avatar look like the real life Black Flail. Except for the spear its spot on.
PhyAimless 03-20-08, 03:01 PM	There is no simple, unique flow of history. You can only avoid duplocation and other 4th wall complications by always playing with the same PCs in modules that assume identical outcomes as you remember, which is not how Living campaigns are expected to go. Duplication exists. Contradictory character histories exist. Accept it. "Avoid" and "minimize" are two entirely different things. In so far as considering solely the instantiation of the module present, there /is/ a unique history; one that persists until the gamers leave the table. If the module happens to say "the party comes across the Dire Flail of Kobold Defenestration," then for the purposes of that mod and those six players present exactly one copy exists. There is no way of implimenting your unique simulation ideal in a Living campaign - it requires an independent stand-alone simulation unaffected by what others do at other tables, and having no effect on others. Once again, I am well aware of the fact that, globally, the ideal situation is impossible. This does not mean that good approximations do not exist; as I said above it is entirely possible to generate a self-consistent story if you limit your considerations to the time period between when the group sits down to start playing and when they get up to leave. Further, it is in the spirit of the game that as many transactions be handled in-character as possible; every time you abstract something in favor of a metagame resolution, the story is broken. Thus, barring the problem of squabbling between players, a loot system is preferable to any other treasure divvying method. Unfortunately, squabbling between players is a real issue, and one for which I have no answer. My intent here is not to say that "this is the way it should be done" or to claim that my answer is better than any others. My intent here is merely to try to frame the debate, and to hopefully identify the /kinds/ of solutions to the issue that we should be looking for. I assume that most of us here are in agreement that the access system from LG was clunky and needs to be overhauled.
iskurthi 03-20-08, 04:09 PM	I assume that most of us here are in agreement that the access system from LG was clunky and needs to be overhauled. Item-wise, the only problem I had with it was things NPCs use not showing up on the AR, and items showing up on the AR that you couldn't afford to buy and which you couldn't go back later and get (Storm Tower Spear at APL2, I'm looking at you). I'm not sure getting to fight over the Unique Weapon du'Jour is any better. And by that I mean I think it's a cure infinitely worse than the disease. Losing access to nonunique items because you didn't buy them within 3 ARs was kind of weird as well. I don't think certs address that problem either though. People already do weird things chasing after AR items that can only be gotten by one person, much less ones that come with lootz attached.
MatteBlack 03-21-08, 12:06 PM	I don't feel like the current LG system is any sort of perfect creation that is above modification but, most of it's flaws lie in how it can seem unrealistic in how items and favors might get divvied amongst the players at the table. In order to feel "realistic" there would basically need to be inter-party debates over loot distribution. Frankly, I and many players want no part of that headache. It brings greed to the forefront and can create bad feelings between players. It also tends to put players more interested in story at odds with those more interested in building their character to win. Adding a 15 minute(or longer) discussion to the end of each module where some players will frequenly walk away dissatisfied or angry is what needs to avoided. If there is a better way, lets hear it but, I'll take a contrived system over one that is more "realistic" but not fun.
sgryphon 03-23-08, 07:50 AM	Access though... I'd like a more realistic method where you had to divide-up treasure opposed to the method of "everyone sells everything and then you buy it back at regular market price". That's probably a bad way of describing the treasure system -- it would be more accurate to say "you get a 'credit balance' for your share and then can convert that credit into items when you can afford them". Whether your 'credit' is actually the goodwill of the church that you tithed to and who later gift you a magical shield, favours from party members because "they owe you", or actually banked gold is up to you. Even if you are use certs (as older Living campaigns did), in a global campaign it doesn't make sense to say "I got the magic longsword Snoogle from defeating Floogeloop", because the person sitting next to you might very well have the same sword *having played the same game at a different table*. As you are going to get double-ups anyway from different tables, it doesn't matter if both fighters who happen to play at the _same_ table convert their credit to the same sword. (i.e. rather than a single cert which only one of them can get). Actually, there is one problem with the credit system and that is that it lags slightly behind a traditional home campaign divide-the-items system: in a home campaign (4 players) you may find a magic item and give it to one character -- this is unbalanced, but you make it up later by giving the second, third, fourth item to the other characters. Although unbalanced, the overall power level of the party ratchets up by one magic item per adventure. In a credit system, after the first three adventures no one has any magic items, they each have 3/4 credit towards one item. (Rather than 3/4 items a home team would have). Thus on average the power level of the party is lower by 0.5 magic items per character. e.g. you would need to take this into account if aligning against encounter strength, etc. Still, on balance, I think the credit system is better than a full cert one, but possibly some mix in the middle is best.
tombollis 03-24-08, 03:35 PM	In a credit system, after the first three adventures no one has any magic items, they each have 3/4 credit towards one item. (Rather than 3/4 items a home team would have). Thus on average the power level of the party is lower by 0.5 magic items per character. e.g. you would need to take this into account if aligning against encounter strength, etc. In a sell for full value, buy for full value system, with access to all core items and those from ARs, each character can get useful stuff he can afford as soon as he has the wealth, and trade up to better stuff when he ganes more wealth - he can have something usefull during the adventures before he can afford what he realy wants. Tom Bollis
TWG_Prometheus 03-24-08, 06:06 PM	If there is a better way, lets hear it but, I'll take a contrived system over one that is more "realistic" but not fun. I feel this way as well. If the system doesn't make much sense, so be it. Don't give me one that will cause me to not want to play in the campaign though. I'd be willing to cede the point on opening the access and going "by the book" as well, but if that's the case, I still have to question what players can get from completing an adventure at the end of the day besides gold and experience. There has to be something. I hope we don't hold too strongly to running the campaign "by the book" when the basic out-of-the-box D&D game has never lent itself well to a shared campaign model. Some things are just different when you don't have a home game. Like MatteBlack also said in the post I referenced, I don't think the way that Living Greyhawk did things was the ultimate evolution of shared campaign gaming, but I think it did a lot of things very well and it was getting better as we went. I'd hate to see all of that progress thrown away.
The_Jester 03-25-08, 10:04 AM	That's probably a bad way of describing the treasure system -- it would be more accurate to say "you get a 'credit balance' for your share and then can convert that credit into items when you can afford them". Whether your 'credit' is actually the goodwill of the church that you tithed to and who later gift you a magical shield, favours from party members because "they owe you", or actually banked gold is up to you. Not really. When writing mods gold is calculated by taking the cost of loot and dividing it by 12. That's selling it used at half-price and dividing it among 6PCs. So get a magic +1 sword, sell it for 193go (2315/ 12). Then, when you find enough, you buy the sword back at the full price. How items and access works is the strangest and hardest part of learning to play LG. Think about how many times you had to explain to people how it works, why it works and why the have to sell to buy and don't even have the possibility of buying out the other five's "shares" to keep the sword. It makes sense for game balance but it's such a tangled mass of illogic and strangeness...
MatteBlack 03-25-08, 10:53 AM	It makes sense for game balance but it's such a tangled mass of illogic and strangeness... It could be simpler for certain but, I find alot of the confusion stems from arguments by players wanting the answer to their access question to be "yes" when it isn't.
aljergensen 03-25-08, 11:39 AM	I'd be willing to cede the point on opening the access and going "by the book" as well, but if that's the case, I still have to question what players can get from completing an adventure at the end of the day besides gold and experience. There has to be something. In Living City we had a limited number of certed items that were handed out at a table. This led to conflict at the table with people arguing over who got what - my fighter had a dozen weapons because "he used weapons" but never got a ring of protection because the wizard "needed it more". Having access to all items on an AR was a step in the right direction. Opening up more items was another step. I don't think anyone was really hurt when we could buy +5 armor without a cert. I think we should just open up access because it would be a lot less paperwork, make planning characters easier, and be a simpler "truer" playing experience. In a home campaign a judge can control access more if they chose (although this seems to be a holdover from older editions to me). But if a character really wants a specific item or prestige class they can talk to their DM. In a living campaign we don't have that flexibility. So if we open access, how do we reward people? Social influence points and renown, establishing friendships with significant NPCs, access to limited discounts, one time boons. I'm sure there are others. Or how about just ensure that we write fun games so that the play is it's own reward? Allen.
iskurthi 03-25-08, 12:01 PM	So if we open access, how do we reward people? Social influence points and renown, establishing friendships with significant NPCs, access to limited discounts, one time boons. I'm sure there are others. Or how about just ensure that we write fun games so that the play is it's own reward? Fun? Now that's just crazy talk. ;)
MatteBlack 03-25-08, 12:12 PM	In Living City we had a limited number of certed items that were handed out at a table. This led to conflict at the table with people arguing over who got what - my fighter had a dozen weapons because "he used weapons" but never got a ring of protection because the wizard "needed it more". Having access to all items on an AR was a step in the right direction. Opening up more items was another step. I don't think anyone was really hurt when we could buy +5 armor without a cert. I think we should just open up access because it would be a lot less paperwork, make planning characters easier, and be a simpler "truer" playing experience. In a home campaign a judge can control access more if they chose (although this seems to be a holdover from older editions to me). But if a character really wants a specific item or prestige class they can talk to their DM. In a living campaign we don't have that flexibility. So if we open access, how do we reward people? Social influence points and renown, establishing friendships with significant NPCs, access to limited discounts, one time boons. I'm sure there are others. Or how about just ensure that we write fun games so that the play is it's own reward? Allen. Can they really open up access too much wider over LG currently is? Most of the stuff appropriate for the game gets added to the open or closed lists on each new LGCS. Maybe they could update the LFRCS a bit more often but, trickling in some stuff via special AR access while they let potential rules issues shakeout seems a pretty prudent method. XP, Gold and AR rewards need to go somewhere. Adding equipment accesses isn't much bigger of a deal. As for "making planning characters easier" goes, I don't know that you'll get complete agreement that it is a good thing. Alot of people believe characters should form more organically with the story and with retraining, those characters can still be pretty well optimized.
aljergensen 03-25-08, 02:42 PM	Can they really open up access too much wider over LG currently is? Most of the stuff appropriate for the game gets added to the open or closed lists on each new LGCS. The problem is that one person's "broken" is another person's "standard". I think we should allow (or disallow) entire books based on flavor. If it's "broken" that's because it's the way the game is designed. But even with the "trickle things in" theory, how do we know if an item/prestige class is ok? In addition, why limit access to things like adamantine? My fighter was 12th level before he had access. Other characters get it at first level. If a handful of items/spells/prestige classes are broken, ban them. But not allowing (for example) 90% of the paladin spells out of the Spell Compendium because nobody had the time to validate them is just kind of silly. It's way too much effort for people to review everything in every book. The payoff is not worth the cost. As for "making planning characters easier" goes, I don't know that you'll get complete agreement that it is a good thing. Alot of people believe characters should form more organically with the story and with retraining, those characters can still be pretty well optimized. IMHO "organic development" should be a role playing opportunity, not a game of access lottery. My characters often develop in ways I hadn't planned (which is why my 6 Charisma dwarf has spent enough ranks in perform to join the theater guild). But if my character's experiences make me believe the perfect prestige class (or paragon path in 4e) would be a perfect fit, I want to be able to pursue that path without worrying about access. It is much easier to browse through a book trying to figure out what my character wants to be or use if I don't have to constantly cross reference what's open and what I have access to. Allen.
woobyluv 03-25-08, 06:51 PM	Well, we wouldn't want to stop players from playing evil characters or silly dragonborn that just suddenly appear out of no where in the realms. Thats what 4th edition is all about. Tiefilings, dragonborn, evil paladins and demon worshiping warlocks.-jk....I hope I am hoping that a clear "no evil" policy will still be around. I have run enough games to know that all evil friendly campaigns self destruct. With alignment gone it will be a more complicated policy to enforce. They will have to make a laundry list of what exactly is evil and what isn't. Hopefully access can be dealt with in a simple way. Really no matter what you have access to you can't become too broken because there are only so many body slots and each character only has a set amount of money. I am more worried about the rules being simple so new players don't get scared away than I am about "game balance". I disagree, FR is just as much about villains as it is about heroes or even anti-heroes (Jarlaxle and Artemis Entreri for example). There should be options for playing and not being penalized for playing less than honorable characters, although conduct towards party members should be regulated in such a way as to let the character's actions reflect the consequences one would expect from such activities...if they get caught.
MatteBlack 03-25-08, 11:43 PM	The major problem with allowing evil is that it inevitably leads to a wish to harm or imprison the other players around the table. The differences in opinions become hollow because they cannot be enacted to their full fruition without allowing PC vs. PC fights. Adding PvP is not something that can just be added to the campaign lightly, it brings with it alot of thorny issues. Issues I'd just assume pass on. If the game isn't about cooperative playe with at least begrudgingly heroic characters, it really has little appeal to me.
amysrevenge 03-26-08, 02:30 AM	I will never play, judge, or write in a campaign that allows evil PCs. No exceptions. Big Mike *I've heard that alignment, if it even exists, will work much differently in 4E. That said, I would expect there to be some sort of rule, if not requiring "heroic" PCs, at least forbidding "anti-heroic" PCs in LFR.
iskurthi 03-26-08, 11:16 AM	*I've heard that alignment, if it even exists, will work much differently in 4E. That said, I would expect there to be some sort of rule, if not requiring "heroic" PCs, at least forbidding "anti-heroic" PCs in LFR. "Evil acts" could still be spelled out and punished the same as they are in LG. It may in fact be much easier to do so, since the lack of alignment descriptors on spells removes a lot of the "Casting Deathwatch is an evil act? Really?" kind of stuff.
smerwin29 03-26-08, 12:10 PM	Although we are now all the way off topic, let me try to summarize the issue with evil, unheroic, contradictory characters in a Living-style campaign. In a home campaign, where you are always playing with the same people and the DM can run anything anyway she wants, having characters who are way outside the mold is fine. It can even be a lot of fun. In an RPGA-sponsored Living-style game, you are working within a framework that makes dealing with those types of characters extremely problematic. While it is never great writing when an adventure assumes PCs will tackle problems and plots a certain way, adventures have to make certain assumptions. When the adventure is about rescuing the princess from the dragon, you have to assume that the PCs are going to want to rescue the princess from the dragon. And I know some people say, "The writer needs to give my character a reason to want to do that?" But guess what? There are so many different potential motivations out there that players just have to understand that they can and should make their own motivation. Players also need to understand that not everyone wants to roleplay out your character's contention that it is really the dragon whose land is being usurped, and instead of rescuing the princess the PCs should be fighting the townsfolk. You may have a table to doesn't mind the off-topic roleplaying, but chances are the table actually wants to go fight the dragon and rescue the princess. I am all for roleplaying, but some players need to understand the common courtesy of working to make sure the whole table has fun, even if they have different agendas and play styles from each other. Just as it has always been, DMs will have to play a large role in making sure the table stays on track while having fun--based on the styles and expectations of the players. The campaign will most likely try to strike a balance between allowing players to establish the personalities of their characters, while limiting those things that tempt and encourage players to play characters that inevitably end up disrupting the fun of the table as a whole. Shawn LFR - Global Admin
LOE_Frey 03-26-08, 02:08 PM	I don't want to continue this being off-topic so I will make one last comment for myself. Shawn, I agree with you, and think there is little you can do to handle alternatives. It would be wonderful if all options were available, but that would make for a far more difficult and confusing system. As you mentioned Homegames are great places for alternate options, also if groups play together consistently a DM will have a better idea how the group or an individual might react in a given situation. They can also influence how the group might handle things, having the extra knowledge of how a group or individual reacts to past situations. As far as writing, it is not difficult for a writer to give some sample plot hooks for situations when the DM does not want to have to put in extra time or come up with something creative on their own. It should not be a limit or menu to order from, but a base for ideas if they are needed. I personally have high expectations for LFR (over LG) and so far the information on proposed ideas has been a significant positive toward reaching those expecations. Keep up the good work.
Huck Pennan 04-06-08, 02:52 PM	The entire reason I stopped playing LA was because of the cert system. I found I didn't enjoy ending games with arguments. If LFR went to any sort of variation on that idea it would be the death of the campaign.
Newpaintbrush 04-09-08, 10:08 AM	Things outside the PHB should be handled by a set policy rather than on a case by case basis that ends up generating a huge confusing and capricious open/ closed access list. How much work would this set policy need? Would the people doing that work have to be paid? What - exactly - does this set policy entail? I see a lot of comments on these forums about how such-and-such a system is terrible, but I rarely see comments regarding what specific workable changes should be made to fix the system. The entire reason I stopped playing LA was because of the cert system. I found I didn't enjoy ending games with arguments. Amen. The major problem with allowing evil is that it inevitably leads to a wish to harm or imprison the other players around the table No, evil is not what causes the most problems with PCs wanting to harm or imprison others, or that causes in-game conflict. History abounds with examples of people that had the best intentions, but ended up creating some very bloody conflicts. Pick your war or religious inquisition. The thing about Living Greyhawk (and other campaigns) is that evil is prohibited and attacking a fellow player with deadly intent is BY DEFINITION evil. It is not "actually" evil as evil is described in the Player's Handbook or other sources; it is BY DEFINITION evil for RPGA purposes. The RPGA guidelines proscribing "evil" worship is, (for the same reason that glorification of use of illegal substances &c are proscribed), and the Living Greyhawk guideline proscribing PCs from attacking other PCs are two entirely different things. I will never play, judge, or write in a campaign that allows evil PCs. Why, specifically? Because you simply don't like the idea of evil PCs, or because evil PCs tend to act in some particular manner? If the latter, then what manner would that be?
aljergensen 04-09-08, 11:27 AM	How much work would this set policy need? Would the people doing that work have to be paid? What - exactly - does this set policy entail? I think the policy should be extremely simple. Allow access to everything in books X, Y and Z. Simple to understand, simple to enforce. So we may not want an Eberron book because of campaign flavor, but allow the new Magic Item Compendium (or whatever they end up calling it) when it comes out. Allen.
MatteBlack 04-09-08, 12:19 PM	I think the policy should be extremely simple. Allow access to everything in books X, Y and Z. Simple to understand, simple to enforce. So we may not want an Eberron book because of campaign flavor, but allow the new Magic Item Compendium (or whatever they end up calling it) when it comes out. Allen. Maybe they could make anything in a given book accessible once it has been reviewed and accepted for use in the campaign but, I think there is always going to be a need for a list of "closed" items because they are overly imbalanced or potentially gamebreaking. As for "access only" things, I can see both sides of the argument. I personally think the cool factor of having something semi-exclusive that you earned the right to have outweighs the downsides of having to track down your access to it or any frustration of not being able to have what someone else earned.
amysrevenge 04-09-08, 06:28 PM	I initially posted: "I will never play, judge, or write in a campaign that allows evil PCs." Why, specifically? Because you simply don't like the idea of evil PCs, or because evil PCs tend to act in some particular manner? If the latter, then what manner would that be? Two reasons: The lesser: Players of evil PCs might use it as an excuse to "grief" (to steal a word from online gaming) other players. The greater: Properly played evil PCs would, in 3.5 anyway, act according to the PH guidelines for evil alignments. I'm drastically opposed to sharing any of my time with any of the following(quoted from my PH): "'Evil' implies hurting, opressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master." "A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. Etc." "A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears fo those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. Etc." "A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. Etc. (it gets even worse)" Big Mike
aljergensen 04-09-08, 11:15 PM	Maybe they could make anything in a given book accessible once it has been reviewed and accepted for use in the campaign but, I think there is always going to be a need for a list of "closed" items because they are overly imbalanced or potentially gamebreaking. We're just going to have to disagree on this one. I don't think there is such a thing as a perfectly balanced game, some people are always going to create characters that are more effective than others. If you want a perfectly balanced game, write one yourself ... good luck. All I know is that I've been involved with numerous home games which only limited what books could be used and there's never been issues any worse than what I already see in LG. Allen.
MatteBlack 04-10-08, 12:39 AM	We're just going to have to disagree on this one. I don't think there is such a thing as a perfectly balanced game, some people are always going to create characters that are more effective than others. If you want a perfectly balanced game, write one yourself ... good luck. All I know is that I've been involved with numerous home games which only limited what books could be used and there's never been issues any worse than what I already see in LG. Allen. Perhaps we are beyond agreeing but, there is a big difference between managing your ruleset for a home campaign and doing so for an international living campaign. An undertested rule that a home campaign can quickly ammend with a houserule or just agree amongst the group to not do often, might well become a big problem for LFR without some sort of restriction. As much as is likely to be produced, there will be broken rules. Why not have a way to deal with them ready. Is allowing everything in the book whether or not it works, actually better than allowing only parts that work well? The only reason to do so would seem to be to allow broken mechanics in the game.
gomeztoo 04-10-08, 01:10 AM	"'Evil' implies hurting, opressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is inconvenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master." Sounds like your average adventurer to me... :P I agree that evil PCs are not a proper idea though. even CN PCs give trouble (depending on who plays it). I have played a few evil PCs in home campaigns, and they worked out well. But I have also seen people play evil or even 'neutral' PCs in a total disuptive manner. Even if you can play an evil PC in a non-disruptive way, it likely won't work in a living campaign. Gomez
Puggle Halfwine 04-10-08, 02:21 AM	I would rather have Lawful Evil characters in my campaign than Chaotic Neutral characters, and I would rather have Chaotic Neutral characters than Lawful Good. In my opinion, Lawful Good characters, ESPECIALLY paladins, have caused the most "grief" in any living campaign. As such, I frequently disallow Lawful Good and almost always disallow paladins. Lawful Evil characters, as mentioned above, are "pretty much your standard adventurers", except that they have codes of honour and are predictable and reliable. Lawful Evil characters kill without pity or remorse, but a Lawful Good characters have codes of honour as well, but almost invariably treat their own personal goals and opinions as gospel. "I'm a Paladin, and I say THIS is the right way of doing things, therefore if you don't do exactly as I say I'm going to kill you/fight you/stop you."
The_Jester 04-10-08, 10:43 AM	Yeah, too bad there's a good chance those alignments won't exists. Like (almost) everything else 4e related, there's NO way to discuss it without making assumptions.
MatteBlack 04-10-08, 11:10 AM	I have to admit to a certain appeal to playing a Zhent character but, I mostly believe the camapaign will work better if we are all playing goodly heroic type characters. A little party friction can be fun for Rp but open internal warfare gets old fast.
aljergensen 04-10-08, 02:17 PM	Perhaps we are beyond agreeing but, there is a big difference between managing your ruleset for a home campaign and doing so for an international living campaign. An undertested rule that a home campaign can quickly ammend with a houserule or just agree amongst the group to not do often, might well become a big problem for LFR without some sort of restriction. As much as is likely to be produced, there will be broken rules. Why not have a way to deal with them ready. Is allowing everything in the book whether or not it works, actually better than allowing only parts that work well? The only reason to do so would seem to be to allow broken mechanics in the game. The home games I've been involved in had very few (if any) home rules that were designed to mitigate what were considered broken rules. The problem is that one person's broken is another person's normal. I could make a case that the Web spell in 3.5 is broken for example. I've run characters and NPC's that used it to great effect. Fail your initial reflex save? Have a low strength? You're effectively out of the combat. But we keep it because it's such an iconic spell. There are many other examples of things that are allowed in LG that many would consider broken. So yes, I believe we could just play D&D as designed and neither the world nor the Living Campaign would come to an end. I prefer simple solutions over complex solutions whenever practical. Allen.
Vamroc 04-10-08, 05:01 PM	I would like to know what race sources we are limited to because if we have access to all the Monster Manual PC races plus the FR source book PC races some builds are going to be broken right from level one plus I had heard there will be no templates.
MatteBlack 04-10-08, 05:08 PM	I would like to know what races sources we are limited to because if we have access to all the Monster Manual PC races plus the FR source book PC races some builds are going to be broken right from level one plus I had heard there will be no templates. I guess any MM PC race could be possible with access. There are the 3 rewards cards that grant access to gnomes, orcs and shadar-kai from the MM for PC usage. Presumably, it will be the player's handbook(s), the forgotten realms campaign book and other sources if there is special access granted. I wouldn't count on anything beyond the PHB races, the 3 reward access races and drow from the FRCS. There will likely be a few more.
Lightblade 04-11-08, 03:33 PM	I wouldn't count on being able to play Drow right off the bat. I haven't read any of the new literature, but it seems like a stretch to say that enough drow are out there and accepted to make playing one available to anyone. However, i would expect to play Genasi. I believe they are the other FRCS race (might have been confirmed, but i don't have a link). The region corresponding to Canada has been described as the Genasi homeland, and it would be odd if a PC region disallowed the most prevalent race to PCs.