Post/Author/DateTime	Post
tharlan 08-31-07, 12:48 AM	Hey there! If you have played in Living games before, then you know there are some great things about them. There are also some things that make you want you gnash your teeth and scream at times. So that this does not get too nutso with lots of laundry lists of this and that, post: 1 - One thing you would LIKE TO SEE in LFR..... and 2 - One thing you would NOT LIKE TO SEE in LFR.... Take care, and good gaming! Troy E. Daniels LKoK Lead Director Nobody special. :-D
tombollis 08-31-07, 01:05 AM	1. I would like to see free downloadable tools for character maintainence, 2. I would not like to see tools for character maintainence that require paid subscription to use. Tom Bollis
Reneshat 08-31-07, 06:48 AM	1) I would like to see more of Chris Tulach. He has been doing an awesome job keeping us up to date, giving us info, and basically being an amazing go between and administrator. RPGA staff like we currently have will be a HUGE benefit when it comes to organizing the new game. 2) I would not like to see Drizzt Do'Urden, Elminster, or anyone else for that matter. Just make Elminster a god already and be done with it.
RanielK 08-31-07, 07:21 AM	1 - I would like to see the various organizations which have a global presence in Toril, such as the Harpers, the Silver Ravens, even the more LN houses of Thay, opened up as regionless metaorgs. 2 - I don't want to see every other mod run through Waterdeep. Explore more of the map.
miked_msn 08-31-07, 07:27 AM	1.) I would like to see a similar effort by TPTB to keep the play balanced ... as in the "open", "restricted" and "closed" access to items, feats, spells and the like. 2.) I would not like to see a return to the restrictions of regional limitations to play opportunities.
HassanSabbah 08-31-07, 07:30 AM	1) I would like to see mods that makes you feel that your PCs belong to a world, a self-consistent and rich world, and 2) I would not like to see mods which smother you in the mighties of the world in the name of authentic detail and then play out to be an unoriginal, boring adventure.
MatteBlack 08-31-07, 09:35 AM	First and foremost, I'd like to see a structural and procedural format closely resembling that of LG. I thought the campaign ran well in it's overall design and would hate to see much more than some adaptation and tweaking to how LFR might run. (please keep TUs and similar regional structures) I'd also like a Realms campaign that does not cause characters to constantly feel hemmed in by canon or bump into book NPCs. I want to feel as if my character is having an impact and helping to stir the FR pot. (Perhaps, some sort of cataclysmic event could occur and this campaign takes place after it.) I'd also like to see an optional character tracking system to help keep character bookkeeping more orderly in the online service. Being able to run off a document that condensed the individual ARs down onto a few pages could be a major help but, requiring a subscription fee to participate in LFR might be a big limiting factor in its sucess and acceptance.
Purple Dragon Knight 08-31-07, 10:20 AM	1. I would like to see a portable, light tracking system. To say the least, my LG AR binder was getting ridiculously large: hundreds of ARs, and for what? overall, in the 3 years I played LG, maybe one or two DMs ever verified anything from these (only at big Cons too...) 2. I would like to see this campaign occur in the present day Realms (1375 DR, or if in the future, NLT 1385 DR). A 100-year jump in the future will provide too much of an excuse for mod writers to be lazy and not do proper research. The campaign has to be relevant for the Realms as we know them. 3. I would like to see some kind of a "6-month campaign recap" issued as an article online. I would like that these campaign "results" be made canon for the setting. 4. Finally, but not the least, I would like the overhanging presence and support of the Realms' greats (Ed Greenwood, Eric Boyd, Brian R. James, and George Krashos, specifically) to guide the campaign, and also perhaps provide an "Ask the Sage" column online (i.e. "Ask Elminster THE Sage?" ;) ) We need the big guns to make this campaign canon/relevant and to ensure it has the right Realms feel. I think that many of the new Realms afficionados will be floored when they see the amount of details Ed Greenwood can provide when asked a question (i.e. go check the "Chamber of Sages" in the Candlekeep forums, and see the posts from Ed, posted under his friend's account, a marvelous lady named "The Hooded One"; people have asked him anything ranging from vegetables in the Realms to the great noble houses of Cormyr, and he gives the same amount of details/attention to every single question... pages upon pages of juicy goodness, all useable to spice up your games and make it or your characters really stand out!)
DSDFaerun 08-31-07, 10:38 AM	The one item that I look forward to the most is seeing ALL the realms in a living campaign. The one problem I had with LG was that there were vast areas of the campaign that I never got to experience. I played in 10 or more regions but still felt I only got to experience the tip of the iceberg. I hope that we will all get to experience all the realms have to offer. Dan
herosan 08-31-07, 10:53 AM	DM's having the ability to run mods from any region. There were so many great mods in LG that I never got to play just because I couldn't fly to Texas or California to play in them. The online play will make it easier to play with various DMs from other areas but nothing beats the ability to sit down at a table with your friends and play D&D while sharing the cost of a pizza dinner. I'd like to not see any major NPC's in the new campaign. I don't mind new ones appearing but the ones that were created in 2nd or 3rd edition should be put into the past and new ones step forward.
The_Jester 08-31-07, 10:55 AM	1) Optional on-line ARs printable in full-sized versions or condensed copies for ease of travel. 2) LFR given some big epic events that are later reflected in the novels. 3) Core/regionless metaorgs released with the campaign. 4) A redrawn region-map so it's not just LG with different names. 5) Benefits and rewards for DMing and writing, especially those first few mods where finding someone who has played it is harder. 6) Firmer rules for favours. I've seen alot of really weak and bland favours because writers didn't know what they could get away with.
PaladinLazarus 08-31-07, 11:25 AM	1 - A reason to still travel to cons/gaming opportunities in other places. I know a lot more people in the RPGA today because of LG than I ever would have playing LC. 2 - Don't want see anybody anywhere ever getting something for their PCs just because they subscribe to the "pay" version of D&D Insider.
Grimslade2001 08-31-07, 11:37 AM	I would like to see: A tight regional focus. The Realms are a big place and a Toril spanning campaign would be weak sauce for flavor. Narrow the campaign down to a few regions, Western Heartlands, Moonsea or the North and really dig in to preserve a connection for players. What I wouldn't like to see: Regions as factions. It is easier to find adventure in a place and feel like you belong rather than jump around based on a cause. Plus, being able to adventure with opposing or competitive factions would be fun. Brian
tharlan 08-31-07, 11:40 AM	What I wouldn't like to see: Regions as factions. It is easier to find adventure in a place and feel like you belong rather than jump around based on a cause. Plus, being able to adventure with opposing or competitive factions would be fun. Brian Odd question Brian? What if you had "meta-factions" that worked in a similar manner to Meta-regions that were playable by everyone? I think it would be fun to explore my area of the world but occasionally go on one of those grand adventures with the Knights of Myth Drannor.. Just a thought.. Troy
ankhwearer 08-31-07, 12:45 PM	Don't want see anybody anywhere ever getting something for their PCs just because they subscribe to the "pay" version of D&D Insider. You make a valid point, but I would like to remind you that in LG you have to have a copy of the book that a character feature, such as a feat. So, here, players that bought the Spell Compendium (for instance) get something for their PCs that other players don't get. Of course, the difference here is that you still have to earn access to rare stuff through play, but the items that are open in the LGCS are still not available to players without the correct book.
ankhwearer 08-31-07, 12:50 PM	What if all of the LR metaorgs were converted into Affliations? What if advancement in the meta-orgs required character advancement and missions tied into mods, like the Greyhawk Ruins campaign arc?
gizmonster 08-31-07, 01:00 PM	One think I would like to see in LFR, more realisitc access to magic items. While adventuring in LG, you would find a Wand of CLW, but then after the AR's are signed, there are 3 wands of CLWs because three people wanted it. The orginal way the certs were treated in the first two years of LG was better, but people used to fight over the certs, so I'd like to avoid that, I think you should still have to pay for the items, because the rest of the group needs to get their share of that gold, but only one character should get it unless there was more than one found. How about this, if two people want the same item, bidding starts at the listed price, whoever is willing to pay more, gets the item, and the extra gold distributed to the party. The only problem I see with this system is that some selfish people will bid on the item to get the price up to get more gold for themselves, especially if the KNOW the other character would REALLY like that item. So I don't really know how to handle that situation.
delewobmesid 08-31-07, 02:34 PM	1) Open access for 'common' items like LG went to last year (lvl 1 wands, vests of resistance, +1-+5 weapons and armor, etc); 2) I don't want to meet Jarlaxle in game or see a Drow PC (cohort maybe, but PC, let's not go there yet).
ceregon 08-31-07, 02:46 PM	I would like to see access to character development options (like feats and spells) handled like they are in Xendrik. Ban a small number of broken things and then use expansion slots for unusual things. It is frustrating to want to play something and never see it on an AR or see it on an AR you just got for another character. I would not like to see open regional play. If you can play any region's adventures anywhere, then there will not be much travel. Without travel, conventions become more cost prohibitive because those travelers subsidize meeting room costs by staying at the con hotel. I run Theocracy by the Bay, the largest RPGA convention on the west coast, and it is only economically viable because of the large number of sleeping rooms booked by the attendees. There will certainly be more game days if there are fewer conventions, but there will probably be fewer overall tables because conventions draw out more of the casual gamers. Conventions bring large numbers of people together and provide that vital sense of community that helped LG prosper.
ankhwearer 08-31-07, 03:49 PM	How about this, if two people want the same item, bidding starts at the listed price, whoever is willing to pay more, gets the item, and the extra gold distributed to the party. Well, the other problem here is that sold items only gain half price, but the player has to pay full price to keep it. So, in effect, the rest of the party gets more treasure each time someone buys the item for themselves. This encourages parties to buy up everything, even if it is not really that interesting to them, because it doubles the gold cap for them as a group. But, as hinted by the Designer's blog entries, treasure is just not going to work the same way in 4e. Rewards will come in a different form and items will never be allotted by random draw. All of the recommendations I have seen so far are still stuck in the 3.5 mind-set, and probably won't be valid in 4e. (But then again, we don't have much else to base stuff on, do we?)
ankhwearer 08-31-07, 03:58 PM	I would not like to see open regional play. If you can play any region's adventures anywhere, then there will not be much travel. Players still have to go somewhere to play these mods, even if it is not to another region. There are only so many events in a single region, so if you play a lot, you'll still need to travel to get to other tables of RPGA mods. To me it does not follow that opening up the regionals to be played anywhere will result in fewer cons. It might mean that people travel a shorter distance, only hitting the closest cons, but they will still have to travel. There is no way that the Bay Area can run 80 mods in the course of one year without increasing the number of cons, so avid players would be required to travel anyway. It does mean, however, that the mods that get the best word-of-mouth and the most interest can be played in more locations.
ceregon 08-31-07, 04:26 PM	Players still have to go somewhere to play these mods, even if it is not to another region. There are only so many events in a single region, so if you play a lot, you'll still need to travel to get to other tables of RPGA mods. To me it does not follow that opening up the regionals to be played anywhere will result in fewer cons. It might mean that people travel a shorter distance, only hitting the closest cons, but they will still have to travel. There is no way that the Bay Area can run 80 mods in the course of one year without increasing the number of cons, so avid players would be required to travel anyway. There are two game stores in the bay area with large gaming areas that run RPGA games on multiple nights. One store alone running two mods each Monday night is more than 100 mods in one year. The other store runs even more games because it has Tuesday, Thursday and occasionally Saturday games. This means the Bay Area can easily run 80 mods at least twice in one year without any change in the number of cons. People won't need to go to a con at all, they can go to a game store or set up frequent game days with their friends.
tombollis 08-31-07, 05:46 PM	One think I would like to see in LFR, more realisitc access to magic items. While adventuring in LG, you would find a Wand of CLW, but then after the AR's are signed, there are 3 wands of CLWs because three people wanted it. I have the opposite opinion. Each PC at a table is in his own copy of the world, and can interact later with characters from other tables that can have the same items, so why not characters from the same table having a different history as to who got the item? I want each character at the table to have item choice independent of what others choose. The AR should indicate what items are available, their price, and the total value of treasure (items and gp) the character has earned. The character then buys the items he wants at full price, out of trease value, sabed gold, and/or selli8ng existing items (at full price) before his next adventure. No selling at half price, as it reduces net worth from that appropriate for the level. Allow selling/trading to other PCs, but only for equal value. Treat any special items gained in a module, such as an individual prize from a competion, independent from the treasure pool., Tom Bollis
grandhammer 08-31-07, 07:14 PM	1. Interesting Regions/ Metaregions that players like to be in, not stuck in. (Im from BK and have HATED it, No offense against the mods just dont like the flavor of being wanted by Iuz all the time) 2. NO drow pc's!! I don't mind drizzt, I actually like the stories. I just dont want everyone playing a clone. Personally I will never play a dark-elf. Id rather try something different. Possible region Idea's?? just my $.02 (Using the map from pg 100-101 FRCS3E) 1. Waterdeep, Sword Coast, Icewind Dale, Evermeet, Hordelands(Core) 2. Silver Marches 3. Moonshaes, Nethlander 4. Tethyr 5. Calimshan 6. Halruaa 7. The Shaar 8. Cormyr 9. Dragon Coast 10. Mulhorand, Unther 11. The Moonsea 12. Dalelands 13. Sembia 14. Chessenta 15. Western Heartlands 16. Chult (Whole Peninsula) 17. Damara (Cold Lands) 18. Lake of Steam 19. Great rift, Luiren, and Dambrath 20. and Thay. Figuring they'll save Anauroch for something like Bright sands. Also figuring that even with the spellplague these will be similar general area's in 4E as in 3E So what Ya'll Think? OH and Please Please dont put texas in Thay!!:banghead: :headexplo
Grimslade2001 08-31-07, 07:39 PM	Odd question Brian? What if you had "meta-factions" that worked in a similar manner to Meta-regions that were playable by everyone? I think it would be fun to explore my area of the world but occasionally go on one of those grand adventures with the Knights of Myth Drannor.. Just a thought.. Troy I'd like to have campaign wide orgs for PCs to join but make them affiliations like in GHR. Meta-regionals would be a great way to showcase the interplay between these factions/groups. Maybe make them like the old LG adaptables but adapt them for each of the major factions. Keoland did that in LG to some success. Lots of people played the same general plot and opponents but the macguffin was changed slightly in each to make the meta-org a little more important. Brian
mark1978 09-01-07, 04:33 AM	OMG, I can't believe someone asked this question. Alright, let me breathe in deep here....and........GO! 1. Time Unit revisions such as a better system than the 52 TUs/year system when the majority of single TU adventure are about two game-days-long. 2. A system allowing players to sell items to other players. The balance factor is that the person buying the items from the other player has to spend money. This allows players to legitimately make some money on crafting, since they are losing experience and gold for crafting. 3. Better balanced encounters. A CR 6 encounter is designed to be a challange for a party of four 6th level characters, why am I fighting a CR 9 encounter on hampered terrain when the hampering terrain was not factor into a +1 CR to the encounter, and my character is dead because the circle did not properly restrict a broken encounter? Don't get me wrong, player deaths do happen, and they should once-in-a-while. But, I have heard of module encounters that TPK like mad. 4. Access is about the most delimiting factor ever. D&D tries to fight against the likes of HeroSystem and GURPs as being the most open-ended RPG out there, then their big RPGA campaign places levels of constraints on the creativity. A system more akin to the Xen'drik campaign expansion slots makes more sense for the purposes of better balance, while still promoting less carbon-copy characters. That is all for now, Mark
Barimol 09-01-07, 05:02 AM	There are two game stores in the bay area with large gaming areas that run RPGA games on multiple nights. One store alone running two mods each Monday night is more than 100 mods in one year. The other store runs even more games because it has Tuesday, Thursday and occasionally Saturday games. This means the Bay Area can easily run 80 mods at least twice in one year without any change in the number of cons. People won't need to go to a con at all, they can go to a game store or set up frequent game days with their friends. You're fortunate to have so many gaming opportunities available to you. This is not, however, the case for everyone. Many players may only be able to attend one convention a year due to outside commitments or more likely now travel expense. Conventions for the most part will still draw the same players who would have gone anyway, and as for building a sense of community the internet is proving everyday that online communities are a viable supplement to real life meetings. Opening all modules for universal play would allow players in these situations more play opportunities as well, and possibly encourage more people to take up the hobby that we love so much. As for what I'd like to see. 1. An optional online system for keeping track of AR's accessible by GM's and Convention judges. They could confirm and print AR's at the game site for players; an officially confirmed and printed AR for your first day at a con could speed up play. What I'd not like to see. 1. Restrictions on high level play. 4th edition will go to 30th level lets take advantage of it, there are plenty of writers out there capable of creating high level mods. If all mods are playable anywhere, more play options could be available for high level characters.
tombollis 09-01-07, 07:27 AM	2. A system allowing players to sell items to other players. The balance factor is that the person buying the items from the other player has to spend money. This allows players to legitimately make some money on crafting, since they are losing experience and gold for crafting. I think it has been implied that magic item creation won't cost xp. If anything, I think a PC should gain xp for activities that increase wealth (creating something for half price increases net wort by the amount saved (if you can sell the item for full price, as you should), so you should gain xp based on the increase in net worth rather than the 3.X mechanic of losing xp based on total value of the item. Thus, things that make the character more powerful and effective, even outside of adventures, should speed level advancement rather than slow it, keeping the character more in balance with his level. I would like to see a closer tie between net worth and experience points. Tom Bollis
Jonathon_M_Johnson 09-01-07, 03:55 PM	1 - I would like to see the various organizations which have a global presence in Toril, such as the Harpers, the Silver Ravens, even the more LN houses of Thay, opened up as regionless metaorgs. 2 - I don't want to see every other mod run through Waterdeep. Explore more of the map. Hello all- Speaking of the map... By looking at it on my wall, is there more of the map that could be explored? Could a cartographer be hired on and fill in the rest of the world? That was one thing I found bothering for LG was that there was only a part of the Flanaess that you could explore. Was the world flat? LOL Thanks Jonathon M. Johnson Colorado
Jonathon_M_Johnson 09-01-07, 04:00 PM	1.) I would like to see a similar effort by TPTB to keep the play balanced ... as in the "open", "restricted" and "closed" access to items, feats, spells and the like. 2.) I would not like to see a return to the restrictions of regional limitations to play opportunities. Hello all- I still say we throw out the different accesses to the items, feats, spells, and the like. If the bad guys and gals can use them, then why not us. Sure alot of people talk about balance and stuff and that is why we have the "Open" and "Closed" access. If it does come to the restricted accesses, then maybe we could have an "Open", "Limited" and "Special" access. With the "Special", the player's PC would have to contact their Triad for a "Special Mission" to obtain that item, feat, spell or the like. Thanks Jonathon M. Johnson Colorado
Jonathon_M_Johnson 09-01-07, 04:26 PM	I have the opposite opinion. Each PC at a table is in his own copy of the world, and can interact later with characters from other tables that can have the same items, so why not characters from the same table having a different history as to who got the item? I want each character at the table to have item choice independent of what others choose. The AR should indicate what items are available, their price, and the total value of treasure (items and gp) the character has earned. The character then buys the items he wants at full price, out of trease value, sabed gold, and/or selli8ng existing items (at full price) before his next adventure. No selling at half price, as it reduces net worth from that appropriate for the level. Allow selling/trading to other PCs, but only for equal value. Treat any special items gained in a module, such as an individual prize from a competion, independent from the treasure pool., Tom Bollis Hello all- I can see the selling at half price as wear and tear on the item; just think of car depreciation after driving off of the car lot. Now though half price might be a bit steep, maybe up it to 3/4 price. I love the idea of selling/trading to other PCs; keeping the cost to equal value would be good to not have friend players team up on one friend player to make them rich. I think it is a load of crap when they say that players will cheat because of this. If the DM has a question on an item or the amount of gold one has, then just ask to see the documentation on the item, I.e. date, cost, readable DM name & RPGA #, and then continue the game. I would love to see the Certificates come back; especially the special item certificates. I have what is called the "Zodal Sword" from the LG County of Urnst region. Everytime I roll a "Natural 20" or a "Max damage", I get a signature; I am at signature 90. The sword starts out as a +1 Longsword and mine is now a +2 Keen Spell Storing Longsword. Individual prizes and such in modules would be great and to not put them in the treasure pot at the end of the game. What I would like to see is gambling and such as to get extra money up and over the gold cap. Maybe put a cap on the extra money that you can obtain per level or APL level. Thanks Jonathon M. Johnson Colorado
qstor 09-03-07, 11:27 AM	1. There was some talk on the LFR Yahoo! list about NPC's and plots from Living City. I DO NOT want those in the LFR. I want something new. 2. NO online PC tracking and level bumps. I want a PURE living campaign with PC's starting next year at level one and xp and gp based solely on module play. 3. If there's a regional system some restriction on module play from region to region. 4. Campaign wide meta orgs. 5. AR's no certs. 5. Open item access like in the CY596 LGCS. Mike
PuttChutney 09-03-07, 09:04 PM	Some good comments on here. My two cents: 1. Continue AR tracking as in LG. A secure way to send/track ARs digitally would be great. 2. Certs would still be good for special items-I'd also like to see more stuff like the Zodal Sword 3. The XE access system works better in my opinion and is easier to manage. The admins can ban a few select things they don't like, then players can open up what they like. Add in module and meta-org based access and there's no reason why anyone can't build a PC they like. 4. Oh yeah, meta-orgs would be good. 5. I don't see why the LG TU system wouldn't work. I've been playing LG for several years and it's never posed a problem for me--I am aware that my experience may differ from others. 6. Allow out of region mods to be played on-line only. I'd still like to see some form of regional restriction for f2f play. Discuss......
tharlan 09-03-07, 09:20 PM	1. There was some talk on the LFR Yahoo! list about NPC's and plots from Living City. I DO NOT want those in the LFR. I want something new. Mike Hey there Mike! When I mentioned putting NPCs or plots from Living City, I was referring of course to Ravens Bluff. Not dragging out the old Dragon Cycle or something like that. I was thinking more along the lines of would it be cool to put a scenario or two out there that allowed people (some of them new who have never been there) to visit this place that they have heard mention of during their LG games. I was not thinking of starting out whole huge plot lines or bringing back "the former glory". I guess I hit myself in the head with the Nostalgia Mallet.. :-) Take care! Troy
Britt 09-03-07, 11:11 PM	2. NO online PC tracking and level bumps. I want a PURE living campaign with PC's starting next year at level one and xp and gp based solely on module play. There will be no level bump system in LFR; that has been stated definitively.
donovanh 09-03-07, 11:46 PM	I would like to see a couple of things... 1) If there will be a restricted access list, then it should be truly restricted. If PC's can't have it, NPC's shouldn't be able to access it either unless it is only restricted for "evil" issues (whatever the alignment system comes out as in 4.0). :eek: 2) Keep the TU system from LG. It works. It is one of the continuously good working things from LG that has been in place from beginning to end. :) 3) DO NOT allow drow as a player race at any point in time, not even as a special access. The Realms is so much more than one angst-ridden drow ranger, and I would rather see that Faerun explored, not 1500 little Driz'zt clones running around. :(
tharlan 09-03-07, 11:55 PM	3) DO NOT allow drow as a player race at any point in time, not even as a special access. The Realms is so much more than one angst-ridden drow ranger, and I would rather see that Faerun explored, not 1500 little Driz'zt clones running around. :( Heh.. I think that we all can agree that although the books overall are good, we do not need Drow Elf as a PC Playable race.. at any time.. ever. Not even as some cool special thingy that someone can win. Take care! Troy
tombollis 09-04-07, 07:23 AM	Heh.. I think that we all can agree that although the books overall are good, we do not need Drow Elf as a PC Playable race.. at any time.. ever. Not even as some cool special thingy that someone can win. Take care! Troy You think wrong. Some of us see no reason, at this stage, for categorically ruling out drow as a PC playable race in LFR. Indications are that all humanoid races are likely to have balanced progressions, making them playable. If a good or neutral drow is possible under 4e rules, it should be a valid choice for a PC. The only reason there would ever be "1500 little Driz'zt clones running around" would be that 1500 players wanted to play such a character, and were able to build one starting from 1st level under 4e rules. I doubt I would want to play a drow myself, and definitely not a clone of any character from a FR novel, but the 4e drow character rules might change my mind about the race. I don't want to see too many clones of any sort, including the "perfect" raging barbarian, elvin archer, martialwizard, combat cleric, tank, cork, etc. I vant to see lots of good choices available from the core rule books, with only minor buffing from any expansion looks, and the ability ro play most party-compatible PC concepts the players desire. Tom Bollis
Rerednaw 09-04-07, 10:16 AM	1. Fun: role-playing rewards, not rewards for optimized +x. Allow access for everything with a price (the Xen'drik expansion list.) 2. Not fun: bookeeping (TU's, consumables, 100+AR's, favors, etc.), being an extra in a campaign overloaded with celebrities, being one-shot by a peasant with a sling at level 20.
qstor 09-04-07, 10:21 AM	I think that we all can agree that although the books overall are good, we do not need Drow Elf as a PC Playable race.. at any time.. ever. Not even as some cool special thingy that someone can win. Take care! Troy There's been some talk on ENworld that in 4e the ECL "system", would be reworked, thus a tiefling was one of the 4e drawings released at GenCon Indy 2007. So I might expect asamirs (sp) and tieflings in LFR. Britt, I'm glad there are no level bumps. I'd still rather not see online character tracking. I'd rather not have to print out my character level each time I play. The DM should be able to verify the PCs level by the paperwork possessed by the player and not have to have a laptop to check it. Mike
Peter_Seckler 09-04-07, 10:55 AM	Drow should absolutely be allowed as a PC race. Half the Forgotten Realms books are about a wildly popular drow character. And if it's that popular, that means.. it's exactly what people wanted! In other words, everything tombollis said.
Lord Toast 09-04-07, 11:28 AM	I would like to see: the standard of living cost to be wavered for the characters very first AR. I would not like to see: strict requirements for joining a meta-org. There is nothing worse than having over ten possible meta-orgs available for your region but you only qualify for one of them….and even then you need to wait until you are third level.
Emirikol 09-04-07, 11:54 AM	I had a LONG post about what I'd like to see different this time compared to when I was involved with the starting of LG (I was triad from year 0 to 3). Here's the deal: We've been doing this living stuff for what? 20 YEARS? Why is it that it is so dang difficult to get some standards for the campaign? Every new administrator is WELCOME. Every new administrator is TREASURED. Every new administrator thinks he needs to recreate the wheel and every old administrator FAILS to pass on the knowledge that is necessary to do things quickly and effectively. In my experience the following are the most important things to ANY campaign: 1. Local enthusiasm and support (including supporting your DM's and conventions) 2. Adventure number and quality 3. There is no "3." That's it. All of that 'other' crap that triad's were/are getting wrapped up in is what holds LG back. The first thing you guys need to release is the "HERE'S BEEN OUR EXPERIENCE AS LIVING ADMINISTRATORS" guide. Here are the topics: 1. Regional plot standards and how to best get your plot's revealed to players (both online and at conventions) 2. How to do a chain of adventures to advance a plot 3. Adventure standards. Hard corners! Here's your word count limit. Here's your format. Here's how the admins will be editing them quickly and easily. Here's what is expected of writers and why the admin's WILL use lots of RED INK in your scenario...etc. 4. Metaorg's should be standardized!!..every Triad wasted YEARS recreating the wheel in this regards. They should be click and paste and worry-free. 5. EXPERIENCES: Here's where we expect and regularly experience problems and here's how best to solve them. 6. If there is to be a "triad" as before regionally, there MUST BE DEFINED ROLES!!!!!!!! Also, a section on when to retire as an admin... Reason 1) You aren't pulling your weight; Reason 2) You aren't pulling your weight; Reason 3) You aren't pulling your weight. Ok, I'm rambling now :) jh
aljergensen 09-04-07, 01:13 PM	Support high level characters. Keep some sort of APL system similar to LG. I would like to get rid of much of the overhead that LG had. Have open access similar to Eberron, banning as little as possible. Eliminate the need for 100+ ARs for a high level character and notebooks worth of paper. I should have a character sheet and a couple of pages of "tracking" information. I should be able to flip through an allowed source book to figure out my character without having to cross-reference pages of documentation. Have a physical "cert" for NPC favors. Make it so that it is possible for everyone at the table gets one (if there are any for the adventure). If you use an NPC favor it gets handed to the DM. These favors should not be for access to items/feats/prestige classes because those should not be limited. Get rid of, or revise TU limits. If I want to play a specific character a lot, let me. This will help when I want to "catch up" to friends and allow me to have fun playing the character(s) I want to play. Character level can be controlled by max APL released, and I will still have multiple PCs at various levels so that I can play at game days/cons. But don't make me stop playing a character for 10 months out of the year because I decided to play the equivalent of RHOD. There are a lot of great mods out there that I will never get a chance to play because they aren't based in my region and I can't afford to travel. Open up regional mods to other regions even if there is some penalty associated. For example if I play another region's mod and I don't travel to their con, I don't get full gp/xp. Have a rating system so I know what mods are worth playing when I don't have time to play everything. See Nyrond.org for an example. Allen.
RanielK 09-04-07, 01:25 PM	Hello all- Speaking of the map... By looking at it on my wall, is there more of the map that could be explored? Could a cartographer be hired on and fill in the rest of the world? That was one thing I found bothering for LG was that there was only a part of the Flanaess that you could explore. Was the world flat? LOL Thanks Jonathon M. Johnson Colorado Actually, the Abir Toril is pretty well defined in past products. Kara Tur (Oriental Adventures) is to the east/northeast of the Realms. Zakhara (the Al Qaddim setting) is to the south/southeast of the Realms. Maztica is on its own continent to the west of the Realms, past all of the island kingdoms like the Moonshaes or Evermeet. There are two unnamed Island/Continents, otherwise, its all been mapped at one time or another.
Lord Toast 09-04-07, 01:28 PM	I would like to echo something said above about campaign recap; however, instead of a recap every six months there could be a recap after every rewards mailing. I would also like to see articles similar to ‘mysterious places’, small informative articles which have the extra bonus of having material that could be used immediately in LG. This would be great in LFR. Also to make the game feel truly unique for the players once a year offer a DM’s mark adventure.
quizboy 09-04-07, 02:21 PM	I've seen several posts now about how some people want to go to an online version of ARs (as well as several people who don't want to change the AR system). I'm a long time Campaign player and rarely a LG player, but I can tell you this: one of the biggest things about LG that makes me jealous is the AR system! The current status of the RPGA online tracking is unpleasant. I know many players who have given up trying to correct their characters online due to mistakes in the database. I agree that easy online tracking would be the Holy Grail of this type of gaming, but the RPGA hasn't had the support needed to do online tracking correctly. They've tried really hard to do the online tracking correctly, but it's hard with the limited support that the RPGA gets. The lastest Campagin, Xen'drik, has gone to an AR-like tracking system (called advenure journals), and it's been a godsend. This has saved a lot of people a lot of heartache because they can now track events via _paper_trails_. It just doesn't track XP or gold, and many of us are missing entire adventures. All the XP/gold is tracked online, and only online. I know 4E is supposed to be more online saavy, and the guys at WotC have lots of support for the online content, but I have grave worries for the RPGA online support. --Quizboy
Reneshat 09-04-07, 04:17 PM	I'd like to see an LFR website that has more than just crunch information on it. A sight that could allow articles once every couple of months out of each region written by authors, administrators, or even hardcore players. These articles could give us a feel for regions we might not be able to visit otherwise, and help fill out the world for many, and let us know what is going on. I know this would have been much more useful in LG, seeing how there are already tons of articles and websites devoted to Forgotten Realms, but I still see a use for it, especially since they are saying that we will be able to make our own mark on the world.
Britt 09-04-07, 10:25 PM	I believe that the online tracking system, if there is one, will not be at all like the current systems and should be acceptable to pretty much everyone. I obviously don't really know any more than the average person, but I've listened to particular topics very closely :)
Skerrit 09-05-07, 01:37 PM	I agree with Britt, from what I have heard the tracking system (whatever form it may take) is not likely to be the same as those used for the D&D campaigns.
Neumaster 09-05-07, 04:27 PM	I'd like to see an LFR website that has more than just crunch information on it. A sight that could allow articles once every couple of months out of each region written by authors, administrators, or even hardcore players. These articles could give us a feel for regions we might not be able to visit otherwise, and help fill out the world for many, and let us know what is going on. I know this would have been much more useful in LG, seeing how there are already tons of articles and websites devoted to Forgotten Realms, but I still see a use for it, especially since they are saying that we will be able to make our own mark on the world. Excellent Idea, I would add that it include setting descriptors that may appeal to certain types of role playing enthusiasts such as aquatic, shipboard, landborn, rural, urban, desert. etc. I have ideas for characters that would sail the Sword Coast or skulk the alleys of big cities that would want to seek out the best opportunities to fulfill the flavor of their character.
KarmaInferno 09-05-07, 06:08 PM	You think wrong. Some of us see no reason, at this stage, for categorically ruling out drow as a PC playable race in LFR. Indications are that all humanoid races are likely to have balanced progressions, making them playable. If a good or neutral drow is possible under 4e rules, it should be a valid choice for a PC. There would have to be some major, MAJOR in-game changes for this to be possible. Drow are traditionally evil, genocidal, and want everyone else to be either enslaved or dead. The number of "good" or even "neutral" drow in the previous history has been a TINY handful. Certainly not enough numbers to justify the thousands that would appear out of the woodwork if they were freely allowed in LFR. In short, the reason they shouldn't be allowed is not because of any balance issues, or even anything to do with Drizzt. If we assume a heroic slant to LFR, (and nothing has hinted it will be otherwise), Drow should not be allowed because it doesn't make any damn sense, story-wise. And I say this as someone who played one in LC to 23rd level. -karma
TimRat 09-05-07, 06:28 PM	ya from what i have read online it appears that they may be getting rid of the ECL and all that so that if you want to play a tiefling you can play one. now of course for the new LFR who knows if you will be allowed to play one. in the "grand history of the realms' they go 10 years in the future from the current timeline and there are major changes. so between that and the orc king i'm sure everyone will see where their headed.
AlfredWAB 09-05-07, 08:57 PM	Odd question Brian? What if you had "meta-factions" that worked in a similar manner to Meta-regions that were playable by everyone? I think it would be fun to explore my area of the world but occasionally go on one of those grand adventures with the Knights of Myth Drannor.. Just a thought.. Troy Troy, I like that idea. I like the regional flavor. And you need regional structure in my opinion to support local cons, etc. It is part of what made LG work in my opinion. But it would be nice to be able to play some mods of other regions without having to travel. Keep the regions, but replace the Metaregions with "meta-factions" that everyone could play. Interesting concept. Alfred
AlfredWAB 09-05-07, 09:14 PM	1. I'm tired of carting around 30 books, so I have a legitimate copy of what I am playing with my PCs. I'd prefer to pay a monthly subscription service for digital access only to everything published for use in the campaign. It gives Wizards a steady income, and I don't have to buy so many hard-back books that I don't need cluttering up the house. 2. The one thing I really don't want to see in the new campaign is "evil" player characters. That is probably the only thing that would keep me from playing in the new campaign. At least with Xendrick, we had the option of a different campaign like LG. With all the campaigns being closed down and only the one campaing left, those of us that don't want to play in that type of environment will be out of the RPGA if it is allowed. Alfred Anderson
Jonathon_M_Johnson 09-06-07, 12:49 AM	You think wrong. Some of us see no reason, at this stage, for categorically ruling out drow as a PC playable race in LFR. Indications are that all humanoid races are likely to have balanced progressions, making them playable. If a good or neutral drow is possible under 4e rules, it should be a valid choice for a PC. The only reason there would ever be "1500 little Driz'zt clones running around" would be that 1500 players wanted to play such a character, and were able to build one starting from 1st level under 4e rules. I doubt I would want to play a drow myself, and definitely not a clone of any character from a FR novel, but the 4e drow character rules might change my mind about the race. I don't want to see too many clones of any sort, including the "perfect" raging barbarian, elvin archer, martialwizard, combat cleric, tank, cork, etc. I vant to see lots of good choices available from the core rule books, with only minor buffing from any expansion looks, and the ability ro play most party-compatible PC concepts the players desire. Tom Bollis Hello all- Well if not a Drow, then how about the half-drow that I see in the FRCS book? Are Drows even accepted in anyplace on Faerun? If they are, then they should be allowed as PC. In the end... If you really don't like Drow, quit complaining and don't play them. Alot of people here in Colorado complained about Centaurs and kobolds as PCs. I have a Centaur, "X", that I love playing and was looking forward to playing a kobold. T-minus alot of days and losing count. :-) Jonathon M. Johnson Colorado viva la drow
Jonathon_M_Johnson 09-06-07, 12:58 AM	I'd like to see an LFR website that has more than just crunch information on it. A sight that could allow articles once every couple of months out of each region written by authors, administrators, or even hardcore players. These articles could give us a feel for regions we might not be able to visit otherwise, and help fill out the world for many, and let us know what is going on. I know this would have been much more useful in LG, seeing how there are already tons of articles and websites devoted to Forgotten Realms, but I still see a use for it, especially since they are saying that we will be able to make our own mark on the world. Hello all- I would like to see an LFR website also. Instead of having major information that would make your eyes bog out from the screen glare, just have quick blurbs of what is going on in the region. This way, the next time you go to another region to play at their convention, you don't have to ask, "Hey... What is going on in your region". Laters Jonathon M. Johnson Colorado
scotthere 09-06-07, 01:03 AM	The one thing I really don't want to see in the new campaign is "evil" player characters. That is probably the only thing that would keep me from playing in the new campaign. At least with Xendrick, we had the option of a different campaign like LG. With all the campaigns being closed down and only the one campaing left, those of us that don't want to play in that type of environment will be out of the RPGA if it is allowed. Alfred Anderson[/QUOTE] I totally agree with this - having evil PC's in the game would turn away a lot of people, myself incuded. In the September chat Chris Tulach did not answer this question directly when asked and that has been a concern for me and a few others i know. Scott Cahn
WotC_Tulach 09-06-07, 01:43 AM	I totally agree with this - having evil PC's in the game would turn away a lot of people, myself incuded. In the September chat Chris Tulach did not answer this question directly when asked and that has been a concern for me and a few others i know. Actually, let me see if I can make that answer more clear - the LFR campaign will be heroic, but should have enough gray that team-oriented mercenary types can have fun too. I really can't comment on it any further since I'm not really "in the know" about aspects of the new game that would allow me to give a more direct answer. I know I want to see your PC as a hero. I don't want to see your character as a bloodthirsty killer. Something in-between might be OK.
HassanSabbah 09-06-07, 07:51 AM	I really can't comment on it any further since I'm not really "in the know" about aspects of the new game that would allow me to give a more direct answer. My interpretation of Chris's answer: He doesn't know what form the alignment system will take in 4E mechanics, but expressed in today's mechanics, the game will favor Good or Neutral alignments. Baris
RanielK 09-06-07, 09:21 AM	The one thing I really don't want to see in the new campaign is "evil" player characters. That is probably the only thing that would keep me from playing in the new campaign. At least with Xendrick, we had the option of a different campaign like LG. With all the campaigns being closed down and only the one campaing left, those of us that don't want to play in that type of environment will be out of the RPGA if it is allowed. Scott Cahn There is going to be another D&D Campaign style campaign being offered after Xendric. Also the Dawn of Defiance is being run, presumably to test the waters for a possible return of Living Force under Saga rules.
qstor 09-06-07, 09:36 AM	Chris/Britt etc to echo Chris's comments on the RPGA chat about LFR and regional conventions, I've only been in the RPGA since LG and 2000 but regional conventions have ALWAYS been a strong part of the RPGA going back to the LC days. I think having LFR mods playable anywhere might be a drawback. LG has promoted strong regional convention play with the regional system I know the RPGA and WOTC want to promote home play but I don't think this should be done at the expense of conventions. If people can wait a month before playing a "Bobs Wordl" adventure at home, they won't travel to Weekend in Bobs World to play it. And people won't drive from US state X to play at Weekend in Bobs World cause they can play it at home in state Y. Just a thought... Mike
GeorgeFHarris 09-06-07, 11:41 AM	Hey there! 1 - One thing you would LIKE TO SEE in LFR..... and 2 - One thing you would NOT LIKE TO SEE in LFR.... 1. PCs have an effect on the plotlines. Maybe have Regional BIs (similar to LG) that expire after 2-3 months, but the outcome really affects the plots. 2. Meta-Organizations that require that you game (OOC) with (secret) people. The thing about LC that left the worst taste in my mouth was how the Harpers Meta-Org was handled. For most of the campaign, the only way you could join was if you played with another PC that was a harper. And you weren't allowed to know OOC who had a Harper PC. I even heard that if the player mentioned that they wanted a particular PC to be a harper, that could disqualify that PC from being a harper. I like how some LG organizations operated (I was from Gran March) where there were enough encounters with NPC Meta-Org members that you could be squired/sponsored to certain organization (normally either KotW/D or Thieve's Guilds) without ever having to meet another PC member. GH
MatteBlack 09-06-07, 11:43 AM	I enjoy cons and go to one or two a year but, I think the measure of success for a game is whether people are playing it not, whether it supports gaming conventions. If the new system and campaigns promote con gaming great but, it shouldn't come at the expense of expanding how people play the game and participate in the campaign. I am very comfortable with the current LG format but, limiting home play opportunities should be done to better the campaign not to preserve convention participation. Lee
cetiken 09-06-07, 01:25 PM	I want to see: Modules and lots of them I don't want to see: The superheros of the relms beloved by authors. (I think we all know who I'm talking about).
The_Voice_Of_Reason 09-06-07, 05:24 PM	1 - One thing you would LIKE TO SEE in LFR..... and 2 - One thing you would NOT LIKE TO SEE in LFR.... 1. An AR system similar to the one LG uses now. If it can be used online, or if it meshes with an online tracking system that's a bonus, but people who have limited access to bandwidth or computers should not be hedged out of LFR for that reason. 2. Others have said this, but it really is important enough to repeat: There is nothing less fun than watching a bunch of Canon NPCs do things. The Player Characters are the Main Characters... the Heroes... of the story. A module that takes that away from the players is just a novel read aloud by a GM. What does this mean for LFR? NPCs that are mentioned by name in more than one novel should be strictly off-limits... these characters should all suffer sudden irreversible deaths before LFR starts. Also I'd like to see a moratorium on Drow PCs at least for the first year. (This will at least ensure that Drow Ranger PCs won't be people's first and only LFR character.)
KarmaInferno 09-06-07, 10:29 PM	Well if not a Drow, then how about the half-drow that I see in the FRCS book? Are Drows even accepted in anyplace on Faerun? No, not really. There is one tiny out of the way nation, Dambrath, that espouses friendly relations between Drow and others, but it's secretly behind-the-scenes controlled by evil drow overlords, who maintain control via fear and secret police-type stuff. You speak up, you disappear. And so does your family and all your friends. Almost everywhere else aboveground, Drow don't even ususally get to say "Hello" before they're pincushioned by a hundred arrows. It's not the kind of wary "keep a spear pointed at it at all times" kind of reaction that folks have towards, say, kobolds. It's the "OH MY GODS kill it kill it now KILLLLL ITTT" kinda reaction. Kobolds might be here to steal stuff and eat your chickens and maybe stab you if you got in their way, but Drow? The only reason they'd be upworld is to murder your whole family and do unspeakable things to their bodies. If you are very lucky, in that order. It's outright hate and disgust and homicidal rage most upworlders feel towards Drow. And most Drow feel the same way back. Every drow nation has plans for the future where they slaughter or enslave every other species on the planet. Are there a few exceptions? Sure. Like, a few dozen. On the entire planet. All the others are vile, evil sorts that enjoy killing babies and eating their still-beating hearts. I'm not really exaggerating. They are the boogeymen. The Evil That Lurks in Darkness. The Bad Guys. There are a probably a couple of good-hearted demons out there, too. I wouldn't let either be a playable race in a heroic-slanted campaign. Half-drow are not treated much better. At best, they get a sort or wary pity, as there's been plenty of times when drow raiding parties have left behind pregnant victims. Most are generally suspected of being drow collaborators and can face immediate jailing or lynching if they travel openly, no matter how friendly they try to be. Most hide and disguise themselves as much as they can. I can see a few non-evil drow appearing as a rare NPC here and there. Some of the more wierdness-loving cities (Yes, like Ravens Bluff, where the Naval Director of Operations was a Drow) might be slightly more accepting, but even there if a drow of half drow walked alone into the wrong alley they're never be seen again. But the hundreds or thousands you'd get if freely available? Not a chance. -karma
Jonathon_M_Johnson 09-06-07, 11:02 PM	No, not really. There is one tiny out of the way nation, Dambrath, that espouses friendly relations between Drow and others, but it's secretly behind-the-scenes controlled by evil drow overlords, who maintain control via fear and secret police-type stuff. You speak up, you disappear. And so does your family and all your friends. Almost everywhere else aboveground, Drow don't even ususally get to say "Hello" before they're pincushioned by a hundred arrows. It's not the kind of wary "keep a spear pointed at it at all times" kind of reaction that folks have towards, say, kobolds. It's the "OH MY GODS kill it kill it now KILLLLL ITTT" kinda reaction. -karma LMAO..... That's it..... Western US gets Dambrath... we call dibs.... In LG, County of Urnst was known as "Disneyland". Now we can be known as "Drowland". With Walt Drowney as our leader.... Hail the white hairs. LMAO Jonathon M. Johnson Colorado P.S. If Western US gets Dambrath, then we can be the mini-Drizzts. LOL
DerekSTheRed 09-06-07, 11:31 PM	No, not really. There is one tiny out of the way nation, Dambrath, that espouses friendly relations between Drow and others, but it's secretly behind-the-scenes controlled by evil drow overlords, who maintain control via fear and secret police-type stuff. You speak up, you disappear. And so does your family and all your friends. Almost everywhere else aboveground, Drow don't even ususally get to say "Hello" before they're pincushioned by a hundred arrows. It's not the kind of wary "keep a spear pointed at it at all times" kind of reaction that folks have towards, say, kobolds. It's the "OH MY GODS kill it kill it now KILLLLL ITTT" kinda reaction. Kobolds might be here to steal stuff and eat your chickens and maybe stab you if you got in their way, but Drow? The only reason they'd be upworld is to murder your whole family and do unspeakable things to their bodies. If you are very lucky, in that order. It's outright hate and disgust and homicidal rage most upworlders feel towards Drow. And most Drow feel the same way back. Every drow nation has plans for the future where they slaughter or enslave every other species on the planet. Are there a few exceptions? Sure. Like, a few dozen. On the entire planet. All the others are vile, evil sorts that enjoy killing babies and eating their still-beating hearts. I'm not really exaggerating. They are the boogeymen. The Evil That Lurks in Darkness. The Bad Guys. There are a probably a couple of good-hearted demons out there, too. I wouldn't let either be a playable race in a heroic-slanted campaign. Half-drow are not treated much better. At best, they get a sort or wary pity, as there's been plenty of times when drow raiding parties have left behind pregnant victims. Most are generally suspected of being drow collaborators and can face immediate jailing or lynching if they travel openly, no matter how friendly they try to be. Most hide and disguise themselves as much as they can. I can see a few non-evil drow appearing as a rare NPC here and there. Some of the more wierdness-loving cities (Yes, like Ravens Bluff, where the Naval Director of Operations was a Drow) might be slightly more accepting, but even there if a drow of half drow walked alone into the wrong alley they're never be seen again. But the hundreds or thousands you'd get if freely available? Not a chance. -karma I think you're forgetting the good goddess of drow, Eilistraee. If there are enough good drow to warrant a lesser deity, then there are definitely more then a few dozen. In fact there is a huge temple devoted to Eilistraee in undermountain called the Promenade of Eilistraee. On the whole though, I agree. There aren't enough good drow to overcome their evil reputation that is well deserved. Derek
LGMoses 09-06-07, 11:43 PM	if its true that the campaign will take place 10 years in the future though we will be after the Year of Rising Elfkin or whatever. A title strongly hinting at the return of the Drow to the surface world. I'm guessing a major exodus of good drow to the surface. So just, maybe, there will be better relations with the dark elves.... but if not, yeah, anyone sees you then you're getting attacked or they all run in fear.
paigeoliver 09-07-07, 07:26 AM	I want to see a complete and total end to the "Do this mission for me and I will sell you things or give you access" plot hook that so many Living Greyhawk modules use. It is silly, it has no basis in any sort of reality or really in any published fantasy. Go through hundreds of normal published D&D adventures and look for this hook. You probably won't find it anywhere. For that matter I would like to see the number of modules with patrons toned down quite a bit (do this mission for me, etc). Looking through my old D&D modules I see that patrons aren't exactly rare, but they weren't part of every single adventure. There is nothing wrong with just having the characters stumble into the adventure, or having the characters explore the old abandoned mine for their own ends.
KarmaInferno 09-07-07, 10:28 AM	I think you're forgetting the good goddess of drow, Eilistraee. If there are enough good drow to warrant a lesser deity, then there are definitely more then a few dozen. In fact there is a huge temple devoted to Eilistraee in undermountain called the Promenade of Eilistraee. On the whole though, I agree. There aren't enough good drow to overcome their evil reputation that is well deserved. Derek Eilistraee is kind of an odd case. She didn't start out as "goddess of the good drow". She is the daughter of Corellon Larethian and Lolth (then known as Araushnee, elven goddess of destiny), from before Lolth betrayed and attacked the rest of the elven pantheon using her Dark Seldarine allies. In the conflict, Eilistraee was an unwitting pawn of Lolth, and actually wounded Corellon by accident. For her part in the attacks, she insisted on being banished with the rest of the Dark Seldarine, partly out of guilt, partly with the hopes of being able to eventually redeem some of the dark elves. It should be noted that she's not been very successful with that. Originally (and still, to some degree) Eilistraee was the elven goddess of music, hunting, and swordwork. She added good-aligned drow to her area of concern after the fall. As I said, my point is that while there are some good aligned Drow, there certainly aren't enough to justify allowing free and unrestricted access to use them as player characters. -karma
Lord Toast 09-07-07, 12:22 PM	Eilistraee is kind of an odd case. She didn't start out as "goddess of the good drow". She is the daughter of Corellon Larethian and Lolth (then known as Araushnee, elven goddess of destiny), from before Lolth betrayed and attacked the rest of the elven pantheon using her Dark Seldarine allies. In the conflict, Eilistraee was an unwitting pawn of Lolth, and actually wounded Corellon by accident. For her part in the attacks, she insisted on being banished with the rest of the Dark Seldarine, partly out of guilt, partly with the hopes of being able to eventually redeem some of the dark elves. It should be noted that she's not been very successful with that. Originally (and still, to some degree) Eilistraee was the elven goddess of music, hunting, and swordwork. She added good-aligned drow to her area of concern after the fall. As I said, my point is that while there are some good aligned Drow, there certainly aren't enough to justify allowing free and unrestricted access to use them as player characters. -karma Err, stay on target guys and gals.
KarmaInferno 09-07-07, 01:08 PM	Er, one of the questions was "what would you NOT want to see". I might have been long-winded, but it all relates to that question. -karma
TWG_Prometheus 09-07-07, 01:58 PM	There appear to be some popular topics in this thread. 1. Adventure Records - I have no problem with the way Living Greyhawk did these. Keep paper copies as the standard, with optional tools for online ARs if it can be done. The optional tools could be part of D&DI since they're optional, although part of the free Gleemax system would be ideal. 2. Time Units - Time Units as they stand, or a similar system, works just fine. In another thread I saw people calling for TUs that represented how long an adventure actually took, and I can't help but feel that idea is insanity. Standard TU costs are important for anything but Adaptables. 3. Drow PCs - Even if the Drow were completely opened up as a PC race, I personally doubt we'd have them crawling all over the place. I do expect to see drow PCs sooner or later. Hopefully this would be on a limited basis such as the Asherati/Centaur access rather than in the form of a Rewards card and definitely not opened entirely. Ideally, they'd be present but a rarity. 4. High-Powered Realms NPCs - These are drawing a ton of hate, but I personally don't see why. Certainly I wouldn't want them to show up every module, but if they maintain a minimal but persistent presence much the Circle of Eight did in Living Greyhawk, I don't see any problems with Elminster and crew.
Sieylianna 09-07-07, 06:04 PM	As I said, my point is that while there are some good aligned Drow, there certainly aren't enough to justify allowing free and unrestricted access to use them as player characters. Allow me to point out that the lack of good-aligned kobolds didn't prevent a plague of them appearing as player characters in living greyhawk. Ed
Mithreinmaethor 09-07-07, 06:14 PM	Allow me to point out that the lack of good-aligned kobolds didn't prevent a plague of them appearing as player characters in living greyhawk. Ed I dont know how much the Circle knew about 4e coming and LG being on the outs. But if you read Britts post about the Kobold card not meant to come out until this next mailing, they may of just added them because they new it was coming to an end. Just a possibility
LGMoses 09-08-07, 08:03 PM	yeah, the kobold thing was lame.... There is a reason you can't play monster classes.
Golorious 09-09-07, 02:39 PM	As far as I have read the Circle did not know much before anyone else that the campaign was ending. Maybe a month at the most, and that was barely enough time to start to prepare and make plans for the end. As for if they were told it was 4e? I don't think they were given a reason. 4e was kept very quite. I think they could have deduced that it was 4e but that is not the same thing. I'm quite happy with the Circle and hope that the new Global admins for the LFR campaign are as good.
Sinvar 09-09-07, 06:34 PM	I think people should be allowed to choose what APL to play at (of course only if the APL system is held onto). Sometimes you have a table where you know it will be hard, because of the mix of characters, why not allow people to play down, maybe even way down. The game is supposed to be fun and if you play with a weak party, it should still be your choice if you want TPKs to loom over the party during the whole adventure. This brings me to my next point, do something about TPKs. Yes, adventuring should be dangerous, but if you have to worry about losing your character because you choose the wrong mod or your GM is really a mean guy, it takes the fun out of the whole thing. There should be a recovery system even if the whole party dies, otherwise it can be very frustrating. Maybe you lose all your TUs for the year or something like that, but make permanent death less dependable on who you play with cause everything that makes you think twice about playing with an unknown group or DM is bad for the campaign. You will have enough people you don't enjoy playing with without your long time investment riding on playing with a nice but weak group. Sinvar
Grimslade2001 09-09-07, 07:04 PM	The Kobold card was lame because it did not fit the setting. Kobolds are fine as a PC race, if there is a backstory to support it. The Misty Isles Kobolds were tacked on and flew in the face of players expectations of Kobolds. Plus, there is the expectation that a Campaign card is cleared to be used within the language on the card. The reaction by other players and the regional flavor wasn't expected by some. Kobold are considered vermin to most civilizations and the Triads wanted to maintain regional flavor. Poor communication. For LFR, let's give heads up to the campaign admins to develop cards that fit the campaign. Maybe, a mod series focuses on goodly surface drow followers of Eilistraee. Players experience these drow in mods first. Next card release series has access to a Drow PC. Players are more at ease because their PCs have encountered these good drow. Triads can build up expectations of the reactions to good drow in IC posts and laws before the card enters play. This should be easier to do than coordinate with R&D and Novels. Also, why not make the Campaign Cards like the old certs for quirky items, i.e. books, pets, crazy tattoos. They could be tradeable between players but have little effect in-game other than personalization. Replace the flavorless, I Have That! with an Aurora's Whole Realms Catalogue. It's a dorky example but more FR centric. The limited in-game effect amkes them well suited for trading. People sell and trade them now.
cetiken 09-09-07, 11:21 PM	The Kobold card was lame because it did not fit the setting. <clip clip clip> This devotion to some ironclad belief in setting purity is one of my least favorite things in LG. To my knowledge the Misity Isles were a totally undeveloped region. Who's to say that there are not good-alighned kobalds in large number on those lands who may have for some internal reason desided to start scouting or exploring the rest of the flanees. Perhaps some of their oracles are reciving portents of impending doom. I donknow. My point is that for anyone to just say 'No! This is not how it is!' And prevent people from having fun is detrimental to a campaign and the hobby. And if you don't think theres going to be a Drow Campaign Card (assuming they don't make it to the PHB and get in that way) your in denial. While I'm on the topic, Please Please keep the setting close to the core rulebooks. I'm thinking of St. Cuthbert's alignment and Hironious' axemen as specific and strange events in LG.
Butterface 09-10-07, 06:59 PM	if its true that the campaign will take place 10 years in the future though we will be after the Year of Rising Elfkin or whatever. A title strongly hinting at the return of the Drow to the surface world. I'm guessing a major exodus of good drow to the surface. So just, maybe, there will be better relations with the dark elves.... but if not, yeah, anyone sees you then you're getting attacked or they all run in fear. It was my impression that Year of Rising Elfkin was referring to elves taking back Myth Drannor and the forest of Cormanthor, as described in "The Last Mythal" series by Richard Baker.
WotC_Tulach 09-11-07, 04:14 AM	I dont know how much the Circle knew about 4e coming and LG being on the outs. But if you read Britts post about the Kobold card not meant to come out until this next mailing, they may of just added them because they new it was coming to an end. Just a possibility Let's put this one to bed; the kobold card's release had nothing to do with Living Greyhawk's conclusion, 4E, or any other grand scheme. Here's how it went down. The cards were picked out many, many months ago. They have to be in order to make production in time. At that time, nothing was graven in stone. We had 2 good "creation-esque" cards that were proposed. The kobold card was slated for release later in the year, and the other card during this past mailing. The text was much tighter and in better shape for the kobold card, so we did a swap. The other card comes out in the next mailing, and has been "morphed" into a general card.
Mithreinmaethor 09-11-07, 06:42 AM	Let's put this one to bed; the kobold card's release had nothing to do with Living Greyhawk's conclusion, 4E, or any other grand scheme. Here's how it went down. The cards were picked out many, many months ago. They have to be in order to make production in time. At that time, nothing was graven in stone. We had 2 good "creation-esque" cards that were proposed. The kobold card was slated for release later in the year, and the other card during this past mailing. The text was much tighter and in better shape for the kobold card, so we did a swap. The other card comes out in the next mailing, and has been "morphed" into a general card. So you released it on purpose not as a cruel joke. What the hell were you thinking. Now I am glad we are 15.5 months from the end of LG. Sheesh :)
KoboldChieftain 09-11-07, 11:31 AM	So you released it on purpose not as a cruel joke. What the hell were you thinking. Now I am glad we are 15.5 months from the end of LG. Sheesh :) Who says a cruel joke can't be on purpose? :angel: And, Hey, what's wrong with Kobolds anyway? :)
Grimslade2001 09-11-07, 11:57 AM	So you released it on purpose not as a cruel joke. What the hell were you thinking. Now I am glad we are 15.5 months from the end of LG. Sheesh :) All right dropping out of hyperbole mode: What 'he' (like it was a one man decision) was thinking was that it would be a fun option for players to have. I may not like the implementation of the Kobold creation card but there is no denying lots of people want to play a Kobold. It's not even an unbalanced option (the race, not the PrCs jury is still out on those). I would have preferred a Misty Isles Core adventure or series of adventures to introduce the plague of kobolds before the cards release, but what's done is done. The problem with the kobold release that we should look at is the break down in communication between the Traids and RPGA HQ. The card came out and a lot of players were excited to play a kobold. Triads came out with some pretty draconian, no pun intended, rules for Kobold PCs. The players who wanted kobold PCs felt cheated out of a reward card. Later a standard set of penalties was hashed out for regions to be able to incorporate and the controversy was quieted. Going forward we need to keep all levels of admins on the same page. A tight knit group is going to drive this campaign like nobody's business. A smaller number of regions and triads should help this immensely. Character Creation guidelines a week or more before GenCon would be fanatastic as well. A stripped down version of Character Creation guidelines would be good before DDXP and the teaser LFR mod. Maybe a review group of players like we had with the LGCS to edit campaign guides. Best of all worlds rules changes should have a month to simmer in debate before they are implemented.
KarmaInferno 09-11-07, 12:34 PM	For LFR, let's give heads up to the campaign admins to develop cards that fit the campaign. Maybe, a mod series focuses on goodly surface drow followers of Eilistraee. Players experience these drow in mods first. Next card release series has access to a Drow PC. Players are more at ease because their PCs have encountered these good drow. Triads can build up expectations of the reactions to good drow in IC posts and laws before the card enters play. This should be easier to do than coordinate with R&D and Novels. Unfortunately, from the previews of The Orc King, it appears the followers of Eilistraee have suffered some devastating calamity and may have been mostly wiped out. :( -karma
GeorgeFHarris 09-11-07, 02:45 PM	Let's put this one to bed; the kobold card's release had nothing to do with Living Greyhawk's conclusion, 4E, or any other grand scheme. Here's how it went down. The cards were picked out many, many months ago. They have to be in order to make production in time. At that time, nothing was graven in stone. We had 2 good "creation-esque" cards that were proposed. The kobold card was slated for release later in the year, and the other card during this past mailing. The text was much tighter and in better shape for the kobold card, so we did a swap. The other card comes out in the next mailing, and has been "morphed" into a general card. Maybe we'll be able to use the LotGR (Green Regent) campaign character creation cards in LivingFR. Once rules come out for Gold Dwarves and the other races in them. GH
Mithreinmaethor 09-11-07, 04:26 PM	Maybe we'll be able to use the LotGR (Green Regent) campaign character creation cards in LivingFR. Once rules come out for Gold Dwarves and the other races in them. GH It was in an earlier post that the rewards cards will not carry forward to 4th edition since they are based upon 3rd edition game mechanics
LGMoses 09-11-07, 09:40 PM	It was my impression that Year of Rising Elfkin was referring to elves taking back Myth Drannor and the forest of Cormanthor, as described in "The Last Mythal" series by Richard Baker. Is that what it was? I thought it was still in the future. I've been out of FR for a while:embarrass
Butterface 09-12-07, 06:27 PM	Is that what it was? I thought it was still in the future. I've been out of FR for a while:embarrass I *think* so - I've been out of FR for a while too, just getting back into it. (Took about a 2 year Eberron vacation. :) ) There's an FR adventure series of three hardcover books they're putting out right now that I'm going to start running for my group. Cormyr, the Tearing of the Weave is the first one. The second book, Shadowdale, apparently takes place right after the events of the Last Mythal trilogy, so I'm about to read up on the backstory before we get to that part of the campaign.
qstor 09-18-07, 01:20 PM	Someone posted that LGR cards won't be used in Living Forgotten Realms. I'd like to see an orc card for LFR. I liked my Green Regent Orc of the High Forest PC. Mike
Butterface 09-18-07, 09:53 PM	Someone posted that LGR cards won't be used in Living Forgotten Realms. I'd like to see an orc card for LFR. I liked my Green Regent Orc of the High Forest PC. Mike Orcs may very well be a playable race if there is a kingdom of orcs established in 4E FR. Dark Arrow Kingdom I believe, led by their king, Obould Many-Arrows.
Haro 09-21-07, 07:13 AM	1) I would like to see more of Christ Tulach. He has been doing an awesome job keeping us up to date, giving us info, and basically being an amazing go between and administrator. RPGA staff like we currently have will be a HUGE benefit when it comes to organizing the new game. Apologies for quoting a weeks old post as I have just stumbled across the thread. I love the implication of thanking Christ Tulach. Either you're championing a mix of Dave Christ and Chris Tulach (the RPGA version of Voltron?) or your respect for Tulach is divinely inspired! ;-) He's doing a great job to date methinks.
Madfox11 09-21-07, 07:56 AM	Orcs may very well be a playable race if there is a kingdom of orcs established in 4E FR. Dark Arrow Kingdom I believe, led by their king, Obould Many-Arrows. Wow, he would be ancient for an orc king. Besides, did he reconquer his lost territory from the Silver Marches again? Mind you, considering how orcs come in waves in that region it wouldn't surprise me. It almost looks like hurricanes and earthquakes in RL: the natural disaster of the North is orc hordes. "Now we go to Silvermoon for our latest updates on orc population predictions. So Alustriel how are things going?" "Well, Kelben, the population has just reach critical level and already we are seeing popular leaders rise in quick succession. If things keep going, we will have a horde category 3 on our hands. It probably is going to miss the Silver Marches this time and rush towards Minbar and perhaps beyond. The people in Waterdeep certainly have nothing to fear." "Thanks Alustriel, our heart is with the poor citizens of Minbar, who have just been rebuilding the city after orc horde Elly last year." ;)
Butterface 09-21-07, 03:04 PM	Wow, he would be ancient for an orc king. Besides, did he reconquer his lost territory from the Silver Marches again? Mind you, considering how orcs come in waves in that region it wouldn't surprise me. It almost looks like hurricanes and earthquakes in RL: the natural disaster of the North is orc hordes. Well, in the preview chapter from The Orc King, the current king of Dark Arrow was Obould VI. It looks like the orcs are trying to build something that lasts this time, instead of being the annual natural disaster of the North. :clap:
Markusdark 09-21-07, 07:33 PM	Okey, compared to other things, this request is a bit low on the priority list however... One of the things I always hated as I often played only low level characters would be the treasure rewards an ARs for APL 2 - where there would be items that were Adventure or Core ranked and cost over 2,000 GP. I believe I even saw one where they had a five figure amount in the APL 2 spot. Now, if these items were unlimited, that's one thing but these were 'buy them in three events or lose them'. I just think that the rewards should be a little more in the price range of the character. Okey, I'm done. Sincerely, a noob player. :D
Keith53 09-21-07, 08:14 PM	Regarding the inappropriate rewards/treasure for the APL (or whatever the 4E equivalent is), actually I think that is a good point and it is something that is correctable. Providing clear guidance and maybe a checklist for proofing an adventure would reduce or even eliminate that poor choice. Keith
RedKnightofKet 09-21-07, 08:14 PM	Okey, compared to other things, this request is a bit low on the priority list however... One of the things I always hated as I often played only low level characters would be the treasure rewards an ARs for APL 2 - where there would be items that were Adventure or Core ranked and cost over 2,000 GP. I believe I even saw one where they had a five figure amount in the APL 2 spot. Now, if these items were unlimited, that's one thing but these were 'buy them in three events or lose them'. I just think that the rewards should be a little more in the price range of the character. Okey, I'm done. Sincerely, a noob player. :D Well, "Core" means after any Core adventure, so I don't see what the issue is there... but for adventure access, yes, I agree. But I'm not sure what kind of issue that will be in 4e...
Reneshat 09-22-07, 02:32 AM	Apologies for quoting a weeks old post as I have just stumbled across the thread. I love the implication of thanking Christ Tulach. Either you're championing a mix of Dave Christ and Chris Tulach (the RPGA version of Voltron?) or your respect for Tulach is divinely inspired! ;-) He's doing a great job to date methinks. I didn't notice that typo. I am fixing it now.
gomeztoo 09-22-07, 03:33 PM	Wow, he would be ancient for an orc king. We are talking Obould VI (from the Orc King) iirc.
Lobotaru 09-23-07, 07:03 PM	I'd like to see them be less restrictive with spells and abilities with LFR then what they did with LG. After a while, I began to feel like a lot of the life was getting sucked out of the game because so many spells kept getting moved to the banned list. I'm also pretty tired of seeing Polymorph, alter self, and other tranformation spells on the band lists. So in short, I'd like the RPGA to only restrict classes or spells that go directly against the setting (like obviously no oriental classes) and avoid restricting things because someone used it to power game. If a spell becomes a major issue, its better to alter it in a way so that its harder to abuse rather than to disallow it entirely. For example, if polymorph is an issue, you might want to limit the number of different creatures the spellcaster can take per day or even require the spellcaster to do research on a particular creature in order to take its form.
tombollis 09-23-07, 09:57 PM	I'd like the RPGA to only restrict classes or spells that go directly against the setting (like obviously no oriental classes) and avoid restricting things because someone used it to power game. Except that their is an oriental setting on Toril for members of an oriental class to coe from, assuming there are oriental classes in 4e. Tom Bollis
cetiken 09-23-07, 10:05 PM	I disagree. In a home game I'm not going to spend effort trying to fix broken things. I just won't allow them. Personally, I think oriental classes (like say Monks) are more appropriate than hard to arbitrate rules like Polymorph. Also altering things only increases the difficult of playing in the game as now I need not only the rules but a copy of alterations to carry around if I still want to use the effects and then theres the fun of running a table for people who haven't heard yet. I get to bear the brunt of their annoyance when their spells don't work the way the books say they do. If you want a fixed effect please at least call it something different. That way I can say to someone "No, Polymorph isn't allowed but you can switch it with Elminster's Egalitarian Transform." Besides, who doesn't love ninjas?
Nolwelen 09-24-07, 02:29 AM	1) I would like to see "the Deliverance", reshaping the faerunian pantheon to make Lathander the undispoted number one. Muahahaha! :D 2) I would NOT like to see Amaunator replace Lathander. :weep:
Lobotaru 09-24-07, 10:52 AM	Ok, redoing what I was saying above. What I'd like to see in a LFR game would be a less restrictive system than the open/closed system of the old LG setting. I especially would like to see the shapechanging spells, such as polymorph and alter self back in the game as player options. If an ability has been misused, I'd rather see them try to restrict how the spell or ability can be used instead of outright banning it from the game. It would help maintain the flavor of certain classes and lessen player frustration. And yeah, I know there is an oriental area to FR. Its called the Jade Empire or something along those lines. I didn't mean "ban" those classes, but rather have them restricted, except for the monk which is a core class. This would be mainly due to the fact that there aren't any nations on the primary continent of the FR that can actually claim to have samurai, shugenja, or wu jen. They are visitors from far off lands to the east.
aljergensen 09-24-07, 12:41 PM	Ok, redoing what I was saying above. What I'd like to see in a LFR game would be a less restrictive system than the open/closed system of the old LG setting. I especially would like to see the shapechanging spells, such as polymorph and alter self back in the game as player options. If an ability has been misused, I'd rather see them try to restrict how the spell or ability can be used instead of outright banning it from the game. It would help maintain the flavor of certain classes and lessen player frustration. Hopefully some of the issues that caused things like polymorph to be banned will be resolved in 4e. However, in general I agree with you. I would like to see the vast majority of things open. If there is a banned list (other than the no evil) it should be very, very small. While we're at it get rid of the list of things in "limbo" ... either allow something or ban it. If a new book is published and the flavor fits the campaign, allow it. Under 3.5 it would have meant that someone would have inevitably created what someone else considered a "broken" character. But what is "broken" is really a matter of opinion. If a feat, spell or class feature is being misinterpreted or is difficult to adjudicate perhaps we could have guidelines published so that judges handle it consistently. Allen.
KarmaInferno 09-24-07, 02:41 PM	Hopefully some of the issues that caused things like polymorph to be banned will be resolved in 4e. I strongly suspect that we may see a variation of the shapeshifter druid alternate class feature. Where a Polymorph Self would give a set mix of abilities to choose from, rather than just giving the abilities of whatever creature you changed into. Want a set of natural attacks? You get to pick the shape you take, but mechanically the attacks will always be the same values and damage dice regardless of the shape, save perhaps they get better with higher caster level. -karma
TWG_Prometheus 09-24-07, 05:31 PM	One thing I would like to see: More overwatch on encounter balancing. Hopefully the 4th edition ruleset will help on this one. The one thing that's making me the most weary with Living Greyhawk, however, is the inconsistency of balancing. There are very few encounters that are challenging that aren't overpowering. I wander through too many modules bored to tears, and spend the others wondering how anyone could justify sending PCs into a meatgrinder. One thing I wouldn't like to see: The Harpers as they currently are. I don't claim to have an in-depth knowledge of the Forgotten Realms setting, but every single thing I have seen about the Harpers leads me to believe that they are nothing more than a glorified adventure hook. It turns my stomach. They are not currently meta-organization worthy since all they really do is tell the PCs what to do.
aljergensen 09-24-07, 06:30 PM	One thing I would like to see: More overwatch on encounter balancing. Hopefully the 4th edition ruleset will help on this one. The one thing that's making me the most weary with Living Greyhawk, however, is the inconsistency of balancing. There are very few encounters that are challenging that aren't overpowering. I wander through too many modules bored to tears, and spend the others wondering how anyone could justify sending PCs into a meatgrinder. I agree. I consistently play up so that I'm challenged but then every once in a while you get the OMGWTF encounter. On the other hand, in the game I judged this past weekend I wanted to double the number of opponents so that the encounters would be a challenge. But as a judge I'm not supposed to do that and even with some stretching to optimize the environmental factors in favor of the bad guys it was still a cake walk for the PCs. I would hope that we LFR judges are given some official guidelines to adjust encounter difficulty based on the people at the table. From what I've seen of 4e it should be easier to "fine-tune" encounters. Allen.
GrandMasterofFlowers 09-25-07, 08:48 AM	What i would like to see: A tighter correlation between PC actions and storyline. There is a tendancy in FR to make adenventures ancilliary to what the "important" people in the realms are doing, this is in reality, just a response to the fact that FR is not just a game setting, it's also the hosting to a popular fiction line. This irks me to no end. This is what I think people are talking about when they say they don't want the big named people in adventures. Please, lets make the game about the PC's. Greater Importance of Metaorgs. Actually this is a example of the previous point. People congrigate in groups because the voices of many are louder than the voices of few. As such metaorgs should have a greater impact on regional flavor than they do as such. Can one imagion Thay without Red Wizards? Cormyr without Purple Dragon Knights? Such organizations existed before with little or no say from it's participants and were, as such, little more than employment agencies in LC. Changing that would be a welcome inclusion into the "New" Realms. Killable Adversaries. Nothing irks me more than having my accomplishments in defense of the "story". I've always held that script immunity is the mark of a bad DM. Lets give people a chance to strike back against threats and conceivably remove them forever. Not a clone, not a doppleganger, not a "doombot". Standardized Power Levels from region to region. This is a more nebulous concept. I realize that character's builds will always vary in effectiveness and it's inevitable. I would however like to see some sort of mechanic to curb "Monte Haul" regions. I think most people here know what I am talking about. The kind of region where everyone goes to because they give out the best stuff. I don't want to feel like my character is a wuss because i happen to live in a certain part of the country. What I don't want to See: Arbitrary Character Death. I admit this is a reaction to my experiences in LG in the Bandit Kingdoms region. To put it simply, it sucks. Having characters die because such and such region has a policy that when you reach X number of Maguffin points is no fun for anybody! The same goes for imprisonment, slavery, and aything else that can conceivably remove your character from play. D&D is designed with the assumption that your character is more capable than the standard person, so it's stupid to envision a scenario where your character has absolutely no chance of escape whatsoever, and also the antithesis to the spirit of the game. If necessary, remand the character over for a special mission or some such. Or, actually empower Table DM's to handle such occurances as they happen, but for gods sakes, don't just take people's characters away.
Rerednaw 09-25-07, 09:18 AM	1. Fun: role-playing rewards, not rewards for optimized +x. Allow access for everything with a price (the Xen'drik expansion list.) 2. Not fun: bookeeping (TU's, consumables, 100+AR's, favors, etc.), being an extra in a campaign overloaded with celebrities, being one-shot by a peasant with a sling at level 20. Forgot to add: 3. If it is to be online-tracking, make access by player and not access by AR/character 4. Similar case to being one-shot by a peasant in #2: Auto-winning a pre-scripted encounter against an 18th level character at APL4 is not entertaining.
MatteBlack 09-25-07, 10:21 AM	Forgot to add: 3. If it is to be online-tracking, make access by player and not access by AR/character I'd really dislike access by player. It would be too MMO for me. If your character encounters something he can improve from great but, I don't like the idea of unlocking accesses with one character for another. The only real reason to do so would be to accomodate the all too prevalent optimized build mentality. Organically advancing characters with cohesive stories should take precedence over a cool build and the reward for a character's deeds should belong to them not their player. However, I think there should be more open accesses in general.
Aravar 09-25-07, 11:23 AM	I would like to see. -) A center location that every character has in common, where they spend a good amount of their time outside of adventuring. -) Non-regional ingame organizations, where at conventions you could meet others of your organization who are from half-way across the real world.(Knighthoods, Temples, Mercenaries, etc.) -) Adventure Records to be turned back into Adventure Log Sheets, where you could record multiple adventures on the same page & for special items, favors, to be their own slips of paper. I personally used to enjoy in Living City and in the early days of Living Greyhawk of having my stack of loot. I can prob think of more but I was supposed to be asleep 4 hours ago lol, but I liked the old days of RPGA =)
Keith53 09-25-07, 06:59 PM	I would like to see. -) A center location that every character has in common, where they spend a good amount of their time outside of adventuring. Would you clarify, please? Upon first reading, this strikes me as hard to do. It would be like saying would everyone in California please hang out in their spare time at the same nightclub. How do you do that for a region? Unlike LC, the adventurers will live / hail from a large number of places. Why should the campaign artificially limit their uniqueness by saying everyone in this region must be at one locale? What effect are you trying to achieve? Keith
tombollis 09-25-07, 08:00 PM	Would you clarify, please? Upon first reading, this strikes me as hard to do. It would be like saying would everyone in California please hang out in their spare time at the same nightclub. How do you do that for a region? Unlike LC, the adventurers will live / hail from a large number of places. Why should the campaign artificially limit their uniqueness by saying everyone in this region must be at one locale? What effect are you trying to achieve? Keith He could mean a city in each region, similar to Ravens Bluff in LC, where characers can live and work between adventures, have city adventures, be recruted for adventures, have pubs where PCs hang out for in-character interaction in chat groups between adventures, where guild halls are located, etc., rather than just decentralized regions. Tom Bollis
cetiken 09-25-07, 08:47 PM	I'm kind of curious, but why would we want that? Personally I can't think of an area less interesting than The North, and I'm sure various other people feel the same way about areas I'd like to play in. What goal would be served by something like requiring everyone to hang out in Watterdeep (just to pick a random city)? None that I can see. Some of us also remember Living City, but with something less than the fondness expressed by Aravar. Let me be less subtle. I did not like LC, and hope the campaign is more about looking forward than back.
Keith53 09-25-07, 10:49 PM	Some of us also remember Living City, but with something less than the fondness expressed by Aravar. Let me be less subtle. I did not like LC, and hope the campaign is more about looking forward than back. I don't want to start a firestorm or debate amongst those who liked or disliked LC. I was merely puzzled what Aravar would like to achieve. Regarding Cetiken's post, I think there are two powerful, fundamental changes from the LC of old. 1) LFR covers a world (or much of one), is not limited to one city and a tight zone around it. 2) The RPGA has learned from various RPGA campaigns over the years, at least I know I have. LC did some things well and others not so well. LG did some things well, etc. I suspect Chris Tulach and the Global Admins will be interested in building a better campaign, not resurrecting a memory. Of course, there may be other factors, like WotC / Brand driving (perhaps even controlling) LFR much more than TSR did LC. Keith
Aravar 09-26-07, 12:17 AM	As far as the central point, personally in most home games I run or participate in, there is always a central kingdom or town where the pc's have homes/families and other stuff at and I think it actually brings more of a ROLE-PLAYING aspect to the game. And to have most(not all) of the games for the region begin there makes more sense. And of course a central place for the main storylines(like City of Greyhawk). Cause honesly how much sense does it make when my character a half-orc barbarian is suddenly half-way across the country in an elven village cause I was passing through.. wtf? And yes to say each campaign has done things differently and each has had their great things and their not-so-great things, and it's a matter of personal opinion.
Keith53 09-26-07, 06:56 AM	As far as the central point, personally in most home games I run or participate in, there is always a central kingdom or town where the pc's have homes/families and other stuff at and I think it actually brings more of a ROLE-PLAYING aspect to the game. And to have most(not all) of the games for the region begin there makes more sense. And of course a central place for the main storylines(like City of Greyhawk). Cause honesly how much sense does it make when my character a half-orc barbarian is suddenly half-way across the country in an elven village cause I was passing through.. wtf? And yes to say each campaign has done things differently and each has had their great things and their not-so-great things, and it's a matter of personal opinion. If I may attempt to paraphrase and parse Aravar's post into two elements, I think you are saying (please correct me if I missed the mark) 1. You are looking for a tie or hook to enhance the background for roleplaying a bond or connection amongst the PCs, and 2. You feel that having the PCs with same downtime location increase the plausibility/believability of how the plot hook brings them into the adventure. ----- my thoughts: While I have often seen in a home campaign the PCs linked in such manner, in a shared world campaign, where adventures may span a wide area and travel issues may have to be waved away, designation of a "home base" may well be seen as unnecessary and background limiting by many players. Others have suggested (asked for) non-regional based affiliations, which I think goes to a similar effect of connectivity between PCs (a bond) when they meet (doing the old lodge sign). To be honest, unless a shared-world campaign is limited to a narrow geographic area (in game), it is certainly more convenient to ignore any travel impact. Thanks for sharing. Keith
JamesMaissen 09-29-07, 06:49 AM	What i would like to see: Greater Importance of Metaorgs. I'd like to see things like this really figured out from the start of the campaign and then only minorly fluctuate as things settle in. With many campaigns this (and things like land purchase and other inevitable player desires) get swept under the rug, or treated like they were not expected to occur. Following patterns many things 'for higher levels' will be put off for later. That's natural, however it would be much nicer to see such things fleshed out with enough work already in them to actually have a chance of being there a year down the road when the characters get that high. Otherwise it's a bad carrot and annoying taunting of gamers, and something that may never really be resolved in a manor that players can really enjoy them, James
Keith53 09-29-07, 09:58 AM	I have a question for the group. There are at least two ways to approach Knighthoods. One is more of the elite group that an adventurer applies to join, must meet some standards, perhaps pays a fee, etc. and gains some minor benefits. You usually bear some service to the sponsor of the Knighthood. (The Purple Dragons in Cormyr have a very high service commitment.) Another is more of an honor, awarded by the local nobility. With the latter approach, after some outstanding deed in service of the Kingdom, etc., you are awarded a Knighthood and perhaps given some stipend and/or land. Likes, dislikes, concerns? Keith
tombollis 09-29-07, 11:01 AM	I have a question for the group. There are at least two ways to approach Knighthoods. One is more of the elite group that an adventurer applies to join, must meet some standards, perhaps pays a fee, etc. and gains some minor benefits. You usually bear some service to the sponsor of the Knighthood. (The Purple Dragons in Cormyr have a very high service commitment.) Another is more of an honor, awarded by the local nobility. With the latter approach, after some outstanding deed in service of the Kingdom, etc., you are awarded a Knighthood and perhaps given some stipend and/or land. Likes, dislikes, concerns? Keith I'm not in favor of anything in a Living campaign that grants any significant lomg term benefit that does not relate to gained levels - it upsets game balance. Titles and honors with little impact are good for roleplaying. Knighthoods, guild memberships, etc. with game impact should be like feats, available at a regular rate to those who qualify, but you must be selective. Tom Bollis
Aravar 09-30-07, 10:05 AM	Something else I would like to see when I thought about it, was a way for the DM's, who get stuck running the games for their home groups, to level up a character. That way when you go to a convention with your friends you aren't like 3 - 4 levels behind them.
tombollis 09-30-07, 10:40 AM	Something else I would like to see when I thought about it, was a way for the DM's, who get stuck running the games for their home groups, to level up a character. That way when you go to a convention with your friends you aren't like 3 - 4 levels behind them. That is something I definitely do not want to see, other than by the DM playing his character in the adventure (such as slot 0 play). Character advancement should only come from charcter experience. Tom Bollis
Aravar 09-30-07, 12:46 PM	well a 0 slot still means someone has to bite the bullet and run the game for the other dm's so they are still losing out. Personally I would like some gratification to when I go to play a game other than going "Oh Look I'm a grand master DM" with a level 2 character, my friends are level 10 though.
aljergensen 09-30-07, 01:15 PM	well a 0 slot still means someone has to bite the bullet and run the game for the other dm's so they are still losing out. Maybe this can be somewhat alleviated by doing slot 0s online. If there was a way to coordinate the effort, the mod writer and playtesters could host online slot 0's and those people could host online slot 0's. It would add up pretty quickly. We'd need some kind of message board and tracking mechanism (to limit people who sign up for the slot 0 and then never actually judge a game). Of course it's not a complete solution because some people don't have access to/can't afford the online gaming tool. Allen.
Reneshat 10-01-07, 06:26 AM	That is something I definitely do not want to see, other than by the DM playing his character in the adventure (such as slot 0 play). Character advancement should only come from charcter experience. Tom Bollis So correct me if I'm wrong with this, but you don't want Meta-Orgs to give any real in game bonus, you don't want DMs to be able to get experience for eating modules, you want the game to be about what your character does, and the levels he gains from that. More or less you want to eliminate the part where the player is figured in for character advancement, and you don't like the idea of bonuses not "earned." However you dislike the idea of TUs, which limits how much a character, not a player can do in a year. It is also the system used to regulate meta-orgs so there is a pay off for the bonuses received. Am I wrong in this assessment? Does this not mean that you want to eliminate every style or emphasis on play other than the emphasis you give? What difference does it make to you whether or not a DM gets experience for eating a module?
tombollis 10-01-07, 07:59 AM	So correct me if I'm wrong with this, but you don't want Meta-Orgs to give any real in game bonus, you don't want DMs to be able to get experience for eating modules, you want the game to be about what your character does, and the levels he gains from that. More or less you want to eliminate the part where the player is figured in for character advancement, and you don't like the idea of bonuses not "earned." However you dislike the idea of TUs, which limits how much a character, not a player can do in a year. It is also the system used to regulate meta-orgs so there is a pay off for the bonuses received. Am I wrong in this assessment? Does this not mean that you want to eliminate every style or emphasis on play other than the emphasis you give? What difference does it make to you whether or not a DM gets experience for eating a module? I like level-based meta-orgs and benefits, not TU or real world time based opportunities. DMs could gain special options for their characters, which they could choose at advancement instad of generally available ones, but the characters would still have to earn their own advancement. In a simplified system, a character could join or advance in one metas-org per level, out of those for which he qualified, with benefits per meta-org rank balanced. TUs don't promote such balace, nor do they relate to character exerience. The character who does less in-game gets more meta-org benefits, throwing out of wack with the expected power per level. It upsets level-based encounter difficulty aetting. Give a DM a benefit other than level advancement or increased power for his level. Out of game perks, or special race/class/feat/meta-org options that add variety but not power compared to nonDMs. A character that is played less often should rise slower. To keep playing with his friends, his PC should be played as often as theirs. His friends should maintain lower level characters to play with him, or rotate DMing advebtures for him to keep up, or he can slot 0 them to keep up. Tom Bollis
Reneshat 10-01-07, 08:27 AM	I like level-based meta-orgs and benefits, not TU or real world time based opportunities. DMs could gain special options for their characters, which they could choose at advancement instad of generally available ones, but the characters would still have to earn their own advancement. In a simplified system, a character could join or advance in one metas-org per level, out of those for which he qualified, with benefits per meta-org rank balanced. TUs don't promote such balace, nor do they relate to character exerience. The character who does less in-game gets more meta-org benefits, throwing out of wack with the expected power per level. It upsets level-based encounter difficulty aetting. Give a DM a benefit other than level advancement or increased power for his level. Out of game perks, or special race/class/feat/meta-org options that add variety but not power compared to nonDMs. A character that is played less often should rise slower. To keep playing with his friends, his PC should be played as often as theirs. His friends should maintain lower level characters to play with him, or rotate DMing advebtures for him to keep up, or he can slot 0 them to keep up. Tom Bollis Actually, that sounds like that might work. However, assuming that you can automatically go up or join a meta-org each level, you might want to have a generic meta-org so that those that have characters that wouldn't make sense to have in meta-orgs wouldn't be penalized, or have the meta-orgs have some other sort of associated cost or penalty to add a counter balance to the benefits. With regional mods now available online, I don't think that as many mods will need to be eaten as has occurred with LG.
PCI_StatMonkey 10-01-07, 11:41 AM	Things I want to see in LFR a) Certs! bring back old school cert system, let us give gold to our friends to help them out... In LG I ripped through more gold in cure light and cure mod wands then I care to remember... no one was able to help me with the cost. b) Lets see some intelligent bad guys.. dragons for example should not be "just an encounter" but should be lead up to.. c) shades of gray.. I want to wonder who is the good guy and who is the bad guy.. hell get rid of this concept all together, tell some "real" stories that force you to think. d) Unshackle the writers! I know that writers in LG had a long list of "you cant use this or that"... e) Real player run organizations.. see the knight hood system from LC.. for example, the Harpers would be all players, if they thought you where "Harper Material" they would invite you into the group where you needed a sponsor.. it was DAMN cool. Not like the "so how many knights of Sterench (sp?) do we have at the table.. oh all of us.. how special" f) exp for GMs who eat a mod.. we do it in Living Arcanis.. (1000 xp & gp) makes the GMs very happy.. Things I dont want to see in LFR a) AR system.. lets use log sheets with 5 slots to record adventures b) any attempt at making things "fair" to the expense of making things special.
honest21hero 11-02-07, 01:23 PM	1. I want the Psion & Psychic Warrior classes to be open. I want Shapechange (& related spells/abilities) to be allowed with a few modifications (if any). 2. I don't want Animate Dead to automatically be assumed evil. Since corpses are nothing more than empty vessels, Animate Dead is no more evil than Animate Object or a sword. The act of killing a non-evil NPC to animate him as a skeleton might be evil. Using a skeleton army to burn down a non-evil town may also be evil. Yet, the simple act of animating a corpse with Animate Dead is not evil.
catsclaw 11-02-07, 04:25 PM	Yet, the simple act of animating a corpse with Animate Dead is not evil.This isn't an issue with Living Realms, it's an issue with the D&D core rules. You can dislike a cosmology in which channeling Negative Energy is an evil act, but in D&D that's what it is, same as shooting Force Lightning out your fingertips in Star Wars is an evil act, no matter what you're trying to accomplish with it. The system designers might make channeling negative energy a neutral act in 4.0. They've already indicated they're overhauling the alignment system. I feel pretty safe saying whatever they decide will be the way it works in Living Realms.
qstor 11-05-07, 03:34 PM	The RPGA is NEVER going back to certs. So a stack of certs is something that we will NOT see in LFR. Mike
PCI_StatMonkey 11-07-07, 05:46 PM	The RPGA is NEVER going back to certs. So a stack of certs is something that we will NOT see in LFR. Booooooooooooooooo I bet if you ask most players.. they like certs over ARs any day :D That is something I definitely do not want to see, other than by the DM playing his character in the adventure (such as slot 0 play). Character advancement should only come from charcter experience. In Living Arcanis we have a simple rule for eating mods.. GMs get 1000xp and 1000gp if they eat a mod. Out GMs love it because, even if they eat all the mods at a major convention they don't end up 2 levels behind their friends. It also helps GM play more, because now if they are a local GM they can go to a major convention and still get to sit down with friends and play… In LG if you ran a lot for a local group you would find that, unless the local players all made new characters, you were unable to play with them. Also it’s a nice “thank you” for a thankless job
DerekSTheRed 11-07-07, 10:49 PM	Booooooooooooooooo I bet if you ask most players.. they like certs over ARs any day :D I don't like the cert system. I don't like the idea of having to divide up treasure with people I've just met at a con who MIGHT have enough a sense of fair play to equitably divide the treasure. While the AR system is not perfect, it does remove any possibility of arguments over treasure. The arguments have the potential to ruin an otherwise fun experience. You only have to get burned once before you start appreciating the AR system. Derek
tombollis 11-07-07, 11:00 PM	I don't like the cert system. I don't like the idea of having to divide up treasure with people I've just met at a con who MIGHT have enough a sense of fair play to equitably divide the treasure. While the AR system is not perfect, it does remove any possibility of arguments over treasure. The arguments have the potential to ruin an otherwise fun experience. You only have to get burned once before you start appreciating the AR system. Derek That's a cert system, not the cert system. cert system only requires that players get certificates that represent items; it need not be one cert per ite per table; it need not represent treasure divided by chance or vote . ARs are a variant on certs. Certs are good for tracking limited use items, loss of items, and trade or sale of items. Tom Bollis
DerekSTheRed 11-07-07, 11:03 PM	That's a cert system, not the cert system. cert system only requires that players get certificates that represent items; it need not be one cert per ite per table; it need not represent treasure divided by chance or vote . ARs are a variant on certs. Certs are good for tracking limited use items, loss of items, and trade or sale of items. Tom Bollis I'm fine with certs for limited or unique rewards like you get at Gen Con or Origins. I have an issue with the old cert system which PCI was advocating and which I am against. Derek
tombollis 11-07-07, 11:10 PM	I'm fine with certs for limited or unique rewards like you get at Gen Con or Origins. I have an issue with the old cert system which PCI was advocating and which I am against. Derek You should distinguish between the certs and the system for distributing them. Your points apply to the vote system, not the cert system. Tom Bollis
Surgebuster 11-08-07, 12:40 AM	My experience with certs in Living campaigns; I find that the cert system used in Living Arcanis works better than when it was used in Living Greyhawk, however, I feel this is more to do with the campaign than the cert system. Allow me to explain; LA is a more mature campaign that in my experience is (generally) played and enjoyed by an older gamer. That's not to say that age is an indicator of maturity, but in my experience most of the people that cheat, exploit or push the boundaries of the rules in LG tend to be slightly younger than your average LA player. I believe the cert system used in LA is more open to abuse than the AR system used in LG but is not exploited anywhere near as much as it could be. LA is also a smaller campaign than LG, meaning that local communities are generally more close knit and intimate than LG. I know that there are only a few regular tables of LA players in the whole of Australia, everyone knows everyone well. Therefore any attempt to abuse the system is easily detected, as opposed to the much more popular LG (that probably has 10 times the player base). Since the playing numbers and demographics of LFR will much more closely resemble LG than LA, I believe that a system very much like ARs would be the most desirable option over certs in LFR. There's less temptation and opportunity to abuse it and your core market (most of which have never played LA or pre-593 LG) are familiar with it. Just my two cent's worth. Joe
PCI_StatMonkey 11-08-07, 10:42 AM	Personally I hate the AR system because of a few things 1) all items are generic, you will never get a cool item from an adventure from long ago. It makes magic items "throw away items" 2) You can't trade or sell items to other players I know one time in LG I was at a table where the cleric basted though 2000gp in items to keep the table alive (it was a bad day to say the least) at the end of the adventure we were not even able to use the over the cap gold to help him out.... no one at the table was able to give him any gold. One time my ranger lost his both weapons and his armor in the surprise round (advanced, half-fiend, rust monsters). At the end of the adventure no one was able to help me, so I had to somehow live though the next 5 adventures with no magical weapons or armor (BTW: this was at 13th level) needless to say I died in the 2nd adventure. 3) Try finding a favor or boon at a table that may save your life when the GM has said you have 1 min to find it before he moves into the next player. (favor certs are a lot easier to read and organize in your folder, you use them, you rip them up)
Surgebuster 11-08-07, 05:37 PM	Personally I hate the AR system because of a few things 1) all items are generic, you will never get a cool item from an adventure from long ago. It makes magic items "throw away items") Perrenland has had a bunch of unique items over the years, some gotten from interactives, some from regional adventures. I am not sure that argument holds for all regions. 2) You can't trade or sell items to other players I know one time in LG I was at a table where the cleric basted though 2000gp in items to keep the table alive (it was a bad day to say the least) at the end of the adventure we were not even able to use the over the cap gold to help him out.... no one at the table was able to give him any gold.) The easy way to get around this is at the end of the adventure have other players at the table purchase scrolls/potions that were used and then cross them off their own MILs. For all intents and purposes it achieves the same result, the exchange of consumables just happens 'off-camera'. 3) Try finding a favor or boon at a table that may save your life when the GM has said you have 1 min to find it before he moves into the next player. (favor certs are a lot easier to read and organize in your folder, you use them, you rip them up) If you character is high level enough that flicking through ARs is time consuming, write your favours on a sheet of paper. That way, there's only one page to look at. Heroforge has an AR tracker that serves a similar purpose or I can send you the one that players in my area use. It's just a simple table that takes five minutes to fill in. Much easier than rifling through a bunch a loose leaf certs IMHO. Joe
Keith53 11-08-07, 08:01 PM	2) You can't trade or sell items to other players I would like to be able to trade or sell items (perhaps within some limits) to other PCs. But lets be clear. An AR system does NOT prevent that; a GM could check added to one, subtracted from the other, to reflect the transaction. (The trades/sales would need to be at a gaming table, or witnessed in some way.) LG prohibited it. I also concur the gp tracking needs to include a way to reimburse PCs who expended a large amount of resources. Of course, some of the accounting here might become too mercenary for my taste. Hard to have a perfect system. Keith
gomeztoo 11-09-07, 01:19 AM	I dont' want trading. It opens a whole can of worms on what you trade to whom, who 'earned' it, etc. People are making way too much out of the ability to find 'cool' items. My characters are not defined by items. Moreover, if one believed the blogs, 4th ed will be less about items, so it will be a less important in LFR.
tombollis 11-09-07, 07:47 AM	I dont' want trading. It opens a whole can of worms on what you trade to whom, who 'earned' it, etc. People are making way too much out of the ability to find 'cool' items. My characters are not defined by items. Moreover, if one believed the blogs, 4th ed will be less about items, so it will be a less important in LFR. Which seems contradictory. If the items aren't very important, where is the can of worms re trading them? Tom Bollis
gomeztoo 11-09-07, 09:18 AM	Just because items are less important does not mean that trading won't cause problems. Who do you trade with? Do you give the nice stuff to your pals? Even if they need it less than the PC of the guy you don't know? How about giving a lot of stuff to your own PCs? Etc. All of this is separate from how important those items are for survival in the game.
tombollis 11-09-07, 12:59 PM	Just because items are less important does not mean that trading won't cause problems. Who do you trade with? Do you give the nice stuff to your pals? Even if they need it less than the PC of the guy you don't know? How about giving a lot of stuff to your own PCs? Etc. All of this is separate from how important those items are for survival in the game. And all can be easily regulated with certs (less easily with ARs). LC had trading that worked without significant problems for years. I believe greater restrictions lead to the problems that developped in later years. People who know they aren't trusted are more likely to be untrustworthy. Tom Bollis
catsclaw 11-09-07, 02:50 PM	People who know they aren't trusted are more likely to be untrustworthy.Conversely, people who believe others are taking advantage of a system are more likely to take advantage of it as well. Restrictions can help instill faith that everyone's following the rules.
tombollis 11-09-07, 03:40 PM	Conversely, people who believe others are taking advantage of a system are more likely to take advantage of it as well. Restrictions can help instill faith that everyone's following the rules. I see too many cases where people see them as a challenge to beat the rules. I believe in trusting until you areproved wrong. Tom Bollis
gomeztoo 11-10-07, 12:52 PM	And all can be easily regulated with certs (less easily with ARs). None of the issues I mentioned are solved by certs.
tombollis 11-10-07, 07:17 PM	None of the issues I mentioned are solved by certs. They are solved by simple rules for trading certs. Tom Bollis
gomeztoo 11-11-07, 06:25 AM	No, you can't solve the issues with rules. They are issues with how people will distribute their stuff among others. Or who earns the cert at the table. You can forbid trading with your own PCs, but you can't forbid how people trade with other PCs. I.e., suppose we find a cool magic item in a scenario. X likes the item and Y likes the item. Who gets it? Likely the one with the most votes. which may mean that X won't get it if Y has his pals on the table playing with him. Also, who do you trade with? Y may wish to trade with his pals, but not with X, who he doesn't know (or like) that much as a player. Very personal things, that can possibly add tension. Not that it will happen frequently, but I can see this happening. And even if you can make rules, there are lots of questions. What do you trade for? Cash? Do you just swap certs? How do you determine if something has equal value? Using gold values? Does the other player pay the gold value that is missing? And if he does, do you actually get the gold, or half? Or, if certs are free (as you can likely only get the at the table), no gold at all? It is rather more trouble than it's worth, imo.
tombollis 11-11-07, 08:39 AM	No, you can't solve the issues with rules. They are issues with how people will distribute their stuff among others. Or who earns the cert at the table. Both are controled by campaign rules. You can forbid trading with your own PCs, but you can't forbid how people trade with other PCs. Wrong. You can track trades on certs and/or log sheets, and can have rules as to what can be traded for what. This would not directly limit who you could trade to, but could keep the trades fair and balanced. I.e., suppose we find a cool magic item in a scenario. X likes the item and Y likes the item. Who gets it? Likely the one with the most votes. which may mean that X won't get it if Y has his pals on the table playing with him. My suggestion is that both get the item, as with LG's AR system - give out duplicate certs. (I don't like voting for who gets what, and that is not a requirement of a cert dsystem.) Also, who do you trade with? Y may wish to trade with his pals, but not with X, who he doesn't know (or like) that much as a player. Very personal things, that can possibly add tension. Not that it will happen frequently, but I can see this happening. I see no reason for not having the freedom to deside who you will trade with. If trades must be balanced, your friends aren't gaining much. Disliked players are usually disliked for a reason and others are under no obligation to do them favors. My LC experience was that most players were more than willing to help strangers when they could. And even if you can make rules, there are lots of questions. What do you trade for? Cash? Do you just swap certs? How do you determine if something has equal value? Using gold values? Does the other player pay the gold value that is missing? And if he does, do you actually get the gold, or half? Or, if certs are free (as you can likely only get the at the table), no gold at all? All of that can be easily covered by a brief set of rules. The exact set of rules is up to the campaign adminisrators. It is rather more trouble than it's worth, imo. It is well worth the trouble in my opinion. Yom Bollis
gomeztoo 11-11-07, 09:42 AM	Wrong. You can track trades on certs and/or log sheets, and can have rules as to what can be traded for what. This would not directly limit who you could trade to... Which means I am not wrong. You just desire to ignore that problem.
aljergensen 11-11-07, 10:52 AM	It is well worth the trouble in my opinion. Yom Bollis The main problem I had with the old LC cert system was the limited availiablity. Arguing over who got what was ... painful. So if we say that everyone at the table can receive the same cert, what does it represent? Is it a physical item? Access? Favors? If it's a physical item there are issues with gp/balance. If it's access (which I personally hope we don't need) I could see a spot on the cert where it's signed by a judge saying you have access and another spot where it is signed when you buy it. At that point you own the item and if you want to sell it to another character you can - at full price. I could then see items being traded, as long as the balance of the transaction is equal. For example Bob sells Sue a +1 Adamantine Flaming longsword in exchange for the +1 Shocking Longbow and 500 gp. Or Bob just buys the bow from Sue for 3,000 gp or whatever it's market value is. The restriction on the transaction is that neither player gains or loses gp in the tranaction. I could support that kind of cert system. It removes the arguements/horsetrading/voting at the end of mods and gives people some flexibility we don't have in LG. Allen.
gomeztoo 11-11-07, 12:13 PM	Still, that means you can sell items at full price while normally you sell them at half. So you need a system where the buyer pays full price, but the seller receives only half. Which makes the ruling rather complicated. Anyway, it still doesn't solve the issue that you can trade 'access', which, even though magic items become less important (apparently), I am still not very comfortable with, especially as who gets the access is then a player vs player issue. Maybe it worked in LC. But LFR is not LC. It is much bigger and thus arguments about such things are easier to erupt (I saw arguments happen when LG still used certs). Not saying that they will in LFR, but you need only one big argument for this system to go down the drain. SO better to avoid it. It is also a question of whether it is needed to trade to enjoy the game.
tombollis 11-11-07, 04:08 PM	Which means I am not wrong. You just desire to ignore that problem. No. You wish to ignore the problems by not having trading at all. I accept the problems and believe they can easily be solved by certs and simple rules. I've been playing in Living campaigns since 1990, have seen the problems, and seen that they developed long after the start of trading. They didn't affect many directly, were partly solved by evolving rules, and could have been minimized by better rules. Tom Bollis
tombollis 11-11-07, 04:29 PM	The main problem I had with the old LC cert system was the limited availiablity. Arguing over who got what was ... painful.. I agree. So if we say that everyone at the table can receive the same cert, what does it represent? Is it a physical item? Access? Favors?. Lots of possibilities. I favor specific certed items being available as part of te treasure for each PC. Each gets a gp value worth of treasure, which can be taken at the end of the adventure as a combination of certs and gp. Let PCs use existing gp and/or sell off existing items to get certs if they are worth more than his treasure share. Do all buying, selling, and trading at full market value rather than the traditional selling at half price. Have it all done at the table. Physical items. There could also be certs for favors, which would not have gp value and would not be tradable. .If it's a physical item there are issues with gp/balance. Having all transactions, including trades, at full market value, and having items properly valued, takes care of most balance issues. The current LG AR system is much worse, balance-wise. If it's access (which I personally hope we don't need) I could see a spot on the cert where it's signed by a judge saying you have access and another spot where it is signed when you buy it. At that point you own the item and if you want to sell it to another character you can - at full price. Sounds reasonable to me, though I don't like the idea of access. I could then see items being traded, as long as the balance of the transaction is equal. For example Bob sells Sue a +1 Adamantine Flaming longsword in exchange for the +1 Shocking Longbow and 500 gp. Or Bob just buys the bow from Sue for 3,000 gp or whatever it's market value is. The restriction on the transaction is that neither player gains or loses gp in the tranaction. I suggested that early on. I could support that kind of cert system. It removes the arguements/horsetrading/voting at the end of mods and gives people some flexibility we don't have in LG. Allen. We seem in agreement. Tom Bollis
tombollis 11-11-07, 04:42 PM	Still, that means you can sell items at full price while normally you sell them at half. So you need a system where the buyer pays full price, but the seller receives only half. Which makes the ruling rather complicated. Anyway, it still doesn't solve the issue that you can trade 'access', which, even though magic items become less important (apparently), I am still not very comfortable with, especially as who gets the access is then a player vs player issue. Maybe it worked in LC. But LFR is not LC. It is much bigger and thus arguments about such things are easier to erupt (I saw arguments happen when LG still used certs). Not saying that they will in LFR, but you need only one big argument for this system to go down the drain. SO better to avoid it. It is also a question of whether it is needed to trade to enjoy the game. The whole selling for half mechanic is unbalancing, deigned to drain wealth from the PCs. If treasure is issued in balance with xp, and it is not significantly drained or inflated by PC activities, characters are more likwly to have the expected wealth (and related power) at higher levels. THe system used in LG results in a wide spectrum of wealth at any fiven level, making it hard to take items into account when setting difficulty levels. All transactions at full value is more likely to maintain balance, even with trading. "Access" is an unbalancing mechanism. Characters should not be able to trade access, just items and gold, at equal value. Tom Bollis
gomeztoo 11-11-07, 05:54 PM	No. You wish to ignore the problems by not having trading at all. I don't see any problems that trading can solve, but I may be missing out on something. I do see problems that trading can introduce - favorism, mostly. Plus somehow I feel PCs need to 'earn' items, not get them at Wal Mart. That's just preference, but it does weigh in in my resistance against trade. I also don't see how access is unbalancing (or more unbalancing than certed items).
tombollis 11-11-07, 06:48 PM	I don't see any problems that trading can solve, but I may be missing out on something. I do see problems that trading can introduce - favorism, mostly. Plus somehow I feel PCs need to 'earn' items, not get them at Wal Mart. That's just preference, but it does weigh in in my resistance against trade. I also don't see how access is unbalancing (or more unbalancing than certed items). Favoratism shows ore in who you choose to play with, when given a choice. I has little effect on game balance when trades are for equal value and magic items are reasonably available for pircchase. What you earn is represented by gp value and favors, not which magic items you encounter. It seems more balancing to me if you can trde or sell items for which you have little or no use and be traded or buy items that are useful for your PC. For some PCs, the items you encounter can be very useful, while for others items of similar usefulness for them are unlikely to ever be encountered. Or they are encountered in modules that character wasn't played in. I consider gaining advanced info on what items appear in what module to berge on cheating, but the lack of trading makes it common. Tom Bollis
gomeztoo 11-12-07, 04:40 AM	I personally don't know anyone who shares or asks for such information, so I wouldn't call it 'common'. I also don't really mind myself if I find a cool item with a PC that has no use for it - eventually, I'll find something that does and things tend to balance out. So I don't see that need. Trading just seems to me a way to uber-min-max PCs even more (yes I know magic items were supposed to be less important in 4ed, but I still have to see that first...). I don't like it flavor wise. What makes an item special is that I pried it from a monster cold dead hands myself, not that it was dropped in my lap by a guy in a tavern. But that is personal - I can just choose to not trade. I am still not convinced that it won't cause arguments, but it may depend on the system. Perhaps arguments will be less if items are commonly available, but then, really, what is the use? I just don't see the *need* for trading, so why risk choosing a bad system (and I'm sure people will whine whatever system you choose), if you can choose to not have a system at all. I have to add that I don't know what the reason was to disallow trading, as I was not Triad yet then. It would be interesting if people in the know could post the reasons, because I can only guess - there might be more compelling ones that I have brought forth (or, to throw Tom a bone, there might be reasons that won't apply in LFR and are therefor void).
TempleLion 11-12-07, 01:11 PM	I've really enjoyed LG. I like to think of RPGs as a chess game. While I don't create munchkins, once I have a character I definitely like to build his stats and equipment kit to maximize combat effectiveness. I've found that most LG players have a similar approach and, as a result, most LG sessions become somewhat of a tactical race to the end boss. This is particularly evident above Level 6. To bring the "RP" back into the LFR RPG, I'd like to see required quirks/foibles/weaknesses. Maybe one minor and one major. You see ingenious LG mod authors add these in via curses and disfavors, but having something from the beginning would really spice things up. It would make players role-play more. And, it would add an interesting twist to the tactical game. If my archer (really a shooting tank) is a afraid of spiders, then he should become less effective deep in drow territory. If he makes some the appropriate save, he can overcome his phobia for the good of the party. If not, he might fight at a -2 to hit (minor weakness) or he may run away (major weakness). In either case, the rest of the party needs to adjust, this makes combat and confrontation a more fluid/dynamic experience. To keep the weaknesses from being "gamed", the DM at the very first session of a PC's LFR career would roll or oversee the weakness roll for the new PC. This would be noted on his/her first AR/Cert. In addition, this could really open up some interesting opportunities for scenario authors. Scenarios could lead to a removal of a phobia or perhaps an abatement of their effect. Lots of possibilities here. Just a thought.
TempleLion 11-12-07, 01:25 PM	After the 4E announcement, I think the most common theme I heard was ... it all sounds good, if they don't screw it up. For the most part, this seemed focused around the Digital Initiative. A lot of folks are still feeling burned by eTools and the uneven performance of that toolset. The darn thing still crashes all of the time for me. Some folks also bemoaned the move of a pen and paper game to a sort of hybrid PnP/MMO approach. The main question was "will I need a laptop to play 4E DnD?" I think that question has been answered. But as someone whose written an LG mod, I welcome the Digital Initiative. In a game as crunchy and numbers-intensive as DnD, reliable online tools are required to keep the game moving forward. If this approach is not adopted, the game will probably largely die out in 20 years. So, moving digital is definitely good for the game. However, digital for digital's sake, particularly for LFR, will suck. WotC needs to learn the lesson of eTools. Early indications say they have. The toolset needs to encourage online play while supporting offline play. And, it needs to consistently apply the 4E ruleset in a way that let's mod authors focus on scenario and encounter creation from the story-telling and tactical set-up perspective, while taking care of most of the number crunching (Monster Advancement & Stat blocks, Trap/Environmental Hazard DC, etc.) on the back-end. This will lead to a rich, engaging story line which will have LFR players waiting for the next release for more than just an opportunity to "grind" their PC to the next level.
LGMoses 11-12-07, 09:25 PM	I don't think certs will be a good idea. Trading like that in any form will increase the politics I'll have to go through and nerd politics can be fairly vicious. Say no to an increase in nerd-politicking.
PCI_StatMonkey 11-13-07, 01:11 PM	Maybe it worked in LC. But LFR is not LC. It is much bigger and thus arguments about such things are easier to erupt (I saw arguments happen when LG still used certs). Not saying that they will in LFR, but you need only one big argument for this system to go down the drain. SO better to avoid it. It is also a question of whether it is needed to trade to enjoy the game. Well, It's working in Arcanis, and for some time there, LA was the 2nd biggest living campaign in the RPGA... So, yes a huge campaign can still use a cert system, because it's impact becomes a local one among a local player base. the "fear" behind a cert system is unfounded in most cases, I know when I play LA we sit at the table and the items that fit character X to that character, if a player has not gotten any certs in a while, they get some "trade fodder" It’s called being adult about the game, if you "dumb" it down for lowest common denominator then, well you end up attracting the lowest common denominator.
Surgebuster 11-13-07, 03:53 PM	Well, It's working in Arcanis, and for some time there, LA was the 2nd biggest living campaign in the RPGA... So, yes a huge campaign can still use a cert system, because it's impact becomes a local one among a local player base. It’s called being adult about the game, if you "dumb" it down for lowest common denominator then, well you end up attracting the lowest common denominator. Per my earlier post, Arcanis is a much more mature campaign, with an older core demographic than the LG/LFR player base. You can't expect younger players (who we do not want to exclude from LFR) to 'be adult about the game', simply because they aren't adults yet. It has absolutely nothing to do with lowest common denominator. Joe
tombollis 11-13-07, 04:58 PM	Per my earlier post, Arcanis is a much more mature campaign, with an older core demographic than the LG/LFR player base. You can't expect younger players (who we do not want to exclude from LFR) to 'be adult about the game', simply because they aren't adults yet. It has absolutely nothing to do with lowest common denominator. Joe Sure it does. You are explicitly aiming at the lowest common denominator of player maturity here. Many young players behave very maturely, while some older ones behave immaturely. No matter how you limit options, some people will cause problems. Treating the community as mainly responsible people contributes to a better gaming environment, and the occational problems can be dealt with. Yom Bollis
Madfox11 11-14-07, 08:23 AM	No matter how you limit options, some people will cause problems. Treating the community as mainly responsible people contributes to a better gaming environment, and the occational problems can be dealt with. Only when there are mature people around who can deal with the problem... I have seen immature reactions in LG often enough to have no illusions about it. Granted, when the benefits outweight the risk of these reactions, I would all be fore it. Like Gomeztoo, I am just not sure trading is worth the hassle. In any event the reason we stopped using certs in LG was mainly because of two things: (1) Arguments about who gets what and the really unfair wealth division that started to arise. (2) Loose pieces of small paper that had a tendency to get lost and where difficult to check whether the thing was earned fairly (not that I have seen many people carefully audit ARs in LG, but it is easier). There was little love at the time about trading, and those arguments have been stated. We could have come up with a ruling that would deal with some of the problems (in as far as gp balance was concerned - there is little that could be done about the social problems), but we thought it was just not worth the hassle.
soccerref73 11-14-07, 12:18 PM	Greetings... I hope that the D&D Insider tools will open up some cool new options for the campaign in terms of how certificates get handled. There are some things that make a lot of sense for pieces of paper (whether those pieces of paper are ARs or logsheets or certs or what have you)... but there are other things that I think are just as easily handled online, and doing so opens up options that you don't have under either the AR-only or cert-only system. We already know that the D&D Insider is a huge part of the 4th Edition push, so I would like to see the new campaign take advantage of that as much as possible (within reason and without requiring RPGA members to also buy paid D&D Insider memberships). I think that the D&D Campaigns were on the right track with the "story objects" but the mistake they made was in requiring those objects to be recorded as part of the table-tracking form. This put the campaign at risk because of database problems and data-entry errors. If players had the ability to update their own characters with those story objects by picking and entering reward codes themselves, then you would eliminate the situation where the character earns item / favor X in an adventure, but the table-tracking form got lost or the Senior GM made a data-entry error or the database hiccuped or whatever, so the character never got credited. Instead, I would print reward codes on the AR (or whatever the new campaign uses) and let the player choose to enter one or more of those codes on his or her own time. For example, the AR could say something along the lines of "you have been recognized by the Duke for your service. You may choose one of the following boons. Enter code A1 if you would like a cash reward. Enter code A2 if you would like a magic weapon. Enter code A3 if you would like the Duke to sponsor you for membership in a meta-organization." (The descriptions of the awards are deliberately vague since we have no idea how things like magic items and even the gold economy will work in 4th Edition. But you get the idea.) Then the player goes to the D&D Insider website and opens up the character he played during that adventure. He enters the scenario code (which is on the AR) and the system checks to make sure he hasn't entered that same scenario code for any of his other characters. He then gets to choose one of the rewards by entering the appropriate reward code (again, the system checks to make sure that he hasn't previously chosen a reward for that scenario) and that's that. If the reward is gold, he gets that amount of gold added to his character; if the reward is a favor, he gets the appropriate story object (or whatever D&D Insider will use to track intangibles); if the reward is a magic weapon, he then picks the type of weapon from a list, and the appropriate object with the appropriate magical property is added to the character. This could virtually eliminate fighting over treasure because every player gets access to the same reward codes. (It doesn't eliminate cheating, since players could enter reward codes that the DM had marked off on the AR as not being received, or they could defer entering any code at all so that they could claim to have chosen whichever reward they might want to use at a particular point in time, but really, no system is going to eliminate cheating, or at least, no system that people would actually want to play under, so I consider cheating-prevention a secondary goal that should not be prioritized over making things fun and easy for the non-cheaters.) In the event that a scenario wanted to set up a situation where one and only one character would get access to a particular reward, then that might best be handled by sticking with the established system from the D&D Campaigns -- provide a place for that code (story object) on the tracking form and have the GM specify which character got it. The Senior GM would then enter that code when entering the table-tracking form. Alternatively, those kinds of unique rewards remain a good candidate for having certificates, since you would only need one per table, and physical possession of the cert would be required to signify access to the item/favor/whatever. Trading could be achieved quite easily in this system because each item associated with a character record could have a unique identifier in the database (as opposed to all records for +1 swords pointing to a single row). People could arrange and execute trades entirely online within the context of the D&D Insider system and the Gleemax message boards. Trading would be both instantaneous and secure (and you couldn't trade the same item to multiple people because its unique ID would be removed from your character and associated with the character you traded it to as soon as both parties had confirmed the transaction, and the item would be placed into a trade-pending status while a transaction was in flight, so that you could not initiate a second trade involving that same item until the first was either completed or canceled). By having both a paper AR and the online component you also eliminate the problem where characters can't be updated without access to the online system. If you're at a convention and you're playing adventures all day, you go ahead and pick your reward on the AR and use it for the rest of the convention. You can't trade it or do anything else with it until you get home and activate it in the system, but that's not really a big deal in my mind. The point is that you get the immediate use of your rewards, but you also have a system for tracking those rewards that provides most of the benefits of the certificate system without the annoying aspects of the certificate system. I am making some basic assumptions here (that the D&D Insider system will be free for all RPGA members to use for basic character-tracking, for example) but comments that have been made from the WotC folks on various message boards lead me to believe that the D&D Insider applications are being developed at least partially with RPGA usage in mind, so I don't think it is too much of a stretch to think that all RPGA players will be able to access a basic level of functionality without having to pay for it, and that level of functionality could include the types of things I'm talking about. There are certainly significant obstacles that would have to be overcome to make a system like this work (and to have that system achieve acceptance among the players) but I think there would be a lot of benefits and very cool options that would open up if the online tools could be used in this fashion. I think we could get back a lot of the benefits that people have historically liked about the certificate system while eliminating many (but not all) of the corresponding drawbacks. You would still need paper records, both as a backup in the event of a problem with the online system and as a way to allow characters to advance in between adventures and during times when the player might not have access to the online system, but the paper records would not need to be any more elaborate than the AR system that LG already uses, and could probably be less elaborate. Talk to you later -- Sean ---- M. Sean Molley | sean [at] basementsoftware [dot] com
smerwin29 11-14-07, 03:52 PM	And such a system is already somewhat realized in WotC's Maple Story game.
GeorgeFHarris 11-14-07, 04:29 PM	e) Real player run organizations.. see the knight hood system from LC.. for example, the Harpers would be all players, if they thought you where "Harper Material" they would invite you into the group where you needed a sponsor.. it was DAMN cool. Not like the "so how many knights of Sterench (sp?) do we have at the table.. oh all of us.. how special" No This promotes the Good-Ole-Boy system. And if you are never lucky enough to adventure with someone who happens to be a member of this club, you'll never be able to join. Also, in LC, players who had PCs that were harpers were not even allowed OOC to tell you that so that you could arrange to play with their PC. The KotW/D in the Sheldomar Valley worked much better. You could use player (PC) or NPC recommendations to join. The meta-org used a squiring form sheet that the GM and any player who was playing a PC that was already a knight filled out, to make sure that you were of sufficient quality to join. But I agree about the Sir whatever of Sterich. GH
Surgebuster 11-14-07, 06:22 PM	Greetings... <snip> Sean I really like this idea but also have a couple of concerns. Firstly, the blood-curdling screams that will emanate from people without a home computer or easy access to one because of the requirement of using web-based tracking. I know this is a very small part of the community but the AR system at least let everything be done 'at the table' and not individually sequestered in our lairs. Secondly, it isn't simple. It isn't convoluted either but some will have trouble coming to grips with a blend of AR, table trackers requiring GMs to note unique codes, and choosing favours by code on the web. Otherwise, it is a great base to start refining it into a better system than LG and XE. Joe
Herrbard 11-17-07, 07:47 AM	Greetings... <SNIP> I think that the D&D Campaigns were on the right track with the "story objects" but the mistake they made was in requiring those objects to be recorded as part of the table-tracking form. This put the campaign at risk because of database problems and data-entry errors. If players had the ability to update their own characters with those story objects by picking and entering reward codes themselves, then you would eliminate the situation where the character earns item / favor X in an adventure, but the table-tracking form got lost or the Senior GM made a data-entry error or the database hiccuped or whatever, so the character never got credited. Instead, I would print reward codes on the AR (or whatever the new campaign uses) and let the player choose to enter one or more of those codes on his or her own time. <SNIP> Talk to you later -- Sean ---- M. Sean Molley | sean [at] basementsoftware [dot] com Sean, while I also like the idea, my one on-going complaint with WotC/RPGA has always been the implementation of any web-based offerings. Every time they get excited about what things are coming up, and every time we are left with delays, bad database implementation, and a system that can't handle the info. I need only remind you of the Origins 2006 reporting fiasco, which was no fault of the organizer who diligently tried to get events entered correctly for months, and still things never got completely sorted out. (Oh, wait, that organizer was you... :D ) I switched to only GMing Xen'drik Expeditions instead of playing it because my characters would never get credit for those first adventures, simply because I played them before the tracking system caught up to the games offered. The campaign folks have always worked above and beyond the call to get the players and DMs the best campaigns, but the tracking system never seems to keep up. Oh, and congratulations on your position as a global admin for LFR. You, Shawn Merwin and Pieter Sleijpen? I shudder at the implications! My characters aren't even thought up yet, and they are still trembling in their boots! :cool:
MatteBlack 11-18-07, 01:41 PM	Per my earlier post, Arcanis is a much more mature campaign, with an older core demographic than the LG/LFR player base. You can't expect younger players (who we do not want to exclude from LFR) to 'be adult about the game', simply because they aren't adults yet. It has absolutely nothing to do with lowest common denominator. Joe In all honesty, the incidents of immaturity on the part of players who actually are young tend to be less disruptive than the immature adult who believes himself to be right or justified of his opinion. Most of the kids will tend to eventually adapt to the norm while the adult who decides he is going to raise a stink can really ruin a whole night for more than just his table.
PCI_StatMonkey 11-19-07, 03:40 PM	No The KotW/D in the Sheldomar Valley worked much better. You could use player (PC) or NPC recommendations to join. The meta-org used a squiring form sheet that the GM and any player who was playing a PC that was already a knight filled out, to make sure that you were of sufficient quality to join. They kind of did that in LC where there was a mod that you could become a harper friend.. then you would e-mail someone, and they would put you in contact with a local harper via e-mail I have meet a few KoTW who's characters should have never been accepted into the Watch, they played their characters like mercinearies who used the title to get what they wanted.. but seeing they got the recomendations in game.. it was all good. I would love to see a peer review system, where payers get to roleplay the acceptance into the organization... you know.. like roleplay.
KarmaInferno 11-20-07, 03:38 PM	In all honesty, the incidents of immaturity on the part of players who actually are young tend to be less disruptive than the immature adult who believes himself to be right or justified of his opinion. Most of the kids will tend to eventually adapt to the norm while the adult who decides he is going to raise a stink can really ruin a whole night for more than just his table. At this point he's violating the RPGA rules of conduct and the GM is well within his rights to eject the player from the table. If that player continues this behavior he risks further sanctioning, both from RPGA HQ and from his local conventions as word spreads of his reputation. -karma
qstor 11-26-07, 04:26 PM	I would love to see a peer review system, where payers get to roleplay the acceptance into the organization... you know.. like roleplay. Thats what the KotW/D squiring form was for. To review the players actions as a squire to make sure they roleplayed the PC "correctly" I like how the metaorgs in LG are handled e-mail the POC of the group if your character meets the prereqs. Maybe have an influence point with the group be required to join. Mike
MatteBlack 11-27-07, 01:40 PM	The whole selling for half mechanic is unbalancing, deigned to drain wealth from the PCs. If treasure is issued in balance with xp, and it is not significantly drained or inflated by PC activities, characters are more likwly to have the expected wealth (and related power) at higher levels. THe system used in LG results in a wide spectrum of wealth at any fiven level, making it hard to take items into account when setting difficulty levels. All transactions at full value is more likely to maintain balance, even with trading. "Access" is an unbalancing mechanism. Characters should not be able to trade access, just items and gold, at equal value. Tom Bollis I'd argue that selling for half helps prevent imbalance through optimization. If you tend to play with what you have the extremes in the range of character ability tend to be avoided more easily. Everything that slows characters from quickly assembling and maintaining the perfect build, gear and favors tends to be better for overall campaign balance. Trading and certs would be awful. You start out with unfair treasure split then expose the whole system to abusive trades or trades between players with vastly differing trading abilities. At the very least the current system allows two characters who played the same mods access to the same resources. the older systems couldn't even guarantee that much. The somewhat artificial method of being rewarded through ARs is a more than fair trade for avoiding all the anxiety and bad spirits that surround treasure divy time.
tombollis 11-27-07, 07:09 PM	Trading and certs would be awful. You start out with unfair treasure split then expose the whole system to abusive trades or trades between players with vastly differing trading abilities. At the very least the current system allows two characters who played the same mods access to the same resources. the older systems couldn't even guarantee that much. The somewhat artificial method of being rewarded through ARs is a more than fair trade for avoiding all the anxiety and bad spirits that surround treasure divy time. This is not a valid argument against certs, it's an atgument against divying certs so that only one character at each table can get a particular cert. The argument is voided if each player who wants a given cert as part of his share of the treasure can get it, similar to how LG does it on ARs. Certs aren't necessarily a way of dividing treasure, but a way of identifying and tracking treasure. AR's do a poor job of this, being a general record of an adventure, not separate records for each significant item a PC possesses. Tom Bollis
MatteBlack 11-28-07, 12:09 PM	This is not a valid argument against certs, it's an atgument against divying certs so that only one character at each table can get a particular cert. The argument is voided if each player who wants a given cert as part of his share of the treasure can get it, similar to how LG does it on ARs. Certs aren't necessarily a way of dividing treasure, but a way of identifying and tracking treasure. AR's do a poor job of this, being a general record of an adventure, not separate records for each significant item a PC possesses. Tom Bollis I got little issue with certs themselves. Some folks might lose them but, I am pretty good with the bookkeeping end of things. If you want to see certs and can do it without the uneven treasure splits and people abusing the trade of them, go ahead and waste the extra ink and paper. My assumption is that they would make any possible online tracking more difficult so we won't see them.
tombollis 11-28-07, 01:36 PM	I got little issue with certs themselves. Some folks might lose them but, I am pretty good with the bookkeeping end of things. If you want to see certs and can do it without the uneven treasure splits and people abusing the trade of them, go ahead and waste the extra ink and paper. My assumption is that they would make any possible online tracking more difficult so we won't see them. Why woild certs be significantly harder to track than ARs and item access through them? Any online play has tracking issues. Tom Bollis
Reylance 11-28-07, 02:25 PM	A cert system that would avoid the divvying problems would be to give each player a cert with all items on it, allowing him to check whichever item is desired. If there are two bards at the table, both can elect to take the bard-specific item. For balance, one would have to give each option the same equivalent value, by combining the item with gold. A better item would come with less gold. For example, valuing items at their sale value, a +1 greatsword (half is 1175 gp) plus 125 gp is equivalent to a [cleric] potion of lesser restoration (half is 150 gp) plus 1150 gp is equivalent to 1300 gp. Gold would then be added to a log sheet, and the paper cert represents an item that could later be traded. The total collected by the party would be written on each cert, and the item plus gold taken (also filled in on the cert) would have to equal the total. And there, you see a problem. Under the LG reward system, you have to be APL 8 to be able to take even a +1 item as part of your share. You have to be APL 10 to take a +2 stat item. In a home game, that's balanced by having, say, each adventure end with one permanent item, and after six adventures, your party of six will each have an item. That won't work in Living play, if you give everyone the option to take any item desired. A possible solution would be to take an expensive item plus negative gold; at APL 2, a PC could take a +1 greatsword and -725 gp. A PC with negative gold would then be forced to take nothing but gold in future adventures until he has a positive gold balance. An additional problem is that some people might want to group items, like taking several potions. I suppose you could have one of these multi-certs for each item in the game. While I feel this system could work, it's probably more complex than the campaign administration wants to consider. After playing with the AR system, I find it simple to understand and quick to use. What I regret most is the fun little items, with little or no game effect, that LC used to have. Endless Shaker of Salt? Everful Tankard? Ed's favorite Origami Peace Crane?
Vamroc 11-28-07, 05:06 PM	A living mod set in the Necropolis oh the irony
gomeztoo 11-29-07, 03:31 AM	You can add those stuff to ARs, too. Or you could potentially make certs for specifically those items. We had them in LG (i.e. a 'water from Innspa' cert). In the end, certs are different way of tracking, with as the only advantage that I see that you can trade them - and I do not consider that an advantage. We play heroes, not merchants.
tombollis 11-29-07, 06:59 AM	You can add those stuff to ARs, too. Or you could potentially make certs for specifically those items. We had them in LG (i.e. a 'water from Innspa' cert). In the end, certs are different way of tracking, with as the only advantage that I see that you can trade them - and I do not consider that an advantage. We play heroes, not merchants. They also have the significant advantage that you can sort them in any way you want, have those for things you are using in front of you at a table so that you and others know their properties and the DM can verify them without you having to search through ARs each time. If an item is used up or lost, sold, or traded, the cert can be destroyed or clearly voided, or traded, rather than an obscure note made on an old AR that still holds other unrelate, information that still needs to be maintained. If an item is upgraded,the cert can have the new info added, or the upgrade certs can be attached to the master item cert, rather than needing to search through ARs and log sheets to verify its current properties and authenticity. They make tracking, not just of trades, much easier than ARs, for the player as well as the DM. Magic item creation could be tracked on individusl generic certs, verified by the first DM, rather than on MIC log sheets. The standard forms for certs and what info they contain would depend on the campaign administration. Tom Bollis
MatteBlack 11-29-07, 10:07 AM	One of my hopes was that one of the online services might be a condensed listing of accesses from the ARs. A couple yes/no boxes and what accesses were used on the reporting end and a database covering what accesses are in each mod would allow for a print out of what items the player has access to and until when and which special abilities or contacts could be called upon and from what regions. Trimming down the descriptions to the bare details could probably get it all down to a manageable few pages of lists.
JamesMaissen 11-29-07, 11:27 AM	You can add those stuff to ARs, too. Or you could potentially make certs for specifically those items. We had them in LG (i.e. a 'water from Innspa' cert). In the end, certs are different way of tracking, with as the only advantage that I see that you can trade them - and I do not consider that an advantage. We play heroes, not merchants. The other advantage is for one use favors. How many do you have across your ARs? Have you ever witnessed people digging through ARs looking for them? Its much easier with a pile of certs that's just such favors. I'm not sure how many times I've heard people saying that they forgot they had favor X or Y that would have saved someone. I like certs for flavor items and for one use favors. I don't mind if they are merely placeholders for some AR or the like, but frankly I'm too lazy to make a reference list myself. It would be nice if LFR would learn from the prior living campaigns and not just the reactionary associations that they bring with them. -James
ankhwearer 11-29-07, 05:23 PM	I was under the impression that magic items were being greatly reduced in emphasis. So much so that getting a set of accesses or certs for items each mod does not match up with how often a player adds an item. WotC_Logan's blog post (http://www.gleemax.com/Comms/Pages/Communities/BlogPost.aspx?blogpostid=8192&pagemode=2&blogid=2072) AC and to hit are being link more to your level than to items, stat increases are replacing stat items. What are people expecting to be getting access to on these certs, it's not clear to me from reading this last page of posts.
tombollis 11-29-07, 06:14 PM	What are people expecting to be getting access to on these certs, it's not clear to me from reading this last page of posts. I don't foresee a useful magic item every adventure. Particularly in early adventures, relatively cheep flavor items and gp is what the PCs would take from an adventure, as well as favors and items that may be of use in sequals. Later, it would be items with useful magic properties, like flaming weapons, invisibility, flight, water breathing, etc. that would be useful for many roles, non standard items that can't just be bought, etc. If a certed item is worth more than the PC's share of the treasure, he should be able to sell/trade items he already has and/or spend saved gp to make up the difference. This is easier to do with certs with their gp value on them than to give up items on old ARs to get an item on a new AR. Accumulating wealth for later use and trading items up in such an easy to handle manner should make getting valuable items, worth more than treasure share, quickly workable at the table after an adventure rather than using access from an AR to get one or more at a later time after you gather the gp value to buy it, as with the current LG AR access system. Tom Bollis
ankhwearer 11-30-07, 03:58 PM	If a certed item is worth more than the PC's share of the treasure, he should be able to sell/trade items he already has and/or spend saved gp to make up the difference. This is easier to do with certs with their gp value on them than to give up items on old ARs to get an item on a new AR. Wouldn't the cert actually be harder? After all, there has to be some process for issueing a new cert for the item that the player buys or "trades up" for. What happens to the traded/sold cert's physical form? How is the gold gained from selling recorded; how is adventure gold recorded? Sounds to me like you would need an AR anway for XP and gold, along with the cert system for items, which makes the cert system redundant. But, most compelling to me, the standard arguement against certs is that it is impossible to fairly divide treasure. Over time a home game group can balance inequivilencies, but a party that meets once and then splits up can't do that. Even if the gold equation is solved, someone still missed out on the opportunity to take home a magic item. Add to the complexity characters of different level. Should the 10th level guy get more because he carried his weight plus the weight of the 5th level tag-a-long? I DM'd the Undermountain adventures at PAX this year. Since this was neither LG nor XE, rewards were issued as certs, with XP and GP only being tracked for the weekend. The division of treasure at the table was never equitable, nor did it go smoothly socially. I, as a player, do not want to spend 30 minutes of the slot time discussing who gets which cert. It's not fun. It's accounting. When everyone gets the exact same thing, it's fair, fast and I feel it encourages teamwork.
MatteBlack 11-30-07, 07:42 PM	But, most compelling to me, the standard arguement against certs is that it is impossible to fairly divide treasure. Over time a home game group can balance inequivilencies, but a party that meets once and then splits up can't do that. Even if the gold equation is solved, someone still missed out on the opportunity to take home a magic item. Add to the complexity characters of different level. Should the 10th level guy get more because he carried his weight plus the weight of the 5th level tag-a-long? I am all for any system that forgoes that awkward phase of in and out of game bargaining and accompanying sourgrapes that always seem to follow treasure divvies. The only people who seem to enjoy it are those that come out ahead or enjoy arguing. Even if I do come out of mod with a good item that I feel like I might have deserved, the whole process can ruin the fun of the games.
tombollis 11-30-07, 11:24 PM	Wouldn't the cert actually be harder? After all, there has to be some process for issueing a new cert for the item that the player buys or "trades up" for. What happens to the traded/sold cert's physical form? How is the gold gained from selling recorded; how is adventure gold recorded? Already answered: "If an item is upgraded,the cert can have the new info added, or the upgrade certs can be attached to the master item cert, rather than needing to search through ARs and log sheets to verify its current properties and authenticity." If sold or lost, destroy or void the cert. If traded, the DM signs off that it was a fair trade. Sounds to me like you would need an AR anway for XP and gold, along with the cert system for items, which makes the cert system redundant. ARs could track adventures, xp, gp, but not items. Or old-style adventure logs could concisely track such with no need for ARs. But, most compelling to me, the standard arguement against certs is that it is impossible to fairly divide treasure. Over time a home game group can balance inequivilencies, but a party that meets once and then splits up can't do that. Even if the gold equation is solved, someone still missed out on the opportunity to take home a magic item. Add to the complexity characters of different level. Should the 10th level guy get more because he carried his weight plus the weight of the 5th level tag-a-long? I DM'd the Undermountain adventures at PAX this year. Since this was neither LG nor XE, rewards were issued as certs, with XP and GP only being tracked for the weekend. The division of treasure at the table was never equitable, nor did it go smoothly socially. I, as a player, do not want to spend 30 minutes of the slot time discussing who gets which cert. It's not fun. It's accounting. When everyone gets the exact same thing, it's fair, fast and I feel it encourages teamwork. Also already answered: "This is not a valid argument against certs, it's an atgument against divying certs so that only one character at each table can get a particular cert. The argument is voided if each player who wants a given cert as part of his share of the treasure can get it, similar to how LG does it on ARs." Tom Bollis
gomeztoo 12-01-07, 03:22 PM	You raised some merits to certs, but with it comes problems, too. I don't know whether it really is is easier to manage 100+ certs rather than 50+ ARs (since I consistently forget about the certs I did get, as often or more as I forget the AR favors). After all, an AR generally has more favors/items, so you have more to manage. Also note that you may only have ONE opportunity to buy an item (if you want it to stay 'fair you can only give a cert if someone can afford it). if not, you get 'potential item certs' (to be marked off when you can pay for the item), and you'll end up with hundreds of those. I would not be totally against certs (as long as we disallow trading), but I really wonder if that are easier to handle in the end.
tombollis 12-01-07, 06:40 PM	You raised some merits to certs, but with it comes problems, too. I don't know whether it really is is easier to manage 100+ certs rather than 50+ ARs (since I consistently forget about the certs I did get, as often or more as I forget the AR favors). You don't need 100+ certs at your finger tips (and I never had that many at one time for all of my LC characters put together). You only need to assemble the ones for items your PC is currently equipped with, and have those for favors available when needed. With ARs, you need them organized so you can find the ones for your current items and for favors, and they contain a lot of extanious information, such as for items you don't have; it's easy yo lose track of what you actually have. After all, an AR generally has more favors/items, so you have more to manage. Also note that you may only have ONE opportunity to buy an item (if you want it to stay 'fair you can only give a cert if someone can afford it). if not, you get 'potential item certs' (to be marked off when you can pay for the item), and you'll end up with hundreds of those. This is a valid argument against ARs and in favor of certs. I would not be totally against certs (as long as we disallow trading), but I really wonder if that are easier to handle in the end. I have years of experience with just certs and with just ARs. I found it easier to handle items and favors with certs than with ARs. I still don't see what you have against fair trading. Tom Bollis
MatteBlack 12-02-07, 02:50 AM	I still don't see what you have against fair trading. Tom Bollis There is the question of how to define fair trades. Book value and actual value to a character within the campaign can be very different things. I also think the more we make acquiring the right loot part of the game, the more players will focus on greed and optimization over heroism and roleplay. For the most part, I like the current LG system for ARs and wealth however, a concise list of earned contacts and abilities and a few random use magic items would be nice.
tombollis 12-02-07, 09:31 AM	There is the question of how to define fair trades. Book value and actual value to a character within the campaign can be very different things. This applies to having the item in the campaign at all, even via treasure access, What value, as game reward, is appropriate to an object, and when is it appropriate for a character to obtain it? If one character can get an item from a given adventure that adds to his effectiveness in the campaign, while it is of less use to another, is that fair? Is it not fairer to allow the other to exchange it for something of simiar effectiveness for him? Treasure is assigned based on market value; we have to trust that market value of items made available is a reasonable indication of their game worth to some PCs - it should represent what a specialist would be willing to pay for it. If the value assigned is more than its worth, the character would take gp and lesser items at lower cost. If the value assigned is too low, that is a fault of assigning the value. To some, a +3 composite longbow made for 18 Str is worth more than a +4 lance, so they would sell/trade the lance to get the bow, while others would sell/trade the bow to get the lance; using market value to equate the lance to the bow plus extra gp means characters end up with similar treasure value and with the item they consider more useful. The +3 bow and the +4 lance are both available in the game world for the given market prices - they are available from magic weapon crafters of sufficient expercience, or remain from the past. They aren't unique items that can't be obtained other than through that adventure. A system that grants access to one or more (such as LG ARs) relies on them being available. I also think the more we make acquiring the right loot part of the game, the more players will focus on greed and optimization over heroism and roleplay. That is an argument against treasure and having the items available at all. For some. effective heroism requires appropriate items; some others (such as monks, sorcerers, and druids) are less dependent on items for their effectiveness, but they still get the same amount of treasure as reward. Greed does not play much role when all who achieve the same success in the same adventure get the same gp value of reward. Optimization without general access to purchase or trade still exists, but is unbalancing, working for those who gain access to what they need, but against those who don't. Similar access to what they need for effectiveness for all is fairer. I don't like equipment-heavy characters for myself, but I have no objection to someone else with adamantine full plate, lance, and tower riding an armored war elephant. Whatevr is fun for him, as long as I can have fun and an equal opportunity to be effective in the adventures in my own way. Since LC, my favorite weapon has been the sap - I consider it more heroic to subdue than to kill. In LC, the only way I ever got a magic sap was to become a high enough level caster and take the feat, to eventually craft my own +2 sap. In LG, I managed to purchase a +1 sap for one character. I never found such explicitly as part of any treasure. How would being able to trade a +1 longsword for a +1 sap be unfair, greedy, or unheroic? What is unheroic about a rogue trading adamantine full plate and a bit of gold for a merciful ghost touch +1 dagger, if the armor were found in an adventure and he could afford it, and new who had such a dagger and was willing to trade it for the armor? Trades aren't of much use when the player just plays home games with the same group all the time - they would find anything you find and not find anything you don't. It's of more use when you can trade items you craft yourself, or when you adventure with many different characters, as at cons. (I think trading can add motivation for traveling to cons and playing with characters from other regions, with different treasure items.) Tom Bollis
gomeztoo 12-02-07, 10:11 AM	This is a valid argument against ARs and in favor of certs. Having 100 unordered certs instead of 20 ordered ARs is not something that counts 'in favor of certs', imo. Plus, I actually like to see where an item comes from and the context in which it was found, which is easier on an AR. But that's me. As to seeing what items you have with you: that's what the MIL is for. A similar thing works for favors. It's personal, I guess, but I don't find ARs cumbersome. I always have my ARs, while certs (or cards, or similar stuff) are things I loose all the time. Btw, there are or ules that say you always need to have your ARs ordered. If I use an item often, or plan to use an important favor, I can put that AR on top. In the end, though, it just seems to go back on trading, and I already gave my arguments against that.
MatteBlack 12-02-07, 11:41 AM	I guess my question is why do you want trading in so badly? I can agree in part with certs for player organizational purposes but, don't feel that reason is that strong of one. A player could do similar organization on his own and create cards or a list refers to the number and Title of a given AR in his stack. It's more work for that player but, not everyone player feels he needs this organizational improvement either. I'd be for non-tradable certs or some other system that helped players more quickly refer to accessess, items and abilities from the current ARs The certs make sense if you want a more traditional treasure divvy scenario and item trading but, not as much if they are only used for organization. I feel that those item distribution methods only add to the potential for imbalance across characters and largely due more to metagame type reasons than in game ones. As it stands, item creation feats can be imbalancing, trading those created items would likely only further that. The fairness in the current system is that every character who plays the same adventures has the same access to items. If your build requires specific items that might be hard to find that should be considered amongst the cons of that build. You are allowed to powergame or optimize a build all you like but, don't have any sort of god-given right for the campaign to have to support it.
tombollis 12-02-07, 11:55 AM	Having 100 unordered certs instead of 20 ordered ARs is not something that counts 'in favor of certs', imo. Plus, I actually like to see where an item comes from and the context in which it was found, which is easier on an AR. But that's me. My experience has been individual PCs retaining fewer certs than the number of adventures played (fewer certs than ARs). I had no trouble tracking where they came from or the context. I sorted them for use rather than origin, which seems more practical to me. I would rather have ARs sorted chronologically, for a history of the character, than clump together all of the ones for items the character is likely to use, as if they were item certs. As to seeing what items you have with you: that's what the MIL is for. A similar thing works for favors. They track what you own, not what you carry with you, and work equally for certs or ARs. It's personal, I guess, but I don't find ARs cumbersome. I always have my ARs, while certs (or cards, or similar stuff) are things I loose all the time. Yes, it's personal. I found ARs more cumbersome than certs, and rarely misplaced certs when they were a standard size. Cards have been more of a problem. Btw, there are or ules that say you always need to have your ARs ordered. If I use an item often, or plan to use an important favor, I can put that AR on top. In the end, though, it just seems to go back on trading, and I already gave my arguments against that. And those arguments don't seem reasonable to me. Tom Bollis
tombollis 12-02-07, 12:32 PM	I guess my question is why do you want trading in so badly? <snip> As it stands, item creation feats can be imbalancing, trading those created items would likely only further that. The fairness in the current system is that every character who plays the same adventures has the same access to items. I want trade for fairness and balance. Item creation is unbalanced because you can't trade equitably - the item creators get unbalanced benefit. If they could create and trade without making a profit, the benefit of improved magic item availability would spread to those they play with. If items were available for general purchase, non=crafters would dhare such benifit for standard items. If crafting did not save gold, it would not be unbalancing. Trade does not cause players to create optimized characters - the lack of trade in LG and the amount of character optimization there shows this. It encourages more PC diversity and individual concept development if you can get what you want at the appropriatelevel instead of whatever the authors placed in the adventures you played. Trading for equal value adds no new items to the campaign, nor change any character's net worth - it just redistributes equal value in a manner that increases game enjoyment for all who paticipate. It is separate issue from granting gifts, unequal divying of loot, etc. If characters only adventure with those of similar level, and trades are only allowed between characters whern they adventure together, there is little danger of a low level PC ending up with an item too powerful for his level; even then, the overly valuable item could not excede the net worth of the total treasure he had attained from adventures and would cost him the cheaper items he could otherwise have had to aid him in other ways. Whether you trade or not should be personal choice, not a campaign rule. How you trade equitably should be regulated. Tom Bollis
MatteBlack 12-02-07, 05:18 PM	I want trade for fairness and balance. Item creation is unbalanced because you can't trade equitably - the item creators get unbalanced benefit. If they could create and trade without making a profit, the benefit of improved magic item availability would spread to those they play with. If items were available for general purchase, non=crafters would dhare such benifit for standard items. If crafting did not save gold, it would not be unbalancing. I have seen fair trades and abusive ones go down where item trading is allowed. At the very least, allowing trading is allowing one more opportunity for imbalance to occur and potentially for some player to prey upon one another. It also seems like item creation may be off the board in 4e so balancing things for crafters and non-crafters may be a moot point. Trade does not cause players to create optimized characters - the lack of trade in LG and the amount of character optimization there shows this. It encourages more PC diversity and individual concept development if you can get what you want at the appropriatelevel instead of whatever the authors placed in the adventures you played It doesn't cause them to optimize but, better allows it to happen. My opinion is that the whole optimized character mentality is bad for the game especially when it come to scaling, RP and individuality. How many cook-cutter builds do you see across the game. Isn't it strange what percentage of clerics seem to be Radiant Servants. In fact most of the variance I see is the in the items characters are "stuck" with while waiting for that optimal one to drop for them. While trading might allow for more indivduality in theory, it seems alot more likely to me that it caters to off-the-rack builds in practice. Trading for equal value adds no new items to the campaign, nor change any character's net worth - it just redistributes equal value in a manner that increases game enjoyment for all who paticipate. IF, and that is a big if, we could manage to truly make all trades fair, it might be a nice addition but, I just don't see it being worth the effort and regulation, not to mention the additional printing costs to this free campaign. As I know a number players who really dislike trading items, i think that last part would be phenomenally difficult for you to back up. It is separate issue from granting gifts, unequal divying of loot, etc. If characters only adventure with those of similar level, and trades are only allowed between characters whern they adventure together, there is little danger of a low level PC ending up with an item too powerful for his level; even then, the overly valuable item could not excede the net worth of the total treasure he had attained from adventures and would cost him the cheaper items he could otherwise have had to aid him in other ways. Again the practice would need to be overly regulated and documented to the point where the small gain is not worth the effort for the campaign and those not taking part in it these trades. There is also minor annoyance of having to repeatedly fend off that trader who really wants something you want and won't take "no" for an answer. It might be small and could be handled through rules on appropriate behavior but, I'd rather skip that and other potential social friction that will crop up. Whether you trade or not should be personal choice, not a campaign rule. How you trade equitably should be regulated. Tom Bollis If it only effected the players involved, fine but, in a living campaign that's not how it works. Alot of rules are in place to keep the lowest level of play in line and trading, divvies and alot of the things certs tend to support tend to open some serious cans of worms. If you want a better way to organize your resources, I'd be all for it and think it is worth looking into ways to improve it but, the current more consistent methods of item distribution are better because of imblances and situations they help the campaign avoid.
Sieylianna 12-02-07, 06:48 PM	I want trade for fairness and balance. Item creation is unbalanced because you can't trade equitably - the item creators get unbalanced benefit. If they could create and trade without making a profit, the benefit of improved magic item availability would spread to those they play with. If items were available for general purchase, non=crafters would dhare such benifit for standard items. If crafting did not save gold, it would not be unbalancing. The campaign rules don't force anyone to play a given class or choose specific feats. If you think item crafting is unbalanced, then create characters who can craft items. Crafters pay a cost in feat(s), money, time and experience points to craft items. They should get something in return for what they have given up. Ed
tombollis 12-02-07, 06:57 PM	I have seen fair trades and abusive ones go down where item trading is allowed. At the very least, allowing trading is allowing one more opportunity for imbalance to occur and potentially for some player to prey upon one another. It also seems like item creation may be off the board in 4e so balancing things for crafters and non-crafters may be a moot point. You seem fixated on old trading rules where trades weren't necessarily fair. That isan't what I have proposed and such preying would not exist in the proposed system of trades ibly for equal value. It doesn't cause them to optimize but, better allows it to happen. My opinion is that the whole optimized character mentality is bad for the game especially when it come to scaling, RP and individuality. How many cook-cutter builds do you see across the game. Isn't it strange what percentage of clerics seem to be Radiant Servants. In fact most of the variance I see is the in the items characters are "stuck" with while waiting for that optimal one to drop for them. While trading might allow for more indivduality in theory, it seems alot more likely to me that it caters to off-the-rack builds in practice. I see what you don't like as what the lack of trading encourages - cookie-cutter characters with similar builds based on the readily available items. Alot of rules are in place to keep the lowest level of play in line and trading, divvies and alot of the things certs tend to support tend to open some serious cans of worms. If you want a better way to organize your resources, I'd be all for it and think it is worth looking into ways to improve it but, the current more consistent methods of item distribution are better because of imblances and situations they help the campaign avoid. The LG AR system of access, buy for full and sell for half, access only for what you encounter, no trading, creates imbalances, encourages getting pre-knowledge of what is available in adventures, etc. They also are aimed at the lowest common denominstor of players, which I find insulting and overly restrictive. Set guidelines for ethical play and leave it to those at the tables to play ethically. Tom Bollis
MatteBlack 12-02-07, 07:40 PM	If the advance notes and rumors on 4e and LFR are to be believed, crafting looks unlikely, items should be less powerful in respect to the role they play in character efficacy, classes should be more balanced against one another and their should be wider access to adventures and other players. We obviously disagree on the role of trading. I feel it supports optimization and eventually marginalizes all but the most useful items and builds while you feel it is the path to greater customization. It's probably both but, I think we are going to find that individuality can be made up alot more easily through description, background and roleplay than build and items ever will. In the meantime, allowing anything but the most restrictive and cumbersome of trading systems will make for greater imbalance across players and support flavor of the month types of powergamed builds. If they are going through all the bother of reducing imbalances why open another door to let more in? I think most people I have seen in the forums would agree that previous cert systems included divvy methods that had alot to be desired as far as fairness and fun to proceed through. Unless they are going to give us too much treasure, a fair share is unlikely to provide a level appropriate item so some sort of purchasing/access system makes sense. The AR method has, in my opinion, done this well. The only other argument for certs would be to allow player resource organization and I think the benefit of certs over ARs is negligible, not widely desired and fairly easily replicated on the players own. There is probably a better way to address this organization issue than adding certs in to the fray. Maybe certs aren't completely without there merit but, when the systems are taken in total the current AR based method is better than the previous cert based system. I also think we would find hybrid methods to be cumbersome and wrought with redundancies as well needing a number of restrictions to prevent more imbalances from entering the game than ARs do now. There is also the point that LG players continuing into LFR would not need to adjust. With all the upheaval players will be seeing , I see no good reason to monkey around with functioning parts of the Living format to return to parts of a system that was already discarded for it's flaws. Like it or not, the ways trades went down was flawed as was treasure divvy and bickering for the certs in the first place. The strength of the cert system is that it nicely allowed seperate items to be divvied, traded to track their path to their current owner. They had the secondary effect of giving us quick access to certain info during play. This secondary benefit is not a good reason to see their return nor are the rest of it's strengths which are either flawed or could be handled as well by ARs or perhaps another method. The floor is now all yours and I'll leave this dead horse as I should have earlier. I don't think we are going to agree and actually believe you may actually covet the imbalances and item infatuation that the old sytem bred because, it is the only reason that makes sense to me as to why someone would cling so desperately to certs. We'll see what the future brings and I hope LFR offers better things in the future than greedy players who want to show off their imaginary treasure. Lee Thomas
tombollis 12-03-07, 02:09 AM	If the advance notes and rumors on 4e and LFR are to be believed, crafting looks unlikely, items should be less powerful in respect to the role they play in character efficacy, classes should be more balanced against one another and their should be wider access to adventures and other players. Indications are that item creation will be possible. That doesn't mean LFR will allow it, but I have hopes. If items are less significant re character power, they become more role playing props. Worries about imbalance from creation, purchase, or trade have less foundation than in 3e. We obviously disagree on the role of trading. I feel it supports optimization and eventually marginalizes all but the most useful items and builds while you feel it is the path to greater customization. It's probably both but, I think we are going to find that individuality can be made up alot more easily through description, background and roleplay than build and items ever will. In the meantime, allowing anything but the most restrictive and cumbersome of trading systems will make for greater imbalance across players and support flavor of the month types of powergamed builds. Which goes against the indications that items will have less ability to cause imbalance. If they are going through all the bother of reducing imbalances why open another door to let more in? I don't believe it would, with simple trade rules. I think most people I have seen in the forums would agree that previous cert systems included divvy methods that had alot to be desired as far as fairness and fun to proceed through. Irrelivant. I agree re the problems of old systems. but have learned how simply they could have been avoided. Unless they are going to give us too much treasure, a fair share is unlikely to provide a level appropriate item so some sort of purchasing/access system makes sense. The AR method has, in my opinion, done this well. I yhink it has done it poorly. The curent system in LG is better than in early years, but that isn't saying much. There is also the point that LG players continuing into LFR would not need to adjust. IFR should require adjustment. It should learn from past mistakes and work better. With all the upheaval players will be seeing , I see no good reason to monkey around with functioning parts of the Living format to return to parts of a system that was already discarded for it's flaws. Like it or not, the ways trades went down was flawed as was treasure divvy and bickering for the certs in the first place. The strength of the cert system is that it nicely allowed seperate items to be divvied, traded to track their path to their current owner. They had the secondary effect of giving us quick access to certain info during play. This secondary benefit is not a good reason to see their return nor are the rest of it's strengths which are either flawed or could be handled as well by ARs or perhaps another method. I ownly agree with divying being a problem, and don't suggest returning to it. The imbalance from trading was due to trades for different values and gifts. I believe it closely linked unequal divying, buy for full and sell for hslf, and to craft for half plus xp. Indications are that 4E crafting won't cost xp. crafting by PCs for full value would mske it convenient rather than unbalancing.[/QUOTE] The floor is now all yours and I'll leave this dead horse as I should have earlier. I don't think we are going to agree and actually believe you may actually covet the imbalances and item infatuation that the old sytem bred because, it is the only reason that makes sense to me as to why someone would cling so desperately to certs. We'll see what the future brings and I hope LFR offers better things in the future than greedy players who want to show off their imaginary treasure. Lee Thomas I hope LFR avoids the over-restriction of earlier campaigns, allowing player imagination freer reign in a more balanced system. I hate restriction due to some peoples fear of what others will do. Restrict yourself as much as you want, as I do. I have not bought into the powergaming of LG. I desided from the beginning to restrict my characters to the core books, taking nothing (items, races, classes, prestige classes, feats, or spells) from other sources. I took what I did based on character concept and availability, and avoided magic item creation, powerful spells, weapons, and magic items. But I missed access to simple things of low power fronthe core books to which I never got access. My bard never got access to a wand of cure light wounds, though my Rog/Mnk3 has got access from 2 mods and owns one she can't use herself; that isn't reasonable. I haven't been arguing so much for certs as against what seems unreasonable predjudice against them. I can accept whatever LFR does re treasure distribution and tracking; I have just had a poorer opinion of how it has been handled in LG than in LC, though did noy like the divying of items in LC or early LG. I do like LG's current system allowing all characters at a table to get the same treasure - it doesn't make much sense in a normal home campaign where you always adventure with the same characters, but living campaigns are different, were you can adventure with characters who got the same item from the same adventure played with a different group (each character has a personal history that often disagrees with everyone elses in an adventure). Tom Bollis
DerekSTheRed 12-03-07, 07:27 AM	Can we move the Certs vs. ARs discussion to its own thread? It's drowning out other suggestions to LFR. Derek
Delgar 12-04-07, 09:22 AM	At this point he's violating the RPGA rules of conduct and the GM is well within his rights to eject the player from the table. If that player continues this behavior he risks further sanctioning, both from RPGA HQ and from his local conventions as word spreads of his reputation. -karma So what do you do when it's the judge in question that's the one being imature? The one thing Living Greyhawk definately showed me was the good, the bad and the ugly of role-playing. I've watched judges gun for certain players, I've seen judges give out seperate xp to different players unjustly, I've watched judges use power attack with thrown weapons (not to mention throw more than one rock two-handed in a round), I've seend judges turn back time because they forgot something two rounds ago, the list goes on... Can I get up and walk away from a pourly judged table without reprucussions? I've also seen the metamorphosis from year 1 and on. What I like to call the cold war. Where in year 1, you could make a fun role-playing character and have fun and play. Power gamers easily plowed through the mods. Authors made the mods more difficult, power gamers just made themselves stronger. It came to a point where if you didn't have an optimized character there were a lot of people that didn't want you at their table taking up space. To me that's a problem, a big problem. Anyway, I hope that 4th changes a lot of the problems in the system, which in turn will make a lot of the issues at the table go away. Hopefully no more planning your character from 1st to 30th so that you take X feats to qualify for Y kick ass class. I suspect most of the tracking will be online, especially with them promoting online play. I doubt there will be any real physical cert anymore. I'd be surprised if there were. I doubt there will be any trading. Although as far as campaign rules go, I agree with Tom. Spend more time worrying about making the campaign fun for the people that play to have fun. The cheaters are going to cheat, no matter what rules you put in place.
chesspiece 12-05-07, 10:57 AM	I found the cert / AR discussion interesting, so I thought I would add in some comments that (IIRC) haven’t been raised yet. If the game is at a Con with a PC / Printer available, additional certs should be available from the coordinators and more may be generated on request. If the module is played at a small venue where a printer isn’t available – what is the GM supposed to do? Must 6 copies of all possible certs be printed prior to the game? This wastes paper if there is more than 1 page of certs and it places an additional burden on campaign volunteers. Item prices in 4e might make fair trading easier. They plan to have “all 9th-level magic items… cost the same number of gp to craft or to purchase”. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20071203 Also, since magic item value & utility is rated by the item’s “level”, it would be easy to enact a rule that LFR PCs can’t trade to acquire items more than X levels higher than their PC. Since item levels are part of the 4e game, it’s simple for the campaign to open up access to DMG items of [PC level – Y] level or lower but require you find / trade for items above that. If they went with an AR system where access is listed & expires, they could reopen (non-DMG) access to lost items once it is below that threshold. Maybe LFR should allow buy / sell for full and eliminate gp discounts for crafting (or crafting altogether)? It might require a little more thought to balance wealth by level – but it would not be insurmountable. Then trade value = purchase value = sale value = crafting value. Fair trading doesn’t get much simpler.
MatteBlack 12-05-07, 01:34 PM	I think you want to be careful as to whether you are increasing the workload for DMs, Campaign staff or Con staff. The extra odd DM signature probably won't be that big of a deal but, once you start to add to the list of duties and items to prepare, you are likely to see problems with missing or delayed items and bottlenecks that bring the campaign to a crawl. Keep in mind that they drastically reduced the number of positions managing the campaign.
The Ubbergeek 12-08-07, 02:00 PM	Out of game - support for local languages. Not just english everywhere.
Dempster 12-10-07, 02:42 AM	Players still have to go somewhere to play these mods, even if it is not to another region. There are only so many events in a single region, so if you play a lot, you'll still need to travel to get to other tables of RPGA mods. With the online game table players will only have to travel as far as their pc to get every single game from every region played. Something needs to be done to save local cons. Our six state region currently runs about 40 LG cons total. I doubt seriously that our new LR region sill even have 5 spread over the 6 states.
tombollis 12-10-07, 07:27 AM	With the online game table players will only have to travel as far as their pc to get every single game from every region played. Something needs to be done to save local cons. Our six state region currently runs about 40 LG cons total. I doubt seriously that our new LR region sill even have 5 spread over the 6 states. Having people travel vast distances to stay in hotels and play in cons should not be a goal of the campaign; supplying a venue for people to get together in large groups to play should be a goal of cons. If players don't want to get together in large groups to play, preferring on-line play, home play, or small local game days, then the campaign should not be concerned with saving local cons. However, I am of the opinion that a significant portion of players will want local cons, many willing to travel an hour or so each way a few times a year to get together and play, some to travel further, requiring overnight accomodation. I think local cons will still draw travelers, even if the adventures are playable in their home regions, especially with huge regions containing dispersed populations as well as a number of large population centers - the residents of the large cities might have little incentive to travel and stay in con hotels, but players with few opportunities for live play within easy comuting distance will still make the cons viable. Tom Bollis
PCI_StatMonkey 12-13-07, 11:06 AM	Tom, Sorry bro, the reason why people use to drive for LC was two fold 1) there was magic item creation booths and/or market place events 2) Reps for meta-orgs would be at the convention in question. Notice, the reason why people went to the convention was because it was something they could not get playing the adventures at home. I remember when we ran the Summoning the first time, we had a LC integrative and all the meta-org reps... Which us why people showed up.
tombollis 12-13-07, 01:32 PM	Tom, Sorry bro, the reason why people use to drive for LC was two fold 1) there was magic item creation booths and/or market place events 2) Reps for meta-orgs would be at the convention in question. Notice, the reason why people went to the convention was because it was something they could not get playing the adventures at home. I remember when we ran the Summoning the first time, we had a LC integrative and all the meta-org reps... Which us why people showed up. Your opinion does not agree with my experience. Some people traveled for those reasons; some traveled even when those weren't available. Much of my LC play was at a 3 times per year 2 day con at a local university that regularly drew players from up to a couple of hundred miles away and had an estimated 30-40 tables over the weekend. I have traveled to other cities here in Canada and in a few nearby states to gaming conventions, mainly to play LC, staying in hotels or university dorms, regardless of whether there were special draws such as markets, item creation, or meta-org reps, as did others, even though the adventures were playable at home, though part of that was due to it being a con only campaign and the number of cons per year in town was limited. Part of it was from the oportunity to play with a variety of different players, not just a local group. Even though LFR will have home play and on line play, which LC didn't, I think some of the same attraction for traveling to play will remain - diverse players, oportunity to play face to face when there are few oportunities at home (many players will be from small towns, or otherwise won't be members of local home play or game day groups), the oportyunity for local DMs to play before they DM for their groups, etc. I would like to see results of in-region cons (but not on-line play, home play, nor normal game days) influence canon for the world, even being referenced in later novels. If game play out of region has no such influence on the world, that can be a draw for players who want an impact on the world to trtavel to cons, and for locals to host them. Market places, item creation, meta-org reps, etc. are nice and can increrase attendance, but I doubt they are necesary. Tom Bollis
aljergensen 12-14-07, 09:52 AM	Your opinion does not agree with my experience. Some people traveled for those reasons; some traveled even when those weren't available. ... Tom Bollis I would agree ... I travelled to LC cons because at the time I lived in an area that didn't have a living campaign and because it was fun to game with a different group of people. I only rarely took advantage of the open markets or other benefits. Although my wife did once win a charity auction for a one-time 'save vs boxed text' which later saved her entire party. :) Allen.
Lobotaru 12-29-07, 01:19 PM	Well, I'd like to see the restrictions on player item trade reduced. The way LG was originally set up, if I wanted to play a merchantile minded gnome, I would be restricted to selling to NPCs, which would end up taking magic items out of circulation instead of into the hands of people who could use them. Plus, you couldn't even hand an item from your inventory to a friend without a buttload of regulations being smacked into the player's face. It can get rediculous when letting your buddy borrow your 50 ft of silk rope gets complicated by rule restrictions. I understand restrictions need to be placed on certain key magic items such as an NPC's one of a kind family sword from an adventure, but at the same time players should be able to otherwise trade with one another without worry. It would add verascimilitude (I think that's spelled right) to the game's market place and open up some interesting options for characters to follow. Oh, and I'd like to see orcs open as a possible race for players to choose from. That would let people still be able to play a race that is more monstrous than not, but not necessarily dragon related.
gomeztoo 12-29-07, 02:26 PM	Actually, LG was originally set up so trade was possible. It was changed when that didn't work out.
Lobotaru 12-29-07, 05:26 PM	In what way did item trade not work out? I'm really confused.
gomeztoo 12-30-07, 11:06 AM	Quoting from an earlier post: (1) Arguments about who gets what and the really unfair wealth division that started to arise. (2) Loose pieces of small paper that had a tendency to get lost and where difficult to check whether the thing was earned fairly This may be prevented by using a different system, but to be honest I really don't think it is worth the hassle. I was quite happy with the LG system, where access through adventures determined what you got. But whatever system LFR uses, I do hope it will not give the regional volunteers more work than the LG system did.
Aylyn 12-30-07, 12:30 PM	1. I would love to see the old 'certs' make a comeback (not the 'buy anbything' Adventure Records that Living Greyhawk had - though they weren't completely horrid). It makes characters more unique. 2. I do not want to see things like the Purple Dragons, Harpers, etc. become public meta-orgs. If brought into the campaign, they should still be 'earned'. Just my two coppers! Cheers! :P Note: I did not read the last few posts before writing this.. However, I will comment that it wasn't trade that didn't work out, it was that gamers got greedy. Wizards were taking Fighter items for cash value, and vice versa. Or items for other players, which is fine, but should have had some logic to it. I have a LOT of opinions on the trade issue, but will leave them for another time. I just happen to be a gamer who plays for the sake of stories and gaming, not for 'power gaming' or making the most tweaked out character/party possible.
gomeztoo 12-30-07, 02:58 PM	Provided they still exist, the Purple Dragons and Harpers don't sound to me like orgs that anyone in his right mind would give immediate public access to. One are appointed knights, and the other is a secretive bunch of meddlers. Both have 'prove of worth' written all over the entry requirements.
Aylyn 12-30-07, 06:46 PM	I agree, but earlier in the thread, I saw someone mention that those types of things should have public access. I wanted to voice my opinion against that. :)
gomeztoo 12-31-07, 03:11 AM	I think what w sment was that they should be a 'core' org. Which might make sense for the Harpers (provided they still exist). Though I don't see that applying to the Purple Dragons or, to name another one, the Silver Ravens. They are pretty much tied to Cormyr and Sembia.
LGMoses 01-06-08, 02:41 AM	Less worry about mechanics and min/maxing characters and more roleplaying and in game behavior. I just hope there are no splat books with 4e. O, and heres a big one. I want to see our characters and adventures having actual effects upon the world.
bitznarf 01-07-08, 02:58 PM	Less worry about mechanics and min/maxing characters and more roleplaying and in game behavior. This has nothing to do with LFR directly and more to do with each individual. I just hope there are no splat books with 4e. What do you think each PHB will be? Simply splat books under a revised name.
LGMoses 01-08-08, 01:31 AM	This has nothing to do with LFR directly and more to do with each individual. What do you think each PHB will be? Simply splat books under a revised name. Mechanics can be made to encourage roleplay. I submit the new world of darkness system. The yearly books could be tolerable, just don't want to see so many books again for a long while in this setting.
DerekSTheRed 01-08-08, 09:03 AM	Mechanics can be made to encourage roleplay. I submit the new world of darkness system. The yearly books could be tolerable, just don't want to see so many books again for a long while in this setting. I agree with setting books. 3rd edition produced an ungodly amount of FR source books each one replete with new PrC, feats, and other crunch. Trying to integrate a PHB X, DMG X, MM X in addition to a 4 plus books dedicated to a new corner of FR each year into LFR would put too much strain on the volunteer staff. Derek
aljergensen 01-08-08, 11:09 AM	Trying to integrate a PHB X, DMG X, MM X in addition to a 4 plus books dedicated to a new corner of FR each year into LFR would put too much strain on the volunteer staff. Derek Which is one of the main reasons I suggest that we try to simplify by having a rule to "Allow books X, Y, Z". If WOTC comes out with a dozen FR books and the people running the campaign want to allow the books, allow everything in the books. Or only allow the core PHB/DMG/MMs. There are going to be less people running the campaign, so simplify it for them and everyone. As a judge under the current system, I'm still expected to have a passing familiarity with a ton of books/feats/etc. Adding the extra complexity that I'm supposed know that you have to have access to the feat of complete cheese just makes it worse. We can't control WOTC's publishing policy, we have some (probably minimal :) ) input into how WOTC's policies impact the campaign. Allen.
MatteBlack 01-08-08, 11:44 AM	Less worry about mechanics and min/maxing characters and more roleplaying and in game behavior. I just hope there are no splat books with 4e. O, and heres a big one. I want to see our characters and adventures having actual effects upon the world. Count me in for wanting RP to play a larger role than min/maxing the perfect build. I'd rather see interesting stuff happen every adventure than one or two dominant characters force every encounter into a handful of set combo/strategies. My guess is that there may be fewer splatbooks but several of each of the core books.
bitznarf 01-08-08, 12:18 PM	/me still fails to see the difference between the PHB2/DMG2 and any so called splat books. Same thing under a different name.
MatteBlack 01-08-08, 03:06 PM	/me still fails to see the difference between the PHB2/DMG2 and any so called splat books. Same thing under a different name. I tend to agree but, do prefer multiple PHBs, DMGs and MMs to the Complete Whatever format. I'd also imagine we'll see the rules for the more advanced levels rolled out this way.
Surgebuster 01-08-08, 06:19 PM	/me still fails to see the difference between the PHB2/DMG2 and any so called splat books. Same thing under a different name. I believe the difference is that where 3e contracted a lot of freelancers to write the splatbooks and we experienced the resulting rules inconsistencies and unforeseen synergies, 4e will have a core team working on the annual PHB/DMG/MM releases. Therefore you should find more consistency in the rules options, since the projects won't get farmed out to one or two designers that didn't get their hands dirty on the previous material and it's evolution. I can't remember where I got that from but I'm reasonably sure of its accuracy. Joe
op 01-14-08, 04:26 PM	1. Plotlines significanly impacted by PLAYER actions. Allow players to earn recognition. 2. Disannoint current gods -aka every sperm is not sacred. Let elminster or whoever be whacked, not casually but if its the logical result of ingame actions, so be it. 3. Make character more than platforms for the items they wear. Ie., shift the balance somewhat between character abilities and magic item abilities. 4. Increase the lethality of high level play. Whacking dragons should not be a trip to the quickie mart. 5. Screw roll playing. Roll playing does not need rules. I can roll play (to bemused looks no doubt) in my living room - or the local park. Game rules are to adjudicate what happens, live or die, success or failure, hit or miss. Whereas acting is subject, aka non objective and a system that is rife for abuse. Ooooh - your paladin jaywalked. No smite priveleges for you today! 6. Have some forgiveness in item purchase/character development. When you are playing in a con - 15 minutes between slots is NOT an optimal way for character development. 7. Have a forum where rules questions are posted and are current campaign definitive rulings are outlined. Date the questions and the responses and let both be seen. Sorry I can't count to 2.
WolfStar76 01-14-08, 05:02 PM	1. Plotlines significanly impacted by PLAYER actions. Allow players to earn recognition. This is something my friends and I discuss from time to time, but when a few hundred people all play the same module, how do you give recognition to people who complete the module "really well"? Especially when a few dozen groups might get a "perfect score"? 2. Disannoint current gods -aka every sperm is not sacred. Let elminster or whoever be whacked, not casually but if its the logical result of ingame actions, so be it. There's been some indication that Elminster may well play a reduced role in the new FR (after all, he was one of Mytra's Chosen, and without Mystra. . . .) There's a thread elsewhere (the FR forums I think) that has a list of major NPCs that are known/believed to be dead. Regardless - decisions THAT high up the tree aren't likely to be within the control of the RPGA. That's more likely controlled by the Campaign Setting designers. . . and marketing in the case of Elminster. :) 3. Make character more than platforms for the items they wear. Ie., shift the balance somewhat between character abilities and magic item abilities. Again, that's not much of an RPGA or LFR choice - that's more about the core mechanics of the game. The good news is, one of the Design articles has already discussed that items are going to play a reduced role in 4E. I'm too lazy to find the article just now, but I reserve the right to edit this post with it later. :) 4. Increase the lethality of high level play. Whacking dragons should not be a trip to the quickie mart. Agreed - as long as high level adventures aren't a train ticket to a suicide mission. 5. Screw roll playing. Roll playing does not need rules. I can roll play (to bemused looks no doubt) in my living room - or the local park. Game rules are to adjudicate what happens, live or die, success or failure, hit or miss. Whereas acting is subject, aka non objective and a system that is rife for abuse. Ooooh - your paladin jaywalked. No smite priveleges for you today! Firstly, you seem to have roll (as in, I roll the dice) and role (as in I'm playing a role) confused. It would APPEAR that you are lobbying that you don't like role-playing/play-acting. Keep in mind this is the ROLE PLAYING GAMERS ASSOCIATION forum you're posting in. We all have our preferences, but if I'm reading you right, you may as well try telling the Autombile Association of America that you don't like cars, and think bicycles are the way to go. :) 6. Have some forgiveness in item purchase/character development. When you are playing in a con - 15 minutes between slots is NOT an optimal way for character development. Well, you don't HAVE to play modules back-to-back, though it IS the best way to squeeze in lots of play at once. However, scheduling is usually done for that very reason - to squeeze in as much as possible. 7. Have a forum where rules questions are posted and are current campaign definitive rulings are outlined. Date the questions and the responses and let both be seen. You mean like the way these forums show the date of the last post to a thread, and how both users and the people working on the campaigns reply to questions asked? Sorry I can't count to 2. I don't even know what that means.
Lobotaru 01-23-08, 06:51 PM	Actually, since RPGA games will probably be played online most of the time, it would probably be easier to manage item trade given the correct programs are in place. One could set up an online marketplace type program on an RPGA network computer/computers where player gear is registered. Basically, stuff from adventures can be placed on the marketplace and sold for set values (as long as they are not key or named magic items, such as "Lord Dunscin's Flaming Mace" or the like). That would actually be kind of cool. How it would get set up is a whole different matter though.
The_Jester 01-25-08, 07:05 PM	I'd like to see odd-level based APLs. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, etc. That way a party of 4 1st level characters actually has a fighting chance instead of being outright told in the opening text of each mod "this is for average party levels of 2, so you need a six-person table. Go get someone higher level to bail your ass out or buy some dogs. But you can only have two per person."
pedr 01-26-08, 08:36 AM	I'd like to see odd-level based APLs. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, etc. Agreed. I don't play Living Arcanis, but I know they switched to odd APLs. A true 'APL 1' would be very useful indeed. Of course, having bands which are two levels wide might not be as sensible in 4E as in 3E; we don't know how much each 'level' adds to the difficulty of encounters, so it might be that 1, 4, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 26, 29 would work better.
aljergensen 01-26-08, 09:49 AM	[QUOTE=The_Jester;14922049]I'd like to see odd-level based APLs. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, etc. QUOTE] One of the few things that we do know about 4e is that 1st level characters will be tougher and more capable than their 3.5 bretheren. So an APL 1 mod may not be necessary. Around here we have enough intro mods so that you can usually get a character up to level 2 just playing intros if you have time. But who says we'll need APLs in LFR? Maybe there will be just heroic, paragon and epic mods with challenges adjusted to who sits at the table. Allen.
chesspiece 01-27-08, 12:50 PM	I remember that modules were tough in LG year 1. But aside from the odd "wererats at APL2", it usually wasn’t horrific. And of course, the authors at that time might not have anticipated the severely imbalanced challenge for level 2s with silver vs new groups of level 1s. Keeping in mind that the Players will be new to the 4e system and PCs won't be optimized at first, hopefully the authors won't try for TPKs early on. There may be a couple DR/Silver-type killer modules, but I hope that they make the first year’s low-level modules fairly survivable. The 4e designers' comments about making low-level adventures "less swingy" gives me hope.
Keith53 01-27-08, 04:12 PM	Keeping in mind that the Players will be new to the 4e system and PCs won't be optimized at first, hopefully the authors won't try for TPKs early on. I would be disappointed if LFR authors TRIED for TPKs at anytime in the campaign life (and were approved). Challenges should be appropriate for the PCs, not overwhelming. Playtests should spot/flag unacceptable challenges. Hopefully, DMs will have the flexibility to fine tune the challenge for an unbalanced assortment of PCs who come together at a con due to no fault of their own--we'll see. Not saying that success should be guaranteed. Not to say that players might make some bad error(s) or the dice go really bad on them, with unhappy outcomes. Also, an author might include an adversary whom the PCs are not meant to fight (with appropriate clear warnings), just talk; if they fight anyway, it could be a TPK. Keith Hoffman LFR USA-NC Co-Writing Director
WolfStar76 01-28-08, 11:33 AM	One of the few things that we do know about 4e is that 1st level characters will be tougher and more capable than their 3.5 bretheren. So an APL 1 mod may not be necessary. Around here we have enough intro mods so that you can usually get a character up to level 2 just playing intros if you have time. But who says we'll need APLs in LFR? Maybe there will be just heroic, paragon and epic mods with challenges adjusted to who sits at the table. Allen. Well, while this doesn't say how things will/won't be for RPGA/LFR adventures, the first three published modules (H1 Keep on the Shadowfell (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/217187400), H2 Thunderspire Labyrinth (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/217417400), H3 Pyramid of Shadows (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/218637400)) are level ranged 1-3, 4-6, and 7-10 respectively. Should be safe to infer that simply using the Tiers won't be effective enough. :)
NiTessine 01-29-08, 01:30 PM	What I would like to see... Plot depth. I want to see modules with plots more complicated than "bandits are robbing trade caravans, go clear them out". Anyone can string together combat encounters with a plot lifted from a Terry Brooks novel. An RPGA campaign should strive for better. I want to see meaningful choices and believable NPCs. If I want to play a skirmish game, I'll dig up Mordheim. Player impact. If the actions of player characters can't affect regions and their plotlines, it won't be a living campaign. Challenging adventures. When I play a roleplaying game, I want something intellectually challenging, and not just number crunching. I'd like to see intrigue, politics, and some subtlety in storytelling. Moral ambiguity. While I concede that D&D is a heroic game and Forgotten Realms is a heroic setting, to say it has no place for moral grey areas betrays ignorance. Paul S. Kemp's novels are a good example of this, but it can also be seen in the works of Salvatore, Cunningham and Greenwood. Modules that force player characters to think where their allegiances lie would be most welcome. I think the Living Greyhawk module COR6-02 Rallying Point for the Bright Sands is exemplary of this type of adventure. The Splintered Suns metaregionals TSS5-04 The Sun and the Nightingale and ESA6-05 A Point of View are also very good.
gomeztoo 01-29-08, 03:03 PM	While Forgotten Realms is a different place than Greyhawk, I do think most LG scenarios would work in LFR. However, I do expect LFR will be more about being the hero (from the description most people cough up when I ask for FR flavor). Of course, you can be the hero is various ways... The main thing to remember though, is that we have 12 regions, which basically means 12 different looks on what 'makes' a scenario a LFR scenario - and that is not counting regional flavor.
NiTessine 01-29-08, 05:12 PM	While Forgotten Realms is a different place than Greyhawk, I do think most LG scenarios would work in LFR. However, I do expect LFR will be more about being the hero (from the description most people cough up when I ask for FR flavor). Of course, you can be the hero is various ways... The main thing to remember though, is that we have 12 regions, which basically means 12 different looks on what 'makes' a scenario a LFR scenario - and that is not counting regional flavor. Huh. When I asked gamers the same question, their replies were mostly stuff that the forum rules prevent me from reproducing here. They may be overly critical, but some of it is valid. There's enough ill-plotted vanilla fantasy in the world without us adding to it. I think having the modules available for play anywhere might just be a good thing. There's less pressure for a writing director to appeal to everyone since there should be a broader spectrum of modules available to the local players. You can concentrate on building the overarching plotlines and establishing regional atmosphere and flavour. But really, if you and Simpi just keep doing what you've been doing until now, we should be fine in Northern Europe (as long as we don't get Vaasa). I'm just hoping the rest of the world listens, too. Strive for quality. Don't be afraid to write smart. Don't be afraid to offend. You can't please everybody; trying to do so results in mediocrity, which pleases nobody.
Keith53 01-29-08, 06:22 PM	I suspect that due to the regions having differences and that the 12 Writing Directors will have personal styles/preferences (and associated story arcs), that players should see diversity in the LFR offerings. Region A might be anything goes, total chaos and mayhem, while Region B might be a more traditional feudal type sword & scorcery, while Region C might be a more big city mix of intrigue and urban challenges. The players will be able to either enjoy all, or pick the ones with the style they like. Hopefully everyone will find something to like. We cannot satisfy all tastes with each individual adventure - so maybe not 31 flavors, but 12 (or so) flavors. Keith Hoffman LFR USA-NC Co-Writing Director
tombollis 01-29-08, 06:52 PM	I suspect that due to the regions having differences and that the 12 Writing Directors will have personal styles/preferences (and associated story arcs), that players should see diversity in the LFR offerings. I would like to see a sparcity of story arcs. Living campaigns aren't very well suited to liniar progression of stories; modules should normally be playable in any order without worrying about spoilers. Sequels normally should not appear for at least a year after the earlier module. There should be plenty of scope for independent stories in each region, even though they share a background. Tom Bollis
bitznarf 01-29-08, 08:43 PM	I would like to see a sparcity of story arcs. Living campaigns aren't very well suited to liniar progression of stories; modules should normally be playable in any order without worrying about spoilers. Sequels normally should not appear for at least a year after the earlier module. There should be plenty of scope for independent stories in each region, even though they share a background. Tom Bollis I've actually got a strong preference the other way. Without story arcs, the mods simply become a set of barely connected plots. Barely connected as in 'you start from the same city'. I'm not that interested in most stand alone mods out there in LG right now, though there are a few that are very good. Mods that are one off adventures tend to be the last ones I recommend to people, once again with a few exceptions. Continuity and plot arcs are good things, even if they can cause some scheduling issues at times. If I want a generic, non related mod, I can find a million elsewhere. A Living Campaign shouldn't be about generic, non related mods in my opinion.
gomeztoo 01-30-08, 09:21 AM	One thing to realize with story arcs is that you wish people to play them, preferably all the way through. That doesn't work well if you bring out one part a year. Arcs shouldn't take too long to play through. Note that scenarios need to be part of an actual story arc to relate to each other. You can use NPCs or reference events in standalone scenarios too.
aljergensen 01-30-08, 10:17 AM	One thing to realize with story arcs is that you wish people to play them, preferably all the way through. That doesn't work well if you bring out one part a year. So what about an alternative ... try to release short story arcs (2-3 mods) very closely together so that people will have the chance to play them over the course of a weekend or a month if they want. Big, realm-affecting story lines are fun too, but most of the affect on other mods should be tangential, with only a handful of mods affecting the core story. Allen.
tombollis 01-30-08, 02:21 PM	So what about an alternative ... try to release short story arcs (2-3 mods) very closely together so that people will have the chance to play them over the course of a weekend or a month if they want. Better handled by 2-3 round modules, played at the same time, or in close succession in a specific order. Short arcs of separate modules are too apt to be played out of order, or with some skipped, and are unlikely to take into account other things that occur in the region. Stand alone adventures, possibly multi-part, can be played in any order with less danger of spoilers. Waiting until next year for followup allows everything during the year to be taken into account, and still allows an arc to play out over a few years in a campaign that can be expected to last 5-10 years. Also, regional adventures for a year can be written concurrently, without needing to take each others' outcomes into account. When a campaign is drawing to a close, followups can be closer together to tie things up. Tom Bollis
Sieylianna 01-30-08, 05:36 PM	I would like to see a sparcity of story arcs. I strongly disagree. Story arcs are the main avenue for players actions in the campaign to be reflected. A bunch of stand alone modules, year after year, really minimizes the impact the players will have. Ec
tombollis 01-30-08, 06:52 PM	I strongly disagree. Story arcs are the main avenue for players actions in the campaign to be reflected. A bunch of stand alone modules, year after year, really minimizes the impact the players will have. Ec I strongly disagree. Story arcs within a year don't give authors a chance to take more than initial tables into account before producing later modules in an arc - little impact of players on the campaign. Waiting until next year, once most have had a chance to play the various adventures in a region, there would be much more possibility of player impact on followup adventures, less cases of the entire arc being predetermined by the author from the beginning without regard for what PCs actually do. Time for feedback is needed for there to be player impact on the campaign. This also cuts down on the linearity inherent in "story arcs" - we have adventure trees, with individual adventures having roots in several previous adventures and branching into several future adventures. Tom Bollis
Sieylianna 01-31-08, 05:23 PM	I strongly disagree. Story arcs within a year don't give authors a chance to take more than initial tables into account before producing later modules in an arc - little impact of players on the campaign. And a series of one-off adventures has absolutely no chance for the PCs to have an impact. Even a little impact is better than known. Ed
WotC_Tulach 01-31-08, 05:30 PM	Stand-alone adventures or adventures with story arcs have no bearing on whether or not PC actions have impact on the region. It's whether feedback from adventures is taken into account when new adventures are created, and the scope of the adventure.
tombollis 01-31-08, 07:12 PM	I strongly disagree. Story arcs within a year don't give authors a chance to take more than initial tables into account before producing later modules in an arc - little impact of players on the campaign. And a series of one-off adventures has absolutely no chance for the PCs to have an impact. Even a little impact is better than known. I didn't suggest all one-off adventures; I suggested separate stories during the year, based on what happened in the previous year or earlier, giving those previous adventures a chance to have player impact. The next year all new adventures can have impact from all old adventures. Not linear arcs, but everything old affecting everything new. Stand-alone adventures or adventures with story arcs have no bearing on whether or not PC actions have impact on the region. It's whether feedback from adventures is taken into account when new adventures are created, and the scope of the adventure. Which was part of my point. (Inability of many to follow arcs with short intervals in the expected order, and the near certainty for spoilers for many players was another.) Traditional story arcs are better suited to small campaigns where adventures are plaied in the expected linear order, and the author can have input from almost everyone before fializing the bext in the arc. I try to avoid such adventure chains in living campaigns if I don't think I can play them out in order. Typical story arcs do limit imput to early playings, before the next adventure in the arc is finalized, if the new modules come out while many players have not yet played the old ones. Tom Bollis
aljergensen 02-01-08, 10:18 AM	I think story arcs can add a lot of value to a campaign, but they seem to fall into two categories. The first category is the small self-contained stories that don't really have a big impact in the world. Maybe the bad guy gets away at the end, or it turns out the bad guy was just a henchman. These stories are fun, but best if played by the same character. If they stretch out over years, most people forget about the previous "episode". OTOH the story the author wants to tell doesn't fit into a single slot - it may not fit into two. But these stories don't necessarily need results reported, or can have plot points based on what the majority of character experienced in the previous mod if played. If the story can fit into a two-round slot, that is an alternative but not always practical from a story telling perspective because the author wants some passage of time between incidents or wants a "cliffhanger" ending. Two-rounders can also be more difficult to schedule. If the story needs to be told over two rounds, a single mod isn't a practical solution in most cases (the ADP mini-campaigns being the exception). Which is why I suggest that such story arcs are released close together and not over the course of years. That way if people have time they can play a story arc over a weekend, a month, a year depending on preference and scheduling. The second category of story arc is the bigger stories ... wars, events that affect entire cities, etc. With these, it's great if the same PC plays the different parts, but not as necessary. When Nyrond had the civil war story arc, all of my PCs were aware of what was going on. Anyway, just something to consider as an option. I don't think story arcs will always fall neatly into either category and I realize it's not always realistic to get multiple parts of a story out in a timely matter. Allen.
MatteBlack 02-01-08, 12:50 PM	I remember that modules were tough in LG year 1. But aside from the odd "wererats at APL2", it usually wasn’t horrific. And of course, the authors at that time might not have anticipated the severely imbalanced challenge for level 2s with silver vs new groups of level 1s. Keeping in mind that the Players will be new to the 4e system and PCs won't be optimized at first, hopefully the authors won't try for TPKs early on. There may be a couple DR/Silver-type killer modules, but I hope that they make the first year’s low-level modules fairly survivable. The 4e designers' comments about making low-level adventures "less swingy" gives me hope. Hopefully, the rules will help us move past the expectation that characters be optimized. If a gap between optimal and sub-optimal should occur, It's my opinion that you keep scaling somewhere in the middle as opposed to making optimization a requirement. If the game becomes boring for players of optimized characters, they can always tone the character down or play up. Raising up a character in power can be much more difficult.
welbybumpus 02-04-08, 12:20 PM	So what about an alternative ... try to release short story arcs (2-3 mods) very closely together so that people will have the chance to play them over the course of a weekend or a month if they want. Big, realm-affecting story lines are fun too, but most of the affect on other mods should be tangential, with only a handful of mods affecting the core story. Allen. I remember this working very well for Living Force. They would release adventures in batches of 3, which worked very well for those groups playing every Tuesday night (play all 3 in a row), or those playing at conventions (play them all in a row on Saturday). All three were generally tightly plotted together. If you played them out of order, the names of the adventures were often so similar that, if you paid attention to the names, you would know which tight series each belonged to.